🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <37369034.19682794@news.in2home.net>, Six <six@screamingeagle
.in2home.net> writes
>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 11:12:26 +0100, David Swarbrick
><david@swarb.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>For you as an ISP to continue to distribute the libel _is_ to take
>>action. You 'act' either way, whether you continue or stop. One way you
>>cause unjustified hurt, another way you reduce free speech. It is a
>>particularly uncomfortable and spikey fence to sit on.
>
>Was Demon asked to stop distributing before litigation was commenced?

Yes. The point of the judge's first decision was precisely that Demon
having once been made aware of the nature and content of the posting,
their refusal to stop distributing it removed one of the defences
available to them.

>I only ask because I don't know.  From prior experience, I do know
>that ISPs are largely unwilling to consider any action against
>anything that is potentially libellous, unlike other publishers.  AIUI
>and ICBW, in the UK it is possible to sue the libel's author,
>publisher, printer and distributor though maybe our legal contributors
>could clarify this.  If so, it makes sense to sue the party most
>likely to be able to stump up the damages claim.
>
>
> 
>                  ******      Six      ******
>---------------------------------------------------------------
>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent
>===============================================================

-- 
David Swarbrick, Solicitor, West Yorkshire.  IT Law and Contracts
Tel: +44(0)1484 722531 Fax: +44(0)1484 716617 david@swarb.demon.co.uk 
http://www.swarb.co.uk  Home of the law-index of 9300+ uk case summaries.
The Society regulates us in the conduct of investment business.