🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <31f03631.8524472@news.skypoint.com>, jmanso19@skypoint.com
(Jim Manson) wrote:

> scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:
> >You missed my point completely. I was not trying to defend the banned
> >groups. I was pointing out that there are several *other* groups which should
> >also be banned based on their name. Those other groups were *not* banned, so
> >iSTAR is just full of shit. I agree completely with your extension of my
> >analogy, and if iSTAR were really serious about protecting their butts, they
> >should have banned many more newsgroups than they did. Instead, they caved in
> >to some moron of a lawyer's play for political points.
> 
> Ok- one more time. 
> 
> You have already admitted that removing newsgroups in some cases
> is a valid defense to the problem.
> 
> Therefore iStar does a risk analysis of the law, their newsgroups,
> and current political climates. They decide to remove some newsgroups.
> 
> We have already established that removal can be a valid defense.
>[snip remainder of coherent argument]

I dunno how it works in Canada, but in the United States a judge (and a
jury, for that matter) will accept a good-faith act in an attempt to abide
by the law in a very positive light.  So by showing that they tried to
obey the law by getting rid of those newsgroups that on their face contain
illegal content, they can ride through any complaint without the water
ever getting above the legal Plimsoll line.

That's good business strategy.
-- 
Stephen Satchell, Satchell Evaluations
http://www.accutek.com/~satchell
Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim -- George Santayana