Something I think needs to be clarified in the present discussion is this:
All messages to LACTNET are published in the LACTNET archives as soon as
they are posted - I didn't see anyone mention this specifically yet.  The
LACTNET archives are freely available to anyone with access to the internet,
and are therefore public.

The representatives of any corporation can and undoubtably do monitor
LACTNET for media relations purposes, defamatory comments, etc.  This is why
the Welcome message cautions: "All messages are public; **the list is
open.**  Therefore, you should post **ONLY** what your are willing to have
printed on the front page of the NY Times.***"   (Would that we had their
readership!)  So it is not necessarily true that someone passed on a LACTNET
message to a corporation, as has been speculated.

Generally, defamatory comments are those that would injure the reputation of
the person or corporation mentioned.  Defences to allegations of defamation
are "truth" - ie. what I said was true, and "fair comment" - ie. what I said
was fair comment on a matter already published and/or considered public
knowledge.  Free speech stops where defamation starts.  Fortunately, the
right of free speech is very well protected in places like the U.S., and
some jurisdictions even have what is known as anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation) suit legislation to counter the power of large
corporations to bankrupt small plaintiffs with defamation suits.

As far as passing messages along, I am somewhat confused and concerned by
this request.  The archives are, as we have said, public.  It seems to me
that giving someone the URL (web address) of a particular message is no
different than giving them the URL of anything else on the web.  That is the
nature of the web - it's a web and you can jump in anywhere - and this is
one of its chief benefits.  If you can give someone a URL, which leads to a
single message in its entirety, it seems to me that sending a given post *in
its entirety*, complete with headers and links, is no different.

When we are asked not to quote someone without their permission, aren't we
really talking about situations such as quoting someone out of context and
quoting only part of what he or she said, or re-publishing someone's words
in another web forum or a print publication?  It seems to me that this is
the type of situation we should be most concerned about.

It should also be remembered that there is a "fair dealing"/"fair use"
exception built into copyright law that says that short quotes used without
the author's permission are not a violation of the law.  Of course, the
author must still be acknowledged, no matter how short the quote.

I know that the list mothers have asked that if anyone had a problem with
the statement that LACTNET notes not  be passed to others without the
approval of the original poster, they should email them (the list mothers).
I'm posting this to everyone, however, for two reasons:  I'm not sure if I
do have a problem with the rule, because I'm not sure exactly what the
extent or nature of the rule *is*, as I've described above.  I also think
that this is an important topic for LACTNET members to think about and
discuss.  And it is also a part of the free speech debate, a different part
of it, I think.

Respectfully,
Barb Strange

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html