🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jnJjBVAUbtG3QwKd@hilbert.demon.co.uk>,
Anthony Hilbert <anthony@hilbert.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>You believe that, while DvD may cause a lot of problems for the 'Net by
>making it possible for troublemakers to intimidate ISPs into cancelling
>other people's articles, it is to be broadly welcomed because it will
>make the average user more aware of the possibility of issuing third
>party cancels, thus causing a lot more problems by encouraging the
>troublemakers to do their own cancelling.

No.

I've been saying all along that Demon v. Doc is doing nothing except
bringing into the open a situation that has been there all along, in
connection with libel, ISPs and the Net. The problems have meant that (1)
the ISPs have been liable in a definite but untested (by the courts) way
for libellous posts which they carry on their servers and about which they
have been made aware and (2) people libelled on Usenet have had no clear
way of knowing their rights vis-a-vis the ISPs carrying the libellous
items, and getting advice on how to mitigate the libel.

The fact that it suited most people to sit there with their fingers crossed
hoping that nothing would go wrong *for them* didn't make it a good
situation.

As a result of Demon v. Doc, it's likely that the nettle will be grasped
and some kind of code of practice on advice and on third party cancels,
limited to libel, will be agreed. I think that's a good thing. It may be
difficult to get right. It will still be a good thing.

-- 
Peter