RE: The Economist and e-Archiving

["Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>]

How do we preserve the historical record and the right to disagree in a
public-distributed-forum?

Isn't there a difference between something in the Economist, which is a
publication of record and a defame chuck website? A disclaimer or record
of the court case or judgment could be placed with the economist article.
Else what is a publication of record? But I disagree with destroying that
particular record, i.e. stop it from distribution. Explain, and even
mandate an explanation, but why delete it?

If chuck is a public enough figure he has fewer rights to stop you, of
course. But if chuck has enough resources, he may be able to get you to
pull even what is true-truth is not necessarily a defense or may not be
affordable (i.e. some truths may be so expensive because of situations
like the Barschall case, that individuals or organizations may be unable
to utter them-or distribute them-.

As a private citizen chuck probably has more rights rather than fewer.

If we were to agree on limits on what could continue to be distributed, we
still have the problem of the historic record and of foreign intervention.

I see few solutions and a lot of danger to continuity of the historic
record of civilization and also to what we in the US traditionally
consider freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The rights that
support strong public debate.  chuck