|
|
Posted by Peter Parsnip on 10/25/05 07:32
Be still! and revere Ted Capuano, who blessed us with their presence on
25 Oct 2005...
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:23:52 +0000 (UTC), "Richard Dewsbery"
> <richard@dewsbery.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Yes, it's that special time again. So please do not feed the trolls.
>>Particularly the cross-posting variety.
>
> Are you the Richard Dewsbery who wrote this to the now exposed private
> mailing list "ng_abuse"?
He certainly is, and as I have pointed out, it is disgusting that he is
prepared to abuse the system in this way. All mouth and no trousers.
> <Quote>
>
> ISPs have to tread warily where posters using their services are
> libelling other people. Although I am not a media lawyer, I would
> cite as authority for the proposition that an ISP can be liable for
> acts of its subscribers the case of Godfrey vs Demon Internet.
> Although the case was ultimately settled out of court by Demon, a
> first instance ruling had held that they could be liable for
> carrying posts authored by a third party if they didn't remove the
> posts when asked from the servers.
>
> The effect of this is to make all ISPs think carefully about whether
> they want bloody nuisances as customers, as each time the nuisance
> posts something insulting the victim can complain, and if the
> message isn't deleted at source, the ISP gets to pay damages. After
> a few complaints from different individuals, the ISP is well advised
> to pull the account rather than risk missing a few deletions and
> getting whacked by a High Court defamation suit.
>
> I gather that some of the current crop of most virulent trolls may
> be real people, with an academic access to the net. Either the
> academic establishment is acting as its own ISP, or it has an
> outside ISP - it matters not, a few cease and desist letters and
> either ought to pull the offenders' net priveleges. Regardless of
> what certain news server admins may think about it (letters
> involving lawyers in suits usually end up on more important desks).
>
> What we need is concrete evidence of how the messages are being
> posted, and by whom and to what servers; some innocent victims who
> have been the subject of defamatory postings; and some sharply-
> worded letters before action to the ISP or establishment through
> which the abuse has been posted. Sledgehammer to crack a nut, but
> it seems that the only other solutions require us to put up with the
> little gits. I'll happily help out with any letters before action -
> with the provisos that I'm not an expert on defamation, nor will I
> be involved in any litigation either as claimant or representative.
>
> </Quote>
Utterly pathetic. Wimp.
--
1> Peter Parsnip
2> Compliance
3> Further compliance
4> At the limit of compliance
5> Non-compliant. As always.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|