Links to Defamatory Sites are Defamatory? 122
An anonymous Demon Customer writes
"Demon Internet (a UK ISP) are blocking customers'
ability to post to USENET through their news
servers if a customer posts a message containing
a URL to a defamatory article on a website (in
this case Dejanews).
They claim that the act of posting the URL is
equivalent to posting the defamatory article
itself.
It doesn't end there. If another customer follows-
up the original article and has the same URL in the quoted text, they also get their access pulled.
Where does it stop? Do message ID's of messages containing the URL count (eg. in the `references' header)?
This also opens a whole can of worms for the UK's defamation laws, with regards to the internet.
Here is the post from a Demon representative which states their position."
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
They're smart, they're net-wise, and they're not some bunch of paranoids who drop easily into censorship. OTOH, they're on the receiving end of some major hassle from a vexatious litigant (you may assume that I despise this person, but equally I don't want to expose Slashdot to the same litigation).
Please don't assume that Demon are making any knee-jerk reaction here. Read the background, read their (very measured) response, read this guy's past history. Demon are making a cautious and quite restricted response to a potential problem, when they're already in a very difficult situation in an area of no clear legal precedent.
--
dingbat@codesmiths.com
Re:overreacting (Score:1)
A quick look at the hundreds of posts in demon.service will show this.
Godfrey == Well Known Net.Kook (Score:1)
Laurence Godfrey is a lawsuit-happy fuckwit and a well known Net.Kook. Do a google-search on his name and you'll find stuff going back to '93 about his actions. Basically, he trolls for flames, then sues whoever flames him and their ISP.
Demon Internet is not voluntarily censoring Usenet. They */LOST/* a court decision and were forced to pull the "defamatory" post. They didn't like doing this, and are appealing.
It's a bit late to ask, but please people, do some research before posting.
-Perpetual Newbie
Re:The Truth is Rather More Interesting . . . (Score:1)
A trusting soul
Re:...add this to the mix (Score:1)
Re:So what is the article? (Score:2)
GOD BLESS AMERICA (Score:1)
GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!
Are Demon overcompensating? (Score:2)
Sure, I agree that if they are alerted to a defamatory article on their servers, they are wise to remove it. But removing links? I cannot see how this can make them liable; surely it is no worse than a newspaper saying "According to sources, so-and-so is a *@!£$!@" - and giving the sources. Which they already do.
Demon's move is a dangerous challenge to free speech on the net; a lot of die-hard UK netizens use Demon (it's been around for ever) and I can see them leaving in droves if they start this sort of Big Brother checking.
As an alternative to killing the links, why don't Demon instead notify the ISP carrying the article? They will then have served "due diligence" and should be absolved of any legal responsibility - and the other ISP can do as it pleases.
...add this to the mix (Score:1)
We may also be liable if a link is provided to defamatory material held on another server. For the time being, therefore, we must treat the posting of a link in the same way as the posting of the original material.
Demon really have gone to S*** these days (Score:1)
Re:I guess it's all about perspective... (Score:2)
>things are similar in the UK as they are in the
>US (specifically a highly litigous society that is
>grasping at straws trying to shoehorn emerging
>technologies into outdated laws very
>inconsitantly) it makes perfect sense.
Sounds like it's a single litgious individual, who is already litigating. Under the circumstances, I don't see what choice they had other than betting the farm on what the law is ultimately decided to be . . .
Misplaced faith (Score:1)
Think about it. It gave me a chill when I really realized what it meant.
True, but just as bad (Score:1)
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
most irritated to learn that they are censoring things.
Demon is not, they are covering themselves and their users so they don't get prosecuted. The censorship that exists is in the UK's defamation laws. If you want to direct your outrage somewhere, it would be more productive to attack the disease (outdated legislation), than the symptom (Demon's compliance with the outdated legislation.)
Just my 2 bits.
Posted by the Proteus
Not quite their fault (Score:1)
All that they seem to be doing at the moment is following the ruling from the High Court until the appeal comes through.
Details of the Laurence Godfrey/Demon case (Score:3)
It would seem that Dr. Godrey is somewhat litigious.
