🚀 go-pugleaf

ak955@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero) wrote:

>: In article <34b5d2c9.10604620@news.interlog.com>, 
>: shepat@//REMOVETHIS//interlog.com says...

[snip]

>: > If you find Ms. Amero annoying or offensive, killfile her or ignore
>: >her.
>
>Good advice.
>
>: >If she's done something seriously nasty such as reporting your usenet
>: >behaviour to your employer, then complain to her isp.
>
>IRT cyberlibel, don't you know that a corporation could be vicariously
>liable for statements published by employees? 

Not being a lawyer, I can't say.    

Libel is difficult enough to prove in normal publications, never mind
on usenet.

>An ISP is not going to do anything about its users reporting harassing/
>libelous behavior to the employers of employees who are engaging is such
>usenet behavior.

I wouldn't bet on it.  If a user's behaviour (on and off usenet,
justified or not) generates a high volume of complaints, the easiest
thing to do is get rid of the user because very few people will come
to the person's defense.  

>What part don't you understand? You think reporting
>usenet behavior to employers is "seriously nasty".

Yes, particularly if the "usenet behaviour" is merely offensive,
obnoxious, insulting, etc.

> Don't you think that 
>employees engaging in harassing/libelous behavior, fooling around with
>others email accounts is "seriously nasty"?? 

I think that sort of behaviour is "nasty" if the person really is a
victim of harassment or libel as opposed to just perceiving
him/herself to be a victim.

However, one should be able to ignore most of it.  This is usenet, not
the Globe and Mail or the Times.

If it can't be ignored, complain to the person first.

If that doesn't work, the next step is a complaint to the person's
ISP because libel and the like are a violation of the Terms of
Service.

And lastly, if the ISP can't deal with it, the police can.

I think employers should be left out it.

> Would employers and
>employees rather be SUED????

Obviously not, but these things are hard to prove when one's dealing
with usenet.

>What do you think Sheila? Would employees
>engaging in such behavior rather have criminal charges laid against them?
>What do you think Sheila?

See above.
>
>: >Ms. Amaro has the right to free speech.  This includes the right to be
>: >obnoxious and offensive.
>
>: >Sheila Paterson
>
>That is so. And I find you, Sheila, to be obnoxious and offensive; but I
>don't try to deny you the right to free speech. One can *politely* be
>obnoxious and offensive.
>
>A few months ago I made a post in which I used the expression
>"in challenge". You did not comment on the content of my post,

I didn't comment because I understood everything else.  

>you focused on that expression, asking me if it was feminist
>jargon ...

I don't think there's anything wrong with feminist jargon.  It has its
place just like any other jargon. 

>asking me to exlain what it meant, noting that you do
>not recoginze it as English.

I asked the question in a fairly civil manner,  I.e. devoid of
invective, abuse or profanity, just to name three. 

>.Well, Sheila, I replied noting that
>Mr. Webster recognizes it as English. I quoted Mr. Webster.

You forgot to mention that you questioned my reading ability and
suggested I use a dictionary.

>If you replied, I've not seen  the post. If you didn't reply,
>perhaps you've been busy attending remedial English language
>classes.

I didn't reply because I knew you would say something insulting and/or
stupid.

I am taking my own advice and will no longer reply to anything said by
Ms. Amero.

Sheila Paterson

>       Barbara A. Amero  http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ak955