🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 11 Jan 1998 17:19:00 -0800, Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote:
> 
> : Another interesting issue would be web page content.  The person or
> : group publishing the web page IMHO would be liable under the same civil
> : and criminal principles as any other publisher.  Again an ISP on the
> : above reasoning should only be liable once it becomes aware and then
> : fails to do anything.
> 
> In the case of web pages (and perhaps newsgroups), an ISP is in an
> analogous position to a commercial printer who just puts on to paper the
> material a publisher has provided.
> 
> What is the printer's liability in such a case?
> 
> I have had a printer reject material in a publication I edited, but
> that, in my experience, is a rare exception.
> 
> --
>         Chris F.A. Johnson                bq933@torfree.net
>         ***  Executive Director, Toronto Free-Net Inc.  ***
>         -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>         http://www.interlog.com/~cfaj     cfaj@interlog.com

Hi Chris

I can envisage situations where a printer might be liable particularly
as it may relate to hate propaganda.

Depending upon the content and whether or not we are speaking of
criminal or civil liability, different results may obtain.  Jim
Butterfield earlier in this thread posted the URL for a study of civil
and criminal liability on the Internet.  The study is called "The
Cyberspace is not a No Law Land" at
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html.

The sections on criminal and civil liablity attempt to analyse liability
in light of current law and practise.  It is extremely well-written and
should be required reading for all ISP's.  

As well the writers make the point which is often overlooked that
individuals who post defamatory statements to a newsgroup are as liable
for those statements as if they were made by any other mode of
transmission.

Randy Wittchen