textfiles/politics/CENSORSHIP/censor

"New Jersey Group Debates On-Line Censorship"  (c) copyright 1984 "Computer
Living New York" by Jonathan D. Wallace
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Despite the recent indictment of California sysop, Tom Tcimpidis, because of a
stolen credit card number a user had posted on his bulletin board, the New
Jersey Amateur Computer Group has announced its plans to establish bulletin
board on which there will be "absolutely no censorship."

"The board of directors had voted to do this before the Tcimpidis  matter
broke," said Harry Van Tassell, president of the ten-year-old group,  "and
we're not going to chicken out now."  The uncensored board will be one  of
several boards the club will establish on a multi-year system.  Messages  left
by users will be automatically erased by the system after a certain  period of
time has passed, but the board will have no sysop, and no one  will review
messages posted on the board by users.

"Once you start censoring the contents of a board," van Tassell  said, "where
do you stop?  With stolen credit card messages?  Messages that  include
four-letter words?  Messages that you disagree with politically?   The only
thing that's worse than the government coming in and censoring  you, is an
atmosphere in which people start censoring themselves."

Van Tassell made his remarks at a December 7th meeting of the  group, held at
Union County Community College in Cranford, New Jersey.   During the meeting, a
panel of sysops and lawyers debated the question of  censorship of electronic
bulletin boards.  The sysop members on the panel
-- Hank Lee, recently named "Computer Living New York's man of the year"  and
Bill Kaiser, who runs a board in southern New Jersey -- both took issue  with
the group's plan to run an uncensored board.

Kee, sysop of the New York Amateur Computer Club board in New York  City, said
that he had started off with van Tassell's attitude that a sysop  ought not to
tamper with the messages left by users.  He was quickly  disabused by users who
uploaded copyrighted software to his board and left  anonymous obscene
messages.  "When I'm away," Kee said, "my eleven-year-old  son monitors the
board.  There were things on there I didn't want him to  see."

Kaiser predicted that the group would be shocked by the behavior of  some of
the users attracted to the board.  "If you're going to put up such  a board,
you don't want your name connected with it... Wait until you see  the messages
you get.  If you want a reputation as an educational public  service board, you
have to review the board's contents."

Kaiser felt that a sysop has "a responsibility to ourselves and our  users to
monitor the contents of our boards.  I think Tcimpidis was  irresponsible for
leaving a credit card message on his board.  And if he  didn't read the
message, he was irresponsible for not reading it."

Van Tassell wasn't concerned about being shocked.  "My solution to  that," he
said cheerfully, "is not to read the messages on the board."   Noting the large
memory-capacity of a multiuser system, he added: "As a  practical matter,
unless you want to spend a tremendous amount of time, you  just can't go
through and read everything and decide you don't like what  this guy said."

Both Kaiser and Kee said that they spend about two hours a day  reading their
boards, reviewing as many as forty or sixty messages left  from the day before.
Both sysops also have other security measures  implemented.  "When you first
sign on my board," Kee said, "you can only  leave me a message telling me you
want to register.  Once you're verified,  you can upload and download."  He
does not permit users to register with  fictitious names or to use such names
in leaving messages.

Steve Leon, an attorney and member of the group's board of  directors,
expressed the hope that honest users would call to inform the  group of any
illegal messages, such as the credit card message that caused  Tom Tcimpidis to
be indicted.  He indicated that despite the "no  censorship" stance, such
messages would be deleted from the board.

Panelist Alan Bell of the American Civil Liberties Union advised  the
organization that "you are going to have to review the contents of your  board,
unless you are looking for a test case."  He recommended, however,  that the
"least restrictive approach" be used.  "For example, a ringback  system is too
restrictive."

Bell agreed with the sysops that they had a right to monitor their  baords.
"The sysop can say, 'This is my party and I make the rules.'"  He  noted that
the test cases in this new area of the law will all involve  "permissive sysops
who say to their users, 'You can do anything you want.'"

The panel's other attorney was Walter Timpone, an Assistant United  States
Attorney from Newark who has prosecuted computer crime cases.  "I  would never
have authorized the search warrant in the Tcimpidis case,"  Timpone said.  "I
don't think there's criminal liability there."  Although  Tcimpidis may have
been negligent in permitting a credit card message to  remain on his system,
Timpone notes that the California law under which  Tcimpidis is charged bars
intentional, and not merely negligent, behavior.   However, a sysop who fails
to police his board may have civil liability if  a person injured by an illegal
or libellous message on the board brings  suit against him.

Timpone compared the sysops' civil liability for negligence to that  of a
supermarket which is sued by a shopper who slips on a banana peel in  the
store.  In such cases, the courts ask how long the banana peel was left  on the
floor; the longer the time, the greater the store's negligence for  failing to
remove it.  Similarly, Timpone said, "if a message is up on a  bulletin board
for a week, or five weeks, the responsibility becomes more  obvious."

The Tcimpidis case won't reach trial until next year, but the  California
sysop, to whom I spoke last week, gives other sysops the  following advice: "
Watch everything like a hawk."  He has implemented  security measures on his
MOGUR board similar to those described by Hank Kee
-- to prevent any repetition of the incident that has cost him so much time
and expense since last May.

A random and informal polling I conducted of sysops and users  indicates that
most sysops feel the way Kaiser, Kee and Tcimpidis do --  that the sysop has a
right to review the messages users leave and ought to  do so either out of
public responsibility or to fend off legal problems  such as Tcimpidis is
suffering.

Some users disagree and feel that electronic messages left by  computer ought
to be protected against intrusion in the same way United  States mail is.
Subscribers of Compuserve were recently distressed when  allegations surfaced
that the company had deleted Email messages  advertising a rival service.  The
messages contained references which  Compuserve felt were likely to confuse
recipients into thinking that  Compuserve sponsored or endorsed the rival
service.

Within a few days of the incident, Compuserve denied that any  messages were
deleted, and affirmed its policy never to read or delete  users' private
electronic mail.  Nevertheless, the censorship allegations  resulted in a great
deal of debate on several of Compuserve's Special  Interst Groups, and also on
The Source, whose users followed the dispute  with great interest.

As one message on the Source pointed out, new laws have to be  passed before
electronic mail carriers such as MCI, The Source and  Compuserve have true
"common carrier" status.  A carrier such as the  telephone company is forbidden
from monitoring messages.  Moreover, such  carriers are shielded from legal
liability if criminals use the service to  transfer illegal information.  A
number of users of the two services  indicated that they would like to see the
services officially be granted  common carrier status.

The sysop of one Compuserve SIG called for a distinction to be made  between
SIGs and small bulletin boards, on the one hand, and mass private  electronic
mail services, on the other.  "A SIG or bulletin board is more  like a
publication, which should be reviewed for content," he said.   "Email, on the
other hand, is more similar to the United States mail or any  other common
carrier and ought to be left alone."

One thing on which all the New Jersey Amateur Computer Group  panelists, and
all Compuserve and Source users who discussed these  questions, agreed: The
laws governing on-line behavior are still being  written.  In ten years the
answer may all be clear, but at present these  issues are far from settled.

--end