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
Under UK law noone has a right to free speech. In fact, as subjects of the crown I don't think we don't really have any rights at all, just permission to various things gifted to us by HMtheQ.
Libel law is pretty strict - it allows you to not only sue the person you allege is defaming you, but also any one who assists in the broadcast of the alleged defamation. For example, it is very common for libel litegants to sue, say, a magazine and the magazine distributors. The burden of proof is also on the defendant, which probably why Demon took this step.
AFAI recall Godfrey asked them to delete an allegedly libelous post from their newsservers, and when they didn't he sued them. They're just being cautious. This is an important case and I think Demon have been proceeding sensibly.
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
Personally, I prefer to pay my ISP direct; that way I know they are working for me, and not for whatever telco they are getting their revenues from.
It's a shame they've had to take this action - but AFAIK the guy has won at least one of his lawsuits already, and demon would be foolish not to protect themselves.
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
You mean apart from still paying 10 quid a month for a service most other UK ISPs charge a fiver for, or give away for free [freeserve.co.uk]?
A static IP address plus fax-to-email and batch FTP is not worth an extra five quid a month (although it is Most Handy, I admit).
Demon need to cut their price to a fiver a month or risk going down the pan.
I'm only sticking with them because I've been with them so long that my email address and web site are now so extensively cross-linked by other web sites and search engines that it would take me two years to get all my traffic back.
According to a "friend in the know" at Telehouse, Scottish Telecom have invested far too much in Demon [demon.net] to let the company sink. Frankly I see little evidence of this- every week I expect Demon's Falco obituary in NTK [ntk.net]. Cliff Stanford knew when to quit [demon.net]- nowt to do with Demon needing a telecoms partner; all to do with increased competition.
--
Re:What's next? (Score:1)
If it turns out that it can be argued in court in the UK that posting up links to defamatory information is illegal then EVERY Internet Service Providor will be obliged to take this sort of action.
Demon don't WANT to do this, but they have to treat the situation as though GOdfrey may win for legal reasons.
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
I don't particularly like the way this might head, though...
--
So what is the article? (Score:1)
How to fix this (Score:2)
But what if they didn't believe me when I said the posting was libellous? What if they had good reasons to believe I was lying?
If everyone submitted three or four messages each day to Demon, claiming that random articles were libellous and demanding they be withdrawn, then any 'real' complaints would get totally lost under all the chaff. Demon could claim that they were justified in ignoring all such requests. But IANAL and I don't know how well such an argument would work in court.
Re:Levels (Score:1)
I don't agree with their decision to delete these articles, but people should understand they have just lost a High Court taken by a vexatious litigant. Demon are apparently fighting an appeal, thus putting their money where my mouth is. In the meantime they're trying to minimise their liability in case they lose. Not a good decision, but as long as they fight the appeal you've got to feel some sympathy for them.
The real problem is the recent Defamation Act. This gave ISPs protection on condition that they didn't know what had been posted. Unfortunately, they don't have protection if they've been "put on notice" that there is a defamatory article there. Quite unfairly, this means they have to decide for themselves the validity of any article complained about.
What needs fixing is the Defamation Act, which should provide immunity to anyone except content creators and editors until a court has ruled that the item is defamatory.
Re:...add this to the mix (Score:1)
Re:Misplaced faith (Score:1)
Common Carriers (Score:1)
In general, what demon has done would be a bad policy because as soon as you start censoring your content, you are no longer a common carrier and are responsible for all the content you carry.
In this instance, however, it sounds like an individual response to a specific case rather than a general policy.
Still, I hope when it is all said and done, they put back the messages and be done with it. Mind you, ianal.
Re:So what is the article? (Score:1)
"You've missed some of the point. The article is probably a forgery (this may be the one that he is suing Demon over)."
Yeah, exactly my impression from the wording "the article in question".
But then, that was in response to "Can anyone provide proof of what a prick he's turned out to be otherwise?" (paraphrased), which makes me think that -- IFF such proof, genuine proof, existed -- maybe he shouldn't complain at all. I mean, what's the use crying "they're defaming me by trying to make me look like a prick who would say that!", if he really *is* a prick who *has* said other things like that? Then the alleged "libel" would be true, if not in specific, then in essence.
"A clue to this is that his name is spelt Laurence."
Well, then everything's OK then -- Demon can defend themselves very easily by pointing out that it wasn't the PLAINTIFF that was "defamed", but some OTHER guy, who spells his name "Lawrence"!
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
The real menace. (Score:1)
Demon aren't the menace in this case. The real fault lies with the British legal system.
It strikes me as one of the greatst problems with the legal system, especially in the environment today.
A judge is someone who spends years in a University, studying cases in Law from recent years to hundreds of years ago.
They then become cloistered away from society, really, by necessity, as they have to deal with the day to day running of ordinary Law.
Then, the problems arise when a single Judge, who knows almost (if not absolutely) nothing about a subject is given the brief to make a legally binding decision about said subject.
The internet at large is a nightmare of Ethical conundrums, the debate on spammers, who many (including me) would like to see curbed, and then the defamatory postings, which, to tell the truth, are entirely subjective, and _anyone_ can take offense at _anything_ should they feel so inclined to do so...
The technical people who run the internet are forever trying to keep up with the pace that technology is moving, and they _specialise_ in that area.
If there is anything that this particular fiasco is beginning to show, it is that the current Legal system is too far out of touch with the world today. They very seriously need to take a long hard look at what is happening, and try and at least come to understand what is at stake.
Should this decision fail to be overturned at appeal, then it will spell the death knell for many ISPs in the UK.
It simply isn't possible to filter that much.
And as has been pointed out, it's much like suing a restaurant owner for a conversation that you overhear on the premises.
By this argument, if you own 'territory', as space on the net can be thought of (virtual space), then by rights, the Queen and Government are responsible for every defamatory comment that occurs in the UK. They should be sued for everything.
But that is an endless, and ridiculous way to go.
The responisility, as always, is with the individual.
Nobody can be responsible for someone else's actions (unless they incite them, or otherwise deliberately manipulate them)...
The USA split from the UK a few hundred years ago, and for the main reason, because the powers that be in the UK were arrogant, innefective, out of touch with the world, and made largely stupid decisions..
We (the UK) are, in the large, pretty much over that.. It's just every now and again, someone creeps out of the woodwork to remind us of just how completely blind and unreasonable the system can be.
If this goes through, it will be a dark day indeed for the UK and the Net.
Just my tuppence worth...
Malk
Unbelievable stupidity at demon (Score:1)
It turns out that the people who had the kiddie porn were secretly mounting a volume on one of their FTP servers by exploiting a security bug on their server. The adminstrator got very angry with ME (starting a flame war between us) and said that he admired the ingenuity of the porn hackers. He didn't take action against them, and probably still allows kiddie porn suppliers to use Demon servers.
He claims that we in the United States are a little bit uptight about sex, and that I'm just a whiner with bad manners. Oh well, I guess that photos of children under 10 years old having all varieties of sex are perfectly normal in Britain.
So, Demon is very irresponsible in my view.
How many links are valid? (Score:1)
I wonder what defamatory article they were talking about so I can judge what started this issue.
I think it would be prudent to do something from spreading defamatory remarks about someone, although I'm very sensitive to censorship. Considering how fast information travels, someone's reputation/livelyhood can certainly suffer.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
I think the point is.... (Score:2)
I wouldn't like to be defaced in front of the whole world.
Too bad there isn't a method of tracking who actually posted the message in question.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Re:Some people should think through consequences (Score:1)
(A couple of universities in Norway also tried to add such "transitive responsibility closure" rules for linking to use of their computer resources. A consequence would have been that the University's own web paged would have to be removed, since they linked to universities in Sweden they co-operated with, which linked to students' web pages, which often contained porn - Sweden being Sweden and all that.)
Re:This is sad. (Score:1)
If I walk around on a street or road with a big sign with "defamatory material" or whatever, should the street/road owner be liable? Of course not. Nobody would even think of calling up the owner (which could be private, local authorities or maybe national) demanding them to get me off that road. The police would come directly after me instead, they wouldn't fine the street owner! Why isn't the law the same for ISPs?
