🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1970@thanatos.win-uk.net>, Paul Burridge
<osiris@thanatos.win-uk.net> writes
> 
>In article <cKnA1AAJDDH3EwOD@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk>, Andy 
>(andy@kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk) writes:
>
>>Isn't it more correct to say that *during those 10 days* Demon were
>>publishing material which Dr Godfrey had asserted to them was libellous
>>- no court having ruled it to be so.
>
>It doesn't take a court of law to declare something like the item
>in question to be capable of being defamatory. Anyone with a
>room-temperature IQ could see it was. 

Farenheit, centigrade or kelvin?
>
[]
>
Isn't that mob rule? Sure, I can say X is defamatory, but who am I to
say it and more to the point who am I to make anyone else take any
action.

I should point out that I have never read the words complained of.
Bearing in mind someone's opinion that posting the url where these words
could be read might in itself be libellous, I feel that were I to read
the words and admit in public that I had, I could be held (by a court of
law, not of public or usenet opinion!) to be publishing the bloody
thing.

I think that the next judicial step in the Godfrey case was due about
now: does anyone know what's happening?
-- 
Andy
For Austria & its philately, Lupus, & much else visit 
http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk