[Vision2020] Public Info, Libel and First Step

[Ted Moffett]

Dale, Tom et. al.

I can enter V2020 archives via Google by entering my e-mail address into the 
Google search window.
Still, this takes three steps to view an actual post's content: going to 
Google, entering instructions into the search window, then when getting the 
V2020 archive page you must click on a specific post to view the content.  
However, when someone uses the subject heading to make an accusation, the 
subject heading will show up on the V2020 archive page in the list of posts, 
so this potential libelous content is viewed with more ease.  I think this 
use of the subject heading to slip comments into peoples e-mail inboxes is a 
deliberate trick to get the message accross before someone can delete the 
V2020 post.

I just tried to use Google to search the internet for the actual libelous 
comment in question that was posted in a V2020 post in the subject heading.  
What I got back was rather ironic, because rather than the V2020 post in 
question, I got numerous hits for publications, or references to 
publications, of one sort or another, authored by the personage that was the 
subject of the potentially libelous statement.  I did not find any hit for 
the potentially libelous V2020 post in question.

So I still think my point about comparing the very public and easy 
accessibility of info from a newspaper, to the more complicated and less 
assessable "public" info on the V2020 archives, is valid.  I should have 
simply said it takes three steps on the internet (numerous is too vague) for 
someone who is not a V2020 subscriber to actually view a V2020 post.  Maybe 
there is a more direct way.

But there is a major difference between a newspaper on the newsstand that 
has a headline that reads "TED MOFFETT ACCUSED OF ADULTERY" compared  to a 
V2020 post that with the same subject heading.  Someone passing by on the 
sidewalk can accidentally read such a headline, printed in a publication 
where there is a presumption that the info has been checked for accuracy.  
First Step does not check V2020 posts for accuracy, and no person of average 
intelligence would believe that V2020 posts are meant to be vetted factual 
news reports, unless they know nothing about public list serves.

First Step might be scarred or discouraged enough to drop V2020 if someone 
complained or threatened a libel suit, even if the suit would fail, because 
they offer V2020 free of charge, so why bother with headaches?  But a suit 
against the author of a potentially libelous V2020 post would be more likely 
to succeed.

Still, damage to the person being libeled must be shown in court for a 
successful libel suit, and a V2020 post has limited potential to damage 
anyone's reputation or livelihood.

Consider the scandalous falsehoods the Enquirer and the Star get away with 
every day!
There have been some successful libel suits brought against the big yellow 
journalism rags, but they are still at it, printing the most fantastic 
falsehoods about people.

Our First Amendment rights do appear to allow all sorts of offensive and 
false material to be made available, and immune from legal action, that many 
people think should not be allowed.  But then this is the price of free 
speech, advocates will claim.

Ted

>From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen@moscow.com>
>Reply-To: <thansen@moscow.com>
>To: "Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>, <dale@courtneys.us>
>CC: <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Re: enough... MSD Pay and Tenure
>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:59:31 -0700
>
>Ted Moffett stated:
>
>
>" . . . my comments on the numerous steps taken to view the V2020 archive
>were misleading."
>
>I realize that "numerous" is in the eye of the beholder, but after clicking
>on three very conspicuous links I found myself at:
>
>http://lists2.fsr.net/pipermail/vision2020/2003-June/author.html
>
>If "shooting the messenger" (replace with "suing an entity that provides a
>service to the public") is not considered frivolous, then why haven't women
>filed civil litigation against the phone company each time they received a
>sexually explicit/suggestive telephone call?  Certainly, Vision2020 is no
>more monitored/managed than a local telephone call.
>
>Tom Hansen
>Moscow, Idaho
>

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail