🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: torfree.general
Article #61

Re: Was it right?

#61
From: Randy Wittchen
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 00:00
46 lines
3064 bytes
Jim Butterfield wrote:
> 
> Randy Wittchen (wittchen@direct.ca) wrote (in part):
> 
>  ....
> : The case will likely revolve around the issue of whether an ISP is akin
> : to a newspaper, TV or radio station which can be liable for publishing
> : libelous or defamatory statements (of course subject to various defences
> : such as fair comment, etc.) or whether the ISP is like a telephone
> : company which is not liable for the content in messages by subscribers.
> 
> It may be of interest to note that a group of prominent Canadian jurists
> have produced a study on how they believe Canadian law will be applied to
> "misuse" of the internet.  I recommend that interested persons read the
> study, "The Cyberspace is not a No Law Land", which may be found at URL
> http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/it03117e.html - I will quote a few excerpts
> below.  Note that the general thrust is this:  The ISP is not responsible
> for such usage UNTIL it is brought to their attention; after that, it is
> believed that they must take action or they will become liable.  Note
> that the study deals with civil (not criminal) liability.
> 
> Sorry that the excerpt is fairly long .. it's still a substantial chop
> from the original document, which you can read at the URL above.
> 
>                   --Jim
<SNIP>

Hi Jim

Thanks for the pointer to the URL.

When this issue was first raised on the can.legal newsgroup that was my
initial take on liability as an ISP seems to fall between a common
carrier (e.g a telco) and a media outlet which actually publishes the
defamatory material.  An ISP propagates the message out to the Usenet so
it falls between the two.  Consider however that a moderated newsgroup
may have greater liability.

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. 

Randy Wittchen
Technical Details
Message-ID: <34B96F84.2C7F@direct.ca>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <EMHL97.KA.0.bloor@torfree.net> <34B577C3.68B1@capcollege.bc.ca> <695lrg$rk2@cynic.portal.ca> <34bcf00f.5038938@news.direct.ca> <34B7F556.6ADF@direct.ca> <EMMt9B.41A.0.queen@torfree.net>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 106cdd,391f3d4344d926f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid106cdd,public
X-Google-Thread: 103731,391f3d4344d926f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103731,public
X-Google-Thread: 113d91,391f3d4344d926f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid113d91,public
X-Google-Thread: 1083bf,391f3d4344d926f7
X-Google-Attributes: gid1083bf,public
From: Randy Wittchen <wittchen@direct.ca>
Subject: Re: Was it right?
Date: 1998/01/11
Message-ID: <34B96F84.2C7F@direct.ca>
X-Deja-AN: 315087290
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <EMHL97.KA.0.bloor@torfree.net> <34B577C3.68B1@capcollege.bc.ca> <695lrg$rk2@cynic.portal.ca> <34bcf00f.5038938@news.direct.ca> <34B7F556.6ADF@direct.ca> <EMMt9B.41A.0.queen@torfree.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: wittchen@direct.ca
To: Jim Butterfield <fjb@torfree.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: CICCS
Newsgroups: torfree.general,van.general,bc.general,bc.politics