🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ylu2s2weuy.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>, Russ Allbery
<rra@stanford.edu> wrote
>In news.admin.misc, Paul Burridge <Paul@osiris1.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I don't believe so. The Act should result in a cleaning up of Usenet in
>> this country. Remember that it's not only individual postings that can
>> get ISPs into trouble, the Act is somewhat wider and they can be held
>> liable for continuing to offer posting facilities to those whose conduct
>> in the past has given rise to at least one complaint. This should have
>> the effect of greatly reducing the 'input' of abusers.
>
>I eagerly await your proposal to hold libraries legally responsible for
>the accuracy of the material they shelve.  It will undoubtably rid the
>world of vast amounts of ill-conceived and badly-researched junk.
>

Well a library _can_ be sued in exactly the same way. They are entitled
to distribute what they receive, secure, save as correctly qualified by
LG, from defamation actions. Once notified that that book, which is
suddenly seeming quite popular, in fact contains matter defamatory of
someone, they have a choice. Withdraw the book, or continue and risk the
loss of the defence of innocent defamation.


-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor Tel: +44(0)1484 722531 IP / IT Law and Contracts
 http://www.swarb.co.uk  Home of the law-index of 9500+ uk case summaries.
   The Law Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business.