vision2020
RE: proposed changes to list
I'd like to add the "why" we (at fsr) took the action of removing the referenced
posts from the v2020 archives, without waiting for all the dust to settle.
It seems that, as the list is being run on our hw/sw, that if we have an archive, which
is repeatedly accessible, then we are the "publishers" of that archival material in the
legal sense.
As the publisher, we are responsible (from the legal pov), for all things accessible
via the archives. Its a different potiential liability from that related to the author of
something.
We felt completed to limit our potential liability by temporarily "un-publishing" the posts
until v2020 could achieve concensus on what to do. Attempting a "good-faith" effort
to freeze the situation while the interested parties figured things out.
We patiently await that time:-)
johnt
On Tuesday, June 02, 1998 11:10 AM, Bill London [SMTP:london@wsu.edu] wrote:
>
>
> The Moscow Vision 2020 steering committee (Susan Palmer, Priscilla Salant
> and Bill London) met Monday pm to discuss the upcoming Moscow Community
> Retreat and the Vision2020 email list.
> The retreat is doing fine--the list is in trouble.
> The source of the problem, as most subscribers will recall, are some
> recent divisive, unsubstantiated and potentially libelous personal attacks
> included in postings to this list.
> As a result of those postings, the list is at risk of losing both its
> effectiveness and its subscribers.
> Regarding the archives (a repository located at the website so obligingly
> donated to 2020 by First Step Research at the following address:
> <http://www.moscow.com/archives/vision2020/index.html>):
> I received an email posting from Craig Mosman last week, angry at what he
> noted was a potentially libelous mention of his name in a 2020 posting. In
> a later phone conversation, in a very gentlemanly manner, he requested that
> 2020 take the offending postings out of our archives. I told him that the
> steering committee would discuss that suggestion and then likely post this
> issue to the list.
> Before the steering committee met on Monday, however, I received a a
> posting from First Step, announcing that they--due to concerns about
> potential libel claims--had deleted the offending posts.
> So, since First Step has assumed the responsibility for the archives, that
> issue has lost some immediacy.
> But the larger problem of offensive postings remains. How can we keep
> this list open--encouraging the free flow of ideas (even outlandish ones)
> without becoming a dumping ground for baseless and disgusting personal blasts?
> The steering committee proposes two courses of action:
> 1. change this list to subscribers only. Now anyone who knows the 2020
> address can post anything to this list (spam advertisements, etc). We
> suggest restricting access to people who have subscribed to the list.
> Subscribing would still be free and easy to do....
> 2. require full names for all. All subscribers would be required to
> submit their first and last names as part of the subscription process. We
> are not sure how that process would be implemented--I intend to discuss
> this with FSR representatives and post that info to the list. It may
> require that everyone resubscribe and add their first/last names to the list.
> Please consider these 2 proposals and post your response (acceptance or
> rejection) to the list. In addition, we are still hoping to hear from more
> people regarding the other questions about the archives (whether the
> archives should be eliminated or kept the same or moderated). (Moderated
> archives means that offensive postings would appear on the list, but be
> taken out of the archives, according to some established criteria, by
> someone charged with that duty).
> Thanks.....
> BL
>
Back to TOC