🚀 go-pugleaf

Reading over these discussions indicates to me there really is a need
for some overview or reference to basic law as regards freedom of
speech and freedom of press and other related issues.

>The newspaper would not publish the list in the first place. Electronic media
>is special in that frequently there is no editor.

This raises all sorts of issues I am only dimly aware of.

A "newspaper" has more than one part, as far as freedom of the press
is concerned.

Parts which are "news" are much freer from various allegations of
wrongdoing than parts which are editorials, ads etc.

The basic rationale is that in order to publish real news in a timely
fashion there is limited ability (time) to substantiate all facts.

However, the same does not apply to sections like opinion columns
which, one presumes, are authored with more time to check facts.

On a related note, I believe the copyright laws as apply to news
proper are quite different than other publishing copyrights (don't
they only retain rights for something like four days? Maybe that was
hearsay, but I'd like to hear from someone who knows.)

And ads have their own set of standards entirely, not the least of
which is caused by multiple independent parties being involved. For
example, a paper might take an innocuous sounding classified ad which
turns out to be quite criminal in its intent (e.g. fraudulant claims)
and not be held liable in any way.

Obviously the paper can't check every ad although some things are
considered to fall within the purview of common sense (e.g. full page
miracle cancer-cure ads, blatant advertisements for prostitution the
paper could be held (ir)responsible for.)

On another dimension, the telephone company, by virtue of its being a
common carrier and having no editorial function, is not held
responsible in the slightest for whatever criminal acts you might
commit over their lines. The extent of their responsibility is to
cooperate with law enforcement agencies when requested (properly.)

Now, on yet another dimension (!) there certainly seems to be some
sort of perception of "ability and intent to edit" smattered
throughout.

For example, short of the obscenity laws perhaps, there would seem to
be a difference between my doing a live "man on the street" TV segment
and one of those street-men blurting into the mike "Candidate George
is in bed with the Mafia!" versus the station's manager using his/her
editorial spot to make the same claim.

The point being, the existence and/or claim of a editorial presence
seems to be in there somewhere, at least conceptually, but what does
the law actually say?

These issues seem, to me anyhow, to be very critical and fundamental
to the entire issue of "electronic speech".

What does the law say about common carriers?

What does the law say about an editorial presence? Timeliness?

How do these relate to e-mail, electronic publications, public access
systems (BBS), USENET, etc?

Interesting questions. But I feel like we're all groping around in the
dark (perhaps everyone is!)
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD