🚀 go-pugleaf

No I think this has a lot of legs.

LIbel laws could be applied against at least 5 of the other posters on this
group....easily and with much greater ease.

That idea is most silly and only a real desparate ambulance chasing, brand
new lawyer, or one at the end of his/her career would waste time on it.

No money in it.

No glory or media attention except if I push for it.

No libel.

The other party has an extremely weak position to go with.

Anyhow..are you a lawyer Shirl?
..are you a good one?


"Sheila Winterstone" <SheilaWinterstone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:111d9ae5.0205250919.2ab241c0@posting.google.com...
> This post is satire and silly.
> Nothing of this kind could happen.
> However, libel law is pretty clear
> and that has legs.
>
>
> "??taylorchuk ??|I" <taylorchuk@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:<zMjH8.39357$Ka.3025961@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > NEWS THAT COULD HAPPEN:
> >
> > ** POST CONTAINS A SATIRICAL LOOK AT THE NEWS...OR DOES IT? **
> >
> > A poster who has asked to remain anonymous has apparently settled out of
> > court with a major Internet supplier for an amazing $1.5 million.
> >
> > The claims involved are :
> >
> > 1. negligence on the part of the Internet provider
> > Not providing an adequate level of safety for its customers against
users
> > online death threats
> > Not enforcing their own clearly posted AUP (acceptable usage policies).
> > Failing to act upon notification of said death threats and other illicit
> > content on the newsgroups which they carried to all customers.
> >
> > Lawyers brought out evidence that the ISP was repeatedly told about the
> > blatant violations of the AUP and was asked to take action on many
> > occaisions but no action was taken.
> >
> > In this precedent setting case, the providers did have to admit their
> > negligence and failure to act on behalf of its customers.
> >
> > The providers always had the ability to remove these controversial local
> > groups from their servers but never did so.
> >
> > Several posts were brought to the court which involved.
> >
> > 1. direct threats of death made on the public newsgroups by customers
who
> > could easily be identified
> > 2. pornographic content involving a boy and mother
> > 3. excessivly offensive profanity on the newsgroup
> >
> > The ISP has refused further comment but has agreed to the very large out
of
> > court settlement.
> >
> >
> >  *** the above post was a satire. ***