Bryan Fritchie <[log in to unmask]> [2003-05-01 08:56]:
> Until you get all issues resolved, and confirm that you do not have any
> personal liability, you may want to make the list Moderated so that you can
> skim the posts.  Obviously, if it is not already moderated, this will cause
> a delay to the timely responses.  However, when it comes to Federal
> Guidelines I would recommend a little CYA if there is any uncertainty.

Moderating the list arguably _increases_ liability because then the
moderator becomes a publisher, and publishers are at more legal risk than
distributors. I've quoted a bit below, but recommend reading the whole
article.

BTW, not announcing moderation (as another poster suggested) is futile as
the headers contain an "Approved by..." line.

http://www.itc.virginia.edu/virginia.edu/spring98/policy/all.html

  Remarkably, this issue did not come up again until 1995, when a New York
  state court addressed it in the now infamous case of Stratton Oakmont v.
  Prodigy3. Prodigy had maintained a bulletin board called Money Talk, which
  was moderated by a board leader, whom Prodigy had contracted with to
  promote the service and control Money Talk. An unidentified user had
  logged onto Money Talk and made some unflattering allegations about a
  small investment-banking firm, Stratton Oakmont. The user called Stratton
  "a cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired" and claimed
  Stratton's president was a "soon to be proven criminal." Since the user
  was anonymous, Stratton had to sue Prodigy because no other defendant
  existed.

  The trial judge ruled early on some of the issues in the case before trial
  began. The judge distinguished Prodigy's situation from the Cubby case
  because of the policies Prodigy had in place at the time. Prodigy had
  employed people like board leaders who used screening technology to remove
  offensive and "bad-taste" postings, which the court took to mean that
  Prodigy was acting like an editor of a newspaper. Moreover, Prodigy had
  marketed itself as a "family-oriented" computer service that could control
  offensive postings, and the court thought Prodigy had benefitted from
  that. Ruling Prodigy was a "publisher" of the anonymous posting, the judge
  allowed the trial to go forward against Prodigy.

-rex