Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Apparently-To: bit-listserv-pacs-l@uunet.uu.net
Approved-By:  "(NNTP News Poster)" <usenet@EFF.ORG>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:08:58 CDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was usenet@EFF.ORG
From:         "(Carl M. Kadie)" <kadie@eff.org>
Subject:      Sysop responsibilty (was Re: Comments on Gutenberg Newsletter)

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
PEMMONS@WCU writes:

[...]
> But at the very least, a sysop is responsible for what appears on or
> gets disseminated from his system, and he would be well advised to
> read everything, including everything that is not addressed to him.
[...]

=============== ftp.eff.org:pub/academic/faq/netnews.liability ===============
q: Does a University (or sys op) reduce its likely liability by
screening Netnews for offensive articles and newsgroups?

a: Not necessarily. By screening articles and newsgroups the
University may *increase* its liability.

(Aside: Elimination of liability should not be the University's
only goal.)

According to the book _Law of the Student Press_ (in reference student
newspapers), "Only two court cases have considered the liability
question, and in both cases the courts found that the institution was
free from liability because control was in the hands of the
students.{33,34} ... Thus, despite arguments by administrators that
they need to prevent libel, it appears that just the opposite is true:
Where administrators have not exercised control over the content of
student publications, the courts have refused to hold their schools
responsible for libel appearing in such publication. If, however,
administrators exercise the power of prior review, then the court will
also hold them and their schools liable for the contents of such
publications.  Encouraging the establishment of a clear-cut separation
between school administration and editor functions may also result in
the reduction of libel suits, for potential plaintiffs will realize
that substantial funds are beyond their reach.  ...  {33} _Mazart v.
State_ 441 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1981) {34} _Milliner v. Turner_ 436 So.2d
1300 (La. App. 1983)"

The recent _Cubby v. Compuserve_ decision also suggests that a
no-screening policy may be best. The judge wrote: "CompuServe has no
more editorial control over such a publication than does a public
library, bookstore or newsstand, and it would be no more feasible for
CompuServe to examine every publication it carries for potentially
defamatory statements than it would be for any other distributor to do
so."

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
academic/student.freedoms.aaup
=================
Joint Statement on Rights and Freedoms of Students -- This is the main
U.S. statement on student academic freedom.

=================
academic/speech-codes.aaup
=================
On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes Expression - An
official statement of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP)

It says in part: "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be
banned or forbidden.  No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful
or disturbing that it may not be expressed."

=================
law/cubby-v-compuserv
=================
Report of a federal district court case which said CompuServe could
not be held liable for the defamatory content because it exercised no
editorial control.

=================
law/student-publications.misc
=================
Quotes from the book _Law of the Student Press_ by the Student Press
Law Center (1985,1988). They say that four-letter words are protected
speech, that public universities are not likely to be liable for
publications that they for which they do not control the contents, and
that the _Hazelwood_ decision does not apply to universities.

=================
faq/netnews.reading
=================
q: Should my university remove (or restrict) Netnews newsgroups
because some people find them offensive? If it doesn't have the
resources to carry all newsgroups, how should newsgroups be selected?

=================
faq/netnews.writing
=================
q: Should my university allow students to post to Netnews?

=================
faq/censorship-and-harassment
=================
q: Must/should universities ban material that some find offensive
(from Netnews facilities, email, libraries, and student publications,
etc) in order to comply with antiharassment laws?

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/academic/student.freedoms.aaup
  pub/academic/academic/speech-codes.aaup
  pub/academic/law/cubby-v-compuserv
  pub/academic/law/student-publications.misc
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.reading
  pub/academic/faq/netnews.writing
  pub/academic/faq/censorship-and-harassment

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/academic student.freedoms.aaup
send acad-freedom/academic speech-codes.aaup
send acad-freedom/law cubby-v-compuserv
send acad-freedom/law student-publications.misc
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.reading
send acad-freedom/faq netnews.writing
send acad-freedom/faq censorship-and-harassment
--
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU