On Tue, 17 May 1994, Rick Feldhoff wrote:
 
> >From what I understand, E-mail lists have few if any laws which can be
> directly applied to them and our politicians are going to be hard-pressed to
> correct this deficiency in the near future. The exceptions to this generality
> seem to be transmission of things like child pornography or copyrighted
> software.
 
I'm not sure this is so. To date, the laws governing libel and defamation
have not yet been unilaterally applied to electronic mail. However, as
Steve posted, there have been suits brought recently in other countries.
Expect many more to come.
 
 
> OK, so we have a high-quality list, but are we strictly a public forum or are
> we a group of colleagues sharing facts and rumors.
 
This will be the sticky questions legally: does transmission in hockey-l,
or any other e-mail list or newsgroup, constitute "publication"?
 
Hockey-L is a "globally known listserv," meaning that it can be accessed
anywhere. It has hundreds of subscribers. It's probably more akin to some
obscure local access cable station than to a private group of colleagues.
Since coaches are known to read it, it is possible that things said here
*could* have an effect on players' futures.
 
The Boston Globe, for instance, would not have been allowed to print
Powers' scores without his permission (which I doubt he or any other
student-athelete would give unless it was in conjunction with some kind
of academic award).
 
 
 
 Why is Tony's rumor
> regarding a high school players intellectual abilities different from all the
> rumors about coaches applying for jobs or rumored to be unhappy with this or
> that?
 
If hockey-l were to be held to the same standards as newspapers, it seems
logical they should be given the same freedoms. One would be the freedom
to criticize public performances-- ie, hockey games. This includes
players and coaches. Another freedom is the freedom to give "fair
comment" on "public figures." While college hockey coaches might not
qualify as nationally known public figures (in most places) they might be
considered such in relation to the audience specific to hockey-l.
 
However, this is an application of current laws that I am inventing.
Right now, there does not exist the ability to tailor libel and fair
comment laws for the kind of "narrow-casting" being done on the internet.
 
 My feeling is that applying for a job is very personal and should
> probably only be publicized by the applicant of potential employer.
 
Most of the information on jobs was cribbed and quoted from papers,
including quotes from coaches (Crowder being one example). In other
words, the information was voluntarily made public by the subjects when
they were interviewed. The inclusion of that information in hockey-l does
little more than expand the audience for it somewhat.
 
> How is it that we can defame referees and question players lack of effort or
> natural abilty or pass judgements on coaches intent and apparent personality
> defects without really knowing that person or his values?
 
Hockey games are public events. It's just as legitimate to say "I don't
think defenseman X showed up to play tonight" on hockey-l as it is for
Kevin Paul DuPont to say that John Casey and his Technicolor 5-hole
aren't doing the job for the Boston Bruins. It's a fair comment. If
hockey games were closed, private affairs, it would be different.
 
Criticism (and praise) of players, coaches, and on-ice officials would
come under this umbrella of "fair comment," which allows newspapers, tv,
radio, and other media to make judgments and offer opinions (within
limits, of course-- this isn't blanket protection against libel).
However, saying that, IYHO, Referee Y called a bad game, or missed a
penalty call, would probably not be considered actionable.
 
 
 Shawn Walsh took a
> lot of heat last year and IMO, although some was justified, there were some
> that bordered on defamation of character.
 
Yes. There were cases where people were obviously looking at hockey-l as
more of a private phone conversation with the neighbors than electronic
publication. In essence, however, that's what it is-- publication.
 
> express it on Hockey-L? Absolutely. Are there legal limits to "IMO"? Probably,
> but my guess is they will only apply when the opinion is at great variance
> with the "benchmark" community standards both on and off the list. In other
> words, I think our normal level of discussion is our "legal" reference and I
> would be hard-pressed to believe a lawsuit is ever likely to result from
> Hockey-L postings if we keep doing things the way we are now. We all may make
> a mistake now and then, but that doesn't much change the value or quality of
> the product.
 
While possibly true, this may be a dangerous tack to take, especially
given the potential explosion in Internet usage in the future. It would
only take one lawsuit to change the entire game-- and unlike many
newspapers and television networks, I doubt you or I have the resources
to fight, settle, or lose a major libel lawsuit. Or indeed a minor one.
 
*** "Ah.  This is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' I wasn't
previously aware of."  -- Arthur Dent
 
[log in to unmask]
David M. Josselyn
GSO Vice President
Newhouse School of Public Communication
Syracuse University