🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4sirtf$ove@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...
>
>jay@inforamp.net (Xanlithe) wrote:
>
>
>
>>>R. v. Jorgensen, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55
>>>
>
>>       While the above (in its entirety) may be valuable in deciding what is 
>>legal and illegal, I still maintain that the deletion of the 35 groups was 
>>politically/morally motivated. 
>
>You may be right, but I understand that the decision was based on the
>advice of their counsel (hence the name of the thread being "LAWYER AS
>COP, JUDGE AND JURY" or something like it).

	And as mentioned afore, some of the decision to delete those 35 
newsgroups was based on consultation with RCMP officer(s). I repeat myself, but 
I still find it odious that 35 groups eliminated constitutes any kind of 
guarantee that iStar now absolves itself of any legal liability for its content 
that it carries.

>There is certainly political and public relations points to be gained,
>but unless we are told by iSTAR's managers why they deleted the groups
>we can only speculate on their motives.

	A copy of the "secret" memo is widely availble, so I won't duplicate it 
here. No motive is assignable other than from a legal standpoint. From that 
memo, but judging by its content, it is obvious that it has more 
political/moral ramifications than legal, if one stops to analyse it. BTW, I 
have NOT seen the advertisement that has appeared in some print media. From 
what I've heard, though, it seems more like damage control than anything else.


>Morton M. Goldmacher
>Barrister and Solicitor

	I would have to ask you (as a Barrister and Solicitor, which I am 
certainly not) how iStar's removal of these groups improves their REAL legal 
position wrt to liability for content. I maintain that it does not really 
reduce their liability, so they may as well carry a full feed, or don't carry 
Usenet at all.