TA
Re:This is sad. (Score:1)
Your analogy was particularly bad because you used toxic chemicals as example (something that does hard,physical damage and isn't open for discussion), I believe the right analogy is public speech on the road/public place v.s. public speech on a web site/newsgroup/whatever.
TA
query: UK libel/defamation laws? (Score:2)
I know that some other countries' libel laws make it easier for plaintiffs to win, and I know that UK law is not as strict about free speech as the US Constitution is ... but I don't know details. Can any Brits or legal eagles on /. help us out here?
Re:Details of the Laurence Godfrey/Demon case (Score:2)
This is a preliminary ruling on an acceptable defense. The key fact is that the guy informed Demon of a libelous post. Most of the other cases were against providers who merely hosted a message and were not advised of it's libelous nature. While notification is probably not sufficient to establish liability in the US, the UK is different. It is more important that ISPs have legal rules and safe harbors that they can rely on to limit their liability. If this case defines those for the UK, then it will go a long way toward having a reliable Internet.
The second point is that the judge gives away that he dosn't think that the case is going to result in a substancial judgement if the plaintiffs win.
Re:Some people should think through consequences (Score:1)
And what about the fact that the "defamatory article" is resident on several thousand usenet servers worldwide. Are they all going to be sued by the good doctor?
Besides, just how do you go about defaming an unknown physicist? Shouldn't someone know who he is before he can be "de-famed"?...
The Doctor is OUT!
Similar in Germany.. (Score:1)
Someone else from Germany have a link for this? It was on heise/c't.
Re:Some people should think through consequences (Score:1)
D'oh! Ya beat me to it, Victor!
I was wondering who would notice... this is an infinite progression. Everything on the Internet is now defamatory, according to Demon, if you take this to it's logical conclusion.
Ooops... demon's home pages link to defamatory articles! Perhaps they should revoke thier access?
aka Symphonic Dragon
Thanks for the Laugh (Score:1)
Re:Demon aren't the bad guys (Score:1)
Some people should think through consequences (Score:2)
By this reasoning, a URL to an article which contains a URL to a defamatory article, is itself defamatory... Figuring out the far-flung consequences of such a moronic policy is left as an excercise to the reader.
This is a pefect example of legal lunacy -- cover your ass so thoroughly that you also cover your moth and suffocate. Reminds me of some older software licenses which, when taken literally, would not allow you to copy the software to your harddrive for installation purposes -- actually forbade you to install the software.
My faith in humans' intelligence is crumbling, piece by piece, every day.
--
Re:Duhhh (Score:1)
Re:What is this protection from? (Score:1)
If that's true, this may be nothing more than a temporary tactical manuever --- better not to fly in the face of the court when it's looking hard at you. On the other hand, or maybe this is the same hand, if their fear is justified, then there will suddenly be problems: UK law and US law will directly conflict (1), and there will be a place where ISPs are responsible for content (2), which is frightening.
I think instead of getting annoyed at Demon, we should all be screaming at the UK justice system
Re:Yikes stripes! There go our rights! (Score:1)
Defamation and Demon Internet. (Score:1)
It is not a problem specific to Demon, it is a problem with UK law as it presently stands. There is a BBC news article [bbc.co.uk] about the ruling.
Levels (Score:1)
Not to mention any flaws with me being responsible for what you say. Completely seperate issue that is even more idiotic.
-cpd
Sorry, wrong forum, my bad (Score:2)
Kaa
Who Owns The Defamation? (Score:2)
Morally, one would say that the defamer is (and Demon's Acceptable Use Policy [demon.net] for their web space conforms to this: "13. You will be held responsible for and accept responsibility for any defamatory, confidential, secret or other proprietary material available via your Homepages site.").
Historically though, the publisher has a responsibilty also. This is presumably predicated on the notion that someone would read a defamatory statement before it was published - there would be an editor, or a typesetter, or even a scribe who acts as an agent to enable publication. This agent must see the defamatory material beore it is sent out into the big wide world, and as such the publisher can be construed as knowing about it. Also, of course, publishers generally have more money than authors so an aggrieved party is likely to get more dosh out of them.
