home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!mkj
- From: mkj@world.std.com (Mahatma Kane-Jeeves)
- Subject: Re: legal question re anonymity online
- Message-ID: <C0ns5y.DxA@world.std.com>
- Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
- References: <BZS.93Jan8234039@world.std.com> <C0M7Fv.9sA@world.std.com> <BZS.93Jan10152122@world.std.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:08:22 GMT
- Lines: 106
-
- jsteiner@anwsun.phya.utoledo.edu (jason 'Think!' steiner) writes:
-
- >> My instincts tell me (1) that the exposure of users to unnecessary
- >> risks is wrong, and (2) that when such a wrong results in serious
- >> harm to someone, there ought to be a legal remedy.
- >
- >#2 is part of the root of your problem. it's a tendancy to legislate
- >away any wrongdoing or inconvenience. and it doesn't work. legislation
- >should -not- be treated as a cure-all. it is too easily perverted to
-
- The thought I had in my mind was of a phrase which I believe comes
- from old English common law: "No wrong without a remedy". This is
- obviously a mere ideal, which can never be achieved as a practical
- goal. But it reflects the philosophy that one purpose of law is to
- remove the need -- and therefore the justification -- for people to
- fight amongst themselves in attempts to achieve their own "justice".
-
- You seem to be of the opinion that, at least in certain cases, we
- should have the freedom to harm one another without fear of legal
- recourse. I find this a poor ideal.
-
- >as you've found from the level of objections to your original post,
- >such is not the case. those who argue for legal protection rarely
- >consider that such "protection" could one day be used to harm them in
- >the future. the many people on the net who hold unpopular opinions
- >-do- consider that a threat & react to suggestions like yours accordingly.
-
- I find it ironic and incomprehensible that you consider my
- suggestion (if it can be characterized as such) to be a threat to
- those who hold unpopular opinions. How does that work? Unless, of
- course, the unpopular opinion you happen to hold is that "never give
- a sucker an even break" is a legitimate business philosophy!
-
- As a frequent holder of unpopular opinions, I myself find real-name
- policies to be the real threat. In fact, the primary practical
- purpose of real-name policies is to suppress unpopular speech,
- although sysops usually couch this goal in more palatable terms.
-
- Take for example the words of Cliff Figallo in this conference
- regarding his real-name policies on The WELL. In a message of Thu,
- 17 Dec 1992 20:32:33 GMT, he wrote:
-
- > Since the WELL makes it clear that users are responsible for what
- > they post on the WELL, we thought it important that they be
- > identifiable.
- > ... by having a real name associated with every account, there is
- > less tendency for users to be abusive of other users.
-
- If this isn't a euphemistic way of saying that they suppressed
- unpopular speech by creating a pervasive threat of retaliations
- among users, I don't know what it is. (No offense meant, Mr.
- Figallo; I'm sure your intentions were benign, but in my opinion,
- your policy wasn't.)
-
- >> that is, when dealing with a BBS or any other business, many people
- >> would assume the policies of that business must be "safe",
- >> otherwise they would not be "allowed" by law. This assumption may
- >> be naive, but it is common, and relevant to informed consent.
- >
- >that it is common does nothing to make it less false. to paraphrase
- >Ben Franklin, "Those who give up liberty for security soon have
- >neither". the government should -not- take a parental role in
- >prohibiting anything that is not "safe". people who assume that it
- >is, or should be, are misinformed. and as we all know, ignorance is
- >no excuse.
-
- The one freedom which lawful liberty must NOT protect is the freedom
- to harm others unnecessarily. This includes the "freedom" of the
- majority to persecute those of us who hold unpopular opinions.
-
- I agree with you in one thing: I am very much against any "parental"
- philosophy of government, such as drug or helmet laws. I believe we
- have the moral right to take whatever risks we choose -- as long as
- we make that choice freely and with full understanding. But it does
- not necessarily follow that we have the right to lead others into
- danger; nor do I believe that everything which looks like consent is
- always sufficient to be consent for purposes of the law.
-
- >the inviter has -no- duty.
-
- This does not correspond to the law as I understand it.
-
- > ... they are offering a service, with certain
- >terms, that the user is able to accept or decline as he/she wishes.
-
- As I've already said, I think there's also an issue of *informed*
- consent. Otherwise, why do we see so many warning labels all over
- everything? If the BELL had put a warning message on their login
- screen, detailing the worst-case drawbacks of real-name policies,
- I'd have less objection. (I think they'd also have fewer users, and
- we'd soon see fewer boards with real-name policies.)
-
- >> If so, many of the pro-tections of law would seem to have no
- >> practical applications. I would expect to see signs at the
- >> entrances to all businesses, saying, "Abandon all hope, ye who
- >> enter here", and thereby ab-solving the proprietors of all
- >
- >again, -what- protections of the law?
-
- Since you are the second person to ask this, it is obvious I was not
- clear. I intended to refer to the normal protections provided by
- the duties traditionally imposed on an inviter.
-
- --- mkj
-
-
-