🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7f7k8e$ugo$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Sherilyn
<Sherilyn@sidaway.demon.co.uk> writes
[]
>I'm also wondering about the case where a.valid.email.address.com is just a
>forwarding service, like Bigfoot, and the culprit uses a dial-up session
>from another system, telnets into an open server, and posts from there.
>By USENET convention, the postmaster of the forwarding service might well be
>entitled to cancel the posting, but he could hardly be held liable for the
>defamation since he played no part in publishing it.
[]
This may be a red herring, but I recall the concept of an "absolute
offense" - ie, if it is proved that X happened then Y is responsible and
has no defense.  This arose when an absentee landlord of a multi-
occupancy student house was successfully prosecuted for "being the owner
of premises in which drugs were being sold".  Despite ignorance,
abhorrence, and absence, s/he was Done.

My point is, that the law is *not* defined by what I, you, or the
consensus of the posters to newsgroup(s) X believe it ought to be, and
the sooner it is sorted out in court the better.  That may well lead to
a demand for it to be changed, but at least we can move on from arguing
what the law would be if we were making it.
-- 
Andy
For Austria & its philately, Lupus, & much else visit 
http://www.kitzbuhel.demon.co.uk