Obviously (to netizens, anyway) this whole model of responsiblity explodes in a world of direct communication which requires no intermediaries. For those seeking redress, then, they can either sue the author (who might not be known or legally accessible) or the ISP who carried the dafamation on their server. Given the options, it's hardly surprising if ISPs get it in the neck.
This decision is very unfortunate, though - ISPs should have common carrier status like phone companies or the postal service: they are merely a channel, and do not control or have direct responsibility for the content generated by their users.
I feel sorry for Demon here, to be honest - they're just trying to avoid being held in contempt.
--
Re:Similar in Germany.. (Score:1)
This has generated some noise here and has had the effect is that a law is being passed right now in Parliament that basically states that a hosting service or ISP be held responsible only for content is has contributed to create or produce, or if it hasn't promptly removed access to the content when summoned by a court. The speaker then goes on to say that he specifically added this last clause to prevent undue preventive censorship by ISP's.
This law, if it makes it through the legislative process in those terms, is pretty good in that it not only protects hosting services, it also protects free speech by requiring that the ISP not censor any content unless summoned by court.
Re:...add this to the mix (Score:1)
Re:This is sad. (Score:2)
Re:This is sad. (Score:1)
Railroad company "A" owns and operates tracks through your city. Chemical company "B" own a toxic chemical car that happens to derail (fault of the car, not the railway?) and begin spilling its contents on Railroad "A"'s tracks right in the middle of your town. You contact Railroad "A" to come take care of the mess. They say that Chemical Company "B" owns the car and that they are not responsible for the structural integrity of the chemical car, only the proper operation of the railway as a thoroughfare (sp?).
10,000 people get sick and or die because of the spill and the railroad (and the chemical company) get hauled into court. The railroad is slapped with a $1 million judgement because they were notified of the hazard but did nothing because they felt they were not technically responsible for the problem.
Now, that analogy being full of holes as I'm sure someone will soon point out, it appears to me that this guy contacted the ISP since that was where he perceived the problem to be. I don't agree that the court should have sided against the ISP, but I can also see the point of view of this guy who saw some really bad comments being attributed to him, and made a call to where he thought the problem could best be fixed. (now the fact that this guy must be a real creep for so many people to give him reason to sue for defamation is another story.)
A couple clarifications (Score:2)
True, but note that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove falsity. If the plaintiff is unable to prove that, the defendant has no obligation to prove his story true.
If a "public figure" brings a libel suit, it's not enough to prove that the defendant made a false and damaging statment; the plaintiff must also prove that the defendant either acted with malice or had negligent disregard for whether or not the statement was true.
Close -- the key word isn't "negligent disregard," but "reckless disregard." Negligence can be mere sloppiness or laziness, whereas recklessness is sometimes equated to "gross negligence" or "willful blindness."
(For instance, if someone told me he saw the mayor of New York kill a man in broad daylight in downtown Boston on a particular date, it might be reckless to publish the story without further investigation given (1) the overwhelming likelihood that the story is false and (2) the fact that the story could easily be checked against the mayor's schedule, which is a matter of public record. It's a pretty demanding standard.)
overreacting (Score:1)
In fact, if you read the press release, it appears that Demon is strongly opposed to having to regulate content and would much prefer if the law was clarified to view them as a "common carrier". Read the press release in the link and you will see this.
Also, where did the claim that "if another customer follows- up the original article and has the same URL in the quoted text, they also get their access pulled." come from? They never addressed this in the article. It sounds like sheer speculation.
--
Re:Common Carriers (Score:1)
Trouble is of course that Demon are a UK ISP and
uk ISP's don't have common carrier status, so they
can be sued.
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
I wasn't asked whether I wanted my tenner a month to provide more Quake servers - so to get a letter one month saying "yippeee your tenner a month now goes even further" annoyed me greatly.
