Re: Unicorn vs....

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@access.digex.net>]

Mike Duvos scripsit
> 
> Jim Sewell writes:
> 
>  > Granted, tmp is not responsible for so called moral
>  > failures on the part of European business associates of
>  > Uni's BUT tmp IS responsible for damaging Uni's reputation
>  > by making it look as if he said things that tmp couldn't
>  > prove he had said.  If Uni lost a 7 figure business deal
>  > because tmp attributed a comment to Uni that Uni didn't
>  > make then tmp is definitely guilty of damaging Uni's
>  > character and SHOULD be sued...
> 
> But tmp is only responsible for damaging the reputation of the
> pseudonym "Black Unicorn".  This is not the same as damaging an
> actual person by name.

It is in so far as the two are connected.


> If I am in a frivilous mood someday and post a tongue-in-cheek
> article on alt.hamsters.duct-tape under the pseudonym "Rodent
> Ravisher", I have little cause to complain that my real-life
> reputation has been ruined if someone misrepresents my views.

This must be a personal view, it has no basis in law.

In fact you might have a stronger case in that you tried to prevent 
misrepresentation of your view with the anonymous post, took additional 
care to guard yourself in effect.

> If I am dense enough to publicly associate myself with the post,
> then perhaps I shouldn't complain when the Good Christians begin
> avoiding me and perhaps even hiding their hamsters when they see
> me passing by.  In any case, it is certainly not the fault of the
> other flamers if my career goes down the tubes.

Again, you seem to want to make posting a strict liability operation.  

"Post and you are going to eat it," in effect.

Your are the free speech advocate, what will THIS do to freedom of 
expression if posting non-anonymously per se opens you to whatever 
defamation might be out there?

I don't mind be associated with discussion on cryptography.
I do mind if I am defamed as a radical anarchist with my goal as the 
destruction of nations.

>  > The bottom line is that when you play on the net and flame
>  > each other that is one thing, but when your games cause
>  > someone's business and real-life character to be damaged
>  > then you are playing in the real world and the name of the
>  > game there is SUE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS, and TAKE
>  > THE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
> 
> But flaming an anonymous identity is not the same as flaming a
> real-life person.  Anonymous identities allow one a little
> vacation from having to be deadly serious all the time.  And an
> opportunity to play Devil's Advocate with ideas that may not
> necessarily be ones own.

Again, only in so far as the identity remains anonymous.
I only wish the entire world was as peachy as you seem to think it is.
It would be nice if everyone understood sarcasm, respected Devil's 
Advocate positions and imputed no motives.

The fact is, however, that Joan Rivers is still on T.V.

If I say :  "The moron who bought RJR Nabisco is a Nazi," I have refered to 
no specific person, but the meaning is clear.

Similarly if I refer to the "dolt who posts as tom jones is a Nazi" I am 
liable.

> Let's lighten up a little here.

Easy for you to say, what did you have to lose?

>  > I suppose we all could use this as an opportunity to see
>  > how well our anarchist, freedom of speech, privacy,
>  > encryption ideas mesh with the 'real world'.
> 
> This IS the 'real world'.

Exactly.  A real world with a real legal system.

> -- 
>      Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
>      mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $
> 


-uni- (Dark)


-- 
073BB885A786F666 nemo repente fuit turpissimus - potestas scientiae in usu est
6E6D4506F6EDBC17 quaere verum ad infinitum, loquitur sub rosa    -    wichtig!