🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7fbfnm$aen@bonkers.taronga.com>,
  peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:
> In article <7fagr7$c0q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Sherilyn  <Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >No, I think the law may be able to help by ensuring that someone bears
> >responsibility-
>
> Unless that someone is the person responsible for the posting, that's
> not "ensuring that someone bears responsibility", it's "harassing innocent
> third parties".

Yep, that's the way I see it, too.  But UK law says that the ISP is not
innocent if it doesn't cooperate with the plantiff once he had notified it--
that is to say, the law doesn't regard the ISP as an innocent third party
unless it ceases to make copies of the defamatory material available at that
point.  It a view whose ramifications lead me to disagree with it, but it's
certainly a tenable view--the law doesn't hold the ISP responsible for the
initial publication, only for the continued publication once aware of the
defamation.

Sherilyn
/server irc.powerchat.net
/join #catch-22
No ops, no kicks, no bans.  Just talk.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own