|
|
Posted by ah on 10/26/05 03:31
Phillip Kyle wrote:
> ah <splifingate@gmail.com> verbally sodomised in
> news:pmq7f.15209$Io4.5862@trnddc06:
>
>> 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?
>
> Not by George.
Aha!
--
ah
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|