RE: The Economist and e-Archiving

["Rick Anderson" <rickand@unr.edu>]

> Wiping out the record of my saying unspeaklable things about someone or
> something destroys the full history of that action.

Suppose I print and distribute a pamphlet saying that Chuck is a
compulsive burglar who kicks puppies and is trying to overthrow the U.S.
government. Chuck takes me to court for defamation and, not surprisingly,
wins his case. Doesn't that mean I have to stop distributing the pamphlet?  
And (more to the point in regard to Emmott vs. Credit Lyonnais) if I put
the pamphlet up on my website, doesn't that mean I have to take it down?  
Or does the fact that the pamphlet now constitutes part of the "historical
record" mean that I should continue to publish it on my website?

The Internet is a means of distribution.  You can't stop distributing
something and continue distributing it at the same time.


> -I thought Rick made the point previously though of course I have
> been known to mis-read things-that courts determine what "can" be 
> published. In some times and some places that has been very true-it's 
> called prior restraint and actually has been attempted various times in 
> US history.

OK, I see what you're getting at.  Actually, what I said is that
legislative bodies and the courts determine what may and may not be
published. Legislative bodies do it by defining broad categories of
illegal speech (defamation, libel, slander, etc.).  This is not the same
thing as prior restraint.  Courts determine whether something that HAS
been published fits into those pre-defined categories.  The bottom line is
that we can probably all agree that it's better to live in a world that
places some limits on freedom of speech.

-------------
Rick Anderson
rickand@unr.edu