As far as these 'links might also be deflammatory' goes:
Re:Gutted (Score:1)
> FTP is not worth an extra five quid a month
> (although it is Most Handy, I admit).
no, you pay your ten quid a month for your own domain name, all the email addresses you need, a static ip, an almost completely uncensored newsfeed, 15Mb web space, smtp delivery of mail, AND pop3 mail, support.
mind you, you're also paying for turnpike, but you're not obliged to use that.
me, i think demon is so worth hanging on to, i keep it even though i don't live in the uk anymore.
dave
Re:oooo I busted a gut! re-aim the probe.... (Score:1)
> board. These people control content by what
> authority?
This is *exactly* the point. ISPs *do* *not* control content. they are common carriers and not responsible for the demented gibberings of their users.
If you insist that ISPs have responsibility for the content of their sites then you can kiss good bye to your own site, unless your ISP have approved it for content.
In fact the way this thread seems to be going, it's the most oppressive regime possible which will control what you can post.
Remember, the penalty for spam/"unlawful use of internet" in China is either imprisonment or a bullet in the brain.
dave, in china and locking the door
Re:So what is the article? (Score:1)
> To show you that we are superior race.
> Read all my articles. Believe me when I said this,
> In my experience with Thai women, they are no less than animals.
> The women are there to please us and obey our command.
> Money! Yes, you can grab children off the street, rip off their clothes
> and fuck them on the street as easy as 1-2-3.
>
> Oh! we are the White God to them. Again, Odzer book is wonderful.
> Thai women are slaves to the world.
> They offer great sex. Blow JOBS!!! SUCK MY DICKS AND YOURS!
having just read the article in question as poted above, i have to say that i have no respect for the person who would say these things. he obviously has very little experience of thai people (who are probably the friendliest people in the world) and has been on some kind of sex tour to SE asia, where he was exposed to the *really* seamy side of Bangkok.
So.
a: Mr Godfrey is a Sex Tourist and possibly a Paedophile;
b: he dislikes this being made public knowledge
c: he is willing to clarify uk law in such a way as to completely restrict the ability of uk people to post or publish on the web anything which may be considered defamatory by *anyone*. i.e. if i don't like "the phantom menace", mr. lucas can sue me!
dave, glad he's not in the uk anymore.
Re:Not quite their fault (Score:1)
Us Irish gave it to you scots as compensation for giving you the bagpipes. Pity you never saw the joke...
Re:UK Libel Laws? (Score:1)
> somebody will go through the trouble of dragging
> those bastards into Euro-court and getting
> them invalidated under the European Declaration
> of Human Rights (which is the REAL British
> constitution).
agreed
british law needs to be dragged into compliance with eurpean law. as an example: i can be held without trial indefinitly in
Re:...add this to the mix (Score:2)
> reasonable about it until they're lawyers can
> draw up a sensible policy.
exactly.
the uk needs some kind of 'common carrier' law, otherwise any idiot with a grudge could shut down most of the isp's for slander/liber/words they never heard in the bible.
think about it: if demon are liable for something which appeared in their newsfeed, what's to stop every kook of the month worldwide for suing for defamation? they must be liable for all the porn in their (very uncensored) newsfeed. they must be liable for any negative comments on their own websites, and by the extension of an ignorant court, all websites worldwide.
would *you* like to be held responsible for www.godhatesfags.com? or any other gibbering site?
dave, pissed off in wanchai.
Gutted (Score:1)
Re: Don't blame Demon. (Score:1)
In the past Demon have stood up to legal threats. They did so with the French Letter (about alt.sex.*), they have done so with encryption (the next version of Turnpike will have PGP built in), and they tried to do so on this occasion. When Lawrence Godfrey first demanded that they remove the post in question Demon refused. LG sued, and Demon fought it. Unfortunately it looks very much like they are going to lose.
Given this, they need to avoid anything that stacks up damages. I don't know how they are working things out, but if a Judge decided that each article for which they were liable was worth £100 to LG then Demon could wind up with substantial damages very fast, just because lots of people are discussing it on uk.legal.
The business with the links, BTW, is down to another legal decision somewhere else. It was decided, reasonably in that case, that telling someone where to find a libellous text (not electronic) was equivalent to publishing it yourself. This has set a precedent.
