|
|
Posted by ah on 10/25/05 13:24
Peter Parsnip wrote:
> 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.
Writs will fly?
--
ah
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|