🚀 go-pugleaf

horton@icons.net (John R. Shaw) wrote:


>>>I have a question that maybe a lawyer could answer.  It seems to me
>>>that many newsgroups carry messages that are libelous, and fraudulent,
>>>and perhaps there is no group that has not been spammed with illegal
>>>scam adverts.

>>>If the basis is only to stop groups with illegal material then why are
>>>these groups not also banned if 'illegality' is the only criteria ? 

I replied:
>>I think a good case could be made for charging a isp with willfully
>>promoting hatred where they carry a newsgroup called
>>"niggers.jews.kill.them.all" if the group carried offensive postings.

"Illegality" is an enormous concept.  Most of the alleged illegalities
Mr. Shaw refers to are civil wrongs.  An internet service provider
cannot be liable for carrying libelous or fraudulent material unless
it is a party to the fraud or the libel.  For civil purposes, the isp
has no duty to exercise editorial control over the writings on the
net.  Their duty to act when they become aware of some possibly
criminal use of their server is a completely different matter.  In
prior postings when the phrase "illegal material" was used it meant
illegal pursuant to s.163 of the Criminal Code.

Mr. Shaw stated that I was wrong for using an extreme example of some
other material which an isp would feel is prudent  to discontinue
providing.  I was not trying to be inflamatory; I just wanted to give
a quick answer.  I hope the new answer above is more appropriate.

The newsgroups banned by iSTAR have been listed many times in this
newsgroup.


>>There are no legal limits on their [iSTAR's]control right now. 
>> They can decide to discontinue whatever services they feel 
>>like discontinuing.  
>>

>Are you *sure* that their contractual agreement with their customers
>does not include a provision that is broken by intentionally reducing
>the number of newsgroups ?

It may very well include such a provision.  Even if they are
contractually bound to their customers they can breach the contract
and compensate them.  It still doesn't mean that their customers can
force them to carry every newsgroup.  Their subscribers may wish to
commence a class action for damages.  It would be a good way of
testing the legality of carrying the banned newsgroups since iSTAR's
defence would be that it is illegal to continue carrying them and
therefore the contract  is unenforceable with regard to that
provision.

In any event, iSTAR controls what it carries, not the police, the
courts, the subscribers or anyone else.

Morton M. Goldmacher 
Barrister and Solicitor