🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2007@thanatos.win-uk.net>,
Paul Burridge <osiris@thanatos.win-uk.net> wrote:
>In article <7fol7c$pmu@bonkers.taronga.com>, Peter da Silva (peter@taronga.com) writes:
>>In article <1969@thanatos.win-uk.net>,
>>Paul Burridge <osiris@thanatos.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>>Richard has the essence of it. Perhaps it will lead to an
>>>improvement in accountability, where some people may think more
>>>carefully before channelling their thoughts through the medium. I
>>>simply cannot see what defence Demon can cite to rebut the
>>>allegation that they have a tacit policy of doing absolutely
>>>nothing to curb abusive postings coming through their servers. 

>>And I'm saying that there is no reason they shouldn't have such a
>>policy. The apalling attitude towards basic free speech in the UK,
>>and the ludicrous results of it (Godfrey, the Spycatcher case, the
>>baroque laws they used to have about Sinn Fein spokesmen that led
>>to a whole *industry* of Sinn Fein soundalikes) are the real issue.

>Indeed. I agree that they're completely free to adopt whatever
>policy they see fit, for whatever reason. However, they shouldn't
>be too surprised when they eventually get hauled before a court
>over it. 

What they have to do to satisfy the abusive legal system they are subject
to is a different matter. I'm objecting to the implication I perceived
in the text I quoted that this was a good thing. Do you believe that this
is a good thing, then, or are you simply playing devil's advocate because
you enjoy the intellectual stimulation of robust discussions?

-- 
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"Twenty-two points, plus triple-word-score, plus fifty points for using all
 my letters.  Game's over.  I'm outta here." -- Melissa ... by Kwyjibo.