🚀 go-pugleaf

On 21 Aug, 05:26, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > The article has since been corrected and the vandalism removed.
>
> Why is it vandalism?

It was vandalism because you - or someone using the same IP address as
yourself - took a biographical stub at Wikipedia and added irrelevant
material and untruths in an attempt to damage Laurence Godfrey's
reputation.

> Those are quotes relevant to the issue of people defaming each other
> and suing each other on the internet.

Irrelevant.

> Unless some of those insults about germans/thais/canadians were
> forgeries - which I don't believe was the case. Or am I wrong?

Irrelevant, and you missed some better gems about Thai wenches.  As
another good friend of mine discovered, you might be able to take a
"bar girl" out of a bar, but no amount of money can take the bar out
of the girl.

> The way I unerstand it is people insult each other on the internet,
> and one particular individual took advantage of his superior
> understanding of the defective defamation law in the UK to send people
> threatening letters about their half of the insulting exchanges.

You are also mistaken about "the defective defamation law in the UK",
as much the ssme law applies in Australia and New Zealand.  If you
publish one or more defamatory statements about a named person, they
have the right to defend their reputation by seeking an apology, a
retraction and an account of damages from you.  They do not have to
prove anything other than, perhaps, that you were the person who
published the defamatory statement(s) and that the statement(s) have,
or could reasonably be said to have, the meaning that is the subject
of the complaint.

Various defences might be possible, some of which are a complete
defence whilst others only seek to reduce the level of damages
payable.  Some Australian states also have other quirks, such as only
being able to sue for libel in that state if one has a reputation in
that state that is worth defending, which may have been introduced to
reduce frivolous claims by former felons transported there as
punishment.  One or two Australian states may also have a statute
making it a criminal offence to defame foreign princes, etc and it
might have been interesting to consider if the celebrated "Brian and
Shirley" postings to soc.culture.thai might have contravened that
particular and, IMO. somewhat silly law.

> On 6 or 7 occasions this ended up in court.

Yes.  So what?

> I think the quoted insults are quite interesting.

As is the fact that you seem unable to understand the difference
between insults, which are classed as "common abuse" and libel.  It is
that difference that allowed a presenter on a UK television show to
refer to a named individual as a "conniving little shit"; had any
allegation been made that he had connived in a particular manner to
his advantage, that could have been construed as libel.

> So why on earth do you consider the "Canadians are idiots" quotes to
> be vandalism?

I just consider that to be irrelevant.

The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet but
which, if anything, seemed to have been part of an attempted defence
to a claim of libel.  When Laurence reads the history of that article
- and I hope he does - it should not be too difficult to determine
from which case those remarks were taken.

--
 x
/|\