Dear Histarch’ers,

I apologise for sending out junk messages by mistake recently.  I’m shifting
computers and servers for the summer and you are suffering from my learning
curve.

To the point,

There’s another aspect of the Dr. Gott situation that is worth considering
-- and it carries some preventative clout.

A few years ago my local TV news station aired a “filler” story they took
off their national feed.  It featured a guy who -- with a metal detector,
looted civil war battlefields and maybe cemeteries.  He proudly showed his
collection of belt buckles, miniballs, a sword hilt, etc., etc.  This was
the same time that the station was carrying public service message for
Archaeology/History Month which included information protecting sites
against looting.  I immediately called the station to complain that they
were featuring historical looting and vandalism in a “positive” light. .

After some defensive stammering from them, I pointed out that such
activities on federal or state lands or parts or on national register sites
involved criminal offenses, felonies which can involve substantial fines and
jail time.  I was then strongly advised to call their legal department to
discuss this!  I immediately stated I had no intention of causing legal
problems, but I suggest that their legal department be asked to check up on
“attractive nuisance” and “accessory” law.  Indeed, I pointed out if anybody
is encouraged to commit such a crime as a result of positive promotion by
the TV station, then they may likewise be legally liable.

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Television, etc., but I understand
that if someone were caught digging a privy on a protected historical site
and just happened to have a copy of the newspaper with Dr. Gott’s article in
it -- then the looter and the paper and Dr. Gott may all be legally liable.
Now, in the real world, proving such a connection between the looter and the
newspaper column may be unlikely, but......if my understanding of the law
has merit, then the mere threat of such legal liability, given the nature of
lawyers and lawsuits, no matter how remote, may have the effect of
newspapers thinking twice before printing such -- to them, really trivial
stuff.

Legalistically,

Irv Rovner



________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com