🚀 go-pugleaf

 
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. 

--

Previous sig abolished under Woolf reforms  >:-<