🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In article <7fhp1b$jg8@bonkers.taronga.com>, Peter da Silva (peter@taronga.com) writes:
>In article <7ff93p$5r6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,  <richj@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>I believe the real key point here, and one which will undoubtedly be a major
>>focus of this case when the trial finally comes is that Demon had a history of
>>ignoring such complaints at the time he made his.
>
>And, ethically speaking, so they should. The chilling effects on free speech
>of companies blindly jumping to the demands of fools should be obvious to any
>reasonably intelligent person.

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. 

--

Previous sig abolished under Woolf reforms  >:-<