I think I can safely point out that everything gets archived on DejaNews. However if I provide any specific parameters that would help someone narrow down the article in question then I am guilty of publishing the libel.
Incidentally, I don't think that the US First Amendment saves Americans from this mess. They also have a libel law. Its just luck that brought this problem up in the UK before anywhere else.
Paul.
What is this protection from? (Score:1)
I scanned the articles, but I could not find the actual cause or the reason that Demon is moving in this way.
In my opinion, Demon has the right to do this, reguardless of free speech, this is "technically" their private property, they call the shots. (I Don't agree that they should be acting in this way.
What confuses me, is the question of "What prompted this fiasco?" I mean, defamation is defamation, it's only words, and usually does not have that much impact, and can be easily ignored, or subverted in a civilized vintage of retaliation.
Can anyone help me understand this issue better? It has made me curious.
Otherwise, it's an issue of "which is more important?"
The rights of the users to be able to say what they want, and how they want to say it.
Or the rights of the institution, to be able to control what happens in their insitutions, as to not be held in a compromising position, as well as the liberty of OTHER users who might be offended by materials produced by the previous party.
This is not something that I want to answer, especially since I do not have all the details.
*Carlos: Exit Stage Right*
"Geeks, Where would you be without them?"
Demon aren't the bad guys (Score:2)
This action by Demon follows a court case earlier in the year, where a guy claimed that Demon were responsible for defamatory comments posted to their news servers about him (by Demon customers - not by Demon themselves). Demon LOST, and this has been a really worrying development for UK free speech. As I understand it, Demon is now appealing. The postings posted in this new dispute are about the same guy.
So Demon is unfortunately now having to delete posts/bar users in order to comply with a legal suit that they are appealing against.
In my experience, Demon have always been one of the best UK ISPs. They have had full news feeds etc. all the time, and seem to have complied with government censorship attempts just enough to stay out of trouble. They're pretty good technically too (always delivered mail by SMTP, always handed out static ip addresses, great support for Linux).
...by a satisfied Demon user (for almost 5 years)
Here's what: (Score:1)
The issue is "Is it right for the government to hold an ISP accountable for the opinions of its customers?" and the answer is no if the government wants its people to be free.
When I read the link that Demon provides to the discussion of the case, one thing I thought was ridiculous was they made it look like the entire internet was going to collapse because of this:
The ruling, if not reversed on appeal, will have a widespread impact on the whole Internet industry and its users in all areas including freedom of expression and electronic trading. Complainants may be able to force ISPs to police and censor any item of information on their servers. The way is opened for scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims that would undoubtedly curb the freedom of speech by Internet users.
It seems to me that only ISPs unlucky enough to be stuck in a country without the freedom of speech will be affected by this. If this decision isn't reversed, the UK is in serious trouble.
-
Hold on a minute... (Score:1)
To those that oppose the court's decision to force Demon to remove the original posting --> go to deja.com and actually do your background research.
Clearly, not everyone here knows what really occurred. A quick visit to deja.com and a search on soc.culture.thai (past messages ~1997) should indicate precisely what happened. It was not a simple case of an individual posting nasty stuff about another individual. It was an individual impersonating another individual (with apparent malice), and saying some very inflammatory things.
Unfortunately, because that message has been cancelled, it no longer exists in its entirety (on Deja at least). As a result, we are not qualified to say where the message originated from. If it in fact was originally posted through the Demon USENET server, then it certainly is possible that Demon is liable by virtue of having contributed by failing to take adequate measures to ensure that forgeries are not permitted to their users. Further to the point, when Demon was informed that this message was indeed a forgery, they refused to remove it.
So let's consider a situation, shall we... Somebody posts a message to talk.religion.jewish.orthodox, claiming to be you - the headers look reasonably legit, and the message is Nazi propaganda - keep in mind that for all anybody knows, you are the one that posted this message - and everyone upset by this message has your email address. Let's say you say "Hey, that wasn't me, and _ask_your_sysadmin_ to cancel the post," and he refuses. What do you do? This is probably the closest analogy to this situation that has been posted on the subject.
Consider another situation