<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
DC:<BR>
<BR>
Actually, there can be legal consequences for publicizing false information on the Internet that damages someone's livelihood or reputation. If the Hotmail home page that huge numbers of people see every day had a banner ad that declared DC is a serial killer, you could sue Microsoft, no doubt about it. Hotmail is a commercial site, Microsoft manages the content of their Hotmail home page, and can be held liable if they allow false damaging information about someone on that page.<BR>
<BR>
Another factor to consider is that slander and libel law gives tremendous leeway to examine public figures conduct without this examination being allowed as a basis for legal action against the sources of the information, even when the information made public turns out to be false or misleading. So if you are in the Chamber of Commerce, etc., or the leader of a large church seeking to proselytize the community, there is more legal maneuvering room allowed for public comment on your actions and character, than if you were Joe Hermit living secluded on Moscow Mountain.<BR>
<BR>
So Kimmell and Wilson have less grounds to sue for damaging or false information made public than a person leading a very private life would have.<BR>
<BR>
Someone correct me please if the above information is false or misleading!<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>