[862] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Carrier Liability Legislation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mitchell Kapor)
Wed Jun 19 12:52:31 1991
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 91 11:29:17 -0400
To: com-priv@uu.psi.com
From: mkapor@eff.org (Mitchell Kapor)
lws@capybara.comm.wang.com (Lyle Seaman) writes:
>I am concerned that this would have the effect of eliminating anonymous
>speech (in the network fora).
The question is whether carrier liability protection would eliminate
anonymous speech or simply cause it to be treated by a different set of
rules which give the carrier more exposure. I'd be interested in informed
speculation about this.
>This country has a history of legitimate
>uses of anonymous speech ever since the 18th century....
>In other, more benign situations, people have used fictitious identities
>when they believed that their ideas would not be given due consideration
>by those who might be prejudiced against the writer because of his {age,
>race,gender,religion,income,occupation...} (cf. Ben Franklin).
The intent of the proposal is that, without losing liability protection,
carriers might permit users to assume fictitious identities, as long as the
carrier could ascertain the real identity of the user, if needed. This is
not totaly anonymity, but would permit modern-day Federalist papers to be
written.
>Where does a mailing list (such as this one) fit into the above
classification?
If the mailing list maintainer is not affiliated with the carrier, then
carriage of this falls under the protection of the general rule. If the
mailing list maintainer, who is the person responsible for determining
additions to the list, is the same person as the carrier, then the
situation would fall under an exception to the rule.
>And finally, in the case where a provider (or speaker/writer/whatever)
>fails to meet the criteria for protection, how will it be determined
>whether criminal charges may be assessed or merely civil charges?
>Perhaps that is beyond the scope of this legislation... ?
It is intentionally beyond the scope of the legislation.
Mitch Kapor, EFF
mkapor@eff.org
