🚀 go-pugleaf

mdf@presence.lglobal.com (Matthew Francey) wrote:


>However, iSTAR's stated position is that it is the the *newsgroups*
>which are illegal.  That is, despite all logic, they appear to be insisting
>that the wrapper is illegal, not just any potentially illegal content.

The advice provided to iSTAR was most likely that they, by carrying
the discontinued newsgroups, were aiding and abetting the publication
of unlawful material.  Aiding and abetting the commision of an offense
is no different in law to commiting the offense.

>Regardless if this position holds, their censorship of the lawyer-proscribed
>newsgroups is a form of editorial control.  All that is needed is for exactly
>one (1) violation of Sacred Law to slip through and land on their disks,
>followed by a quick call to the RCMP, and it's game over.

iSTAR's counsel is there to protect iSTAR's legal interest.  It is not
there to censor, moralize, dictate public policy or please you.  Any
lawyer who failed to draw  his client's attention to the substantial
possibility of criminal consequences to a business operation is
negligent or worse.  If you find the action of removing the newgroups
upsetting, your beef is with the parliament and the Supreme Court of
Canada, not with iSTAR's counsel. 

If you should require legal assistance you will find, despite your
dislike of the profession, that your interests will be best protected
by following the advice of counsel.


Morton M. Goldmacher
Barrister and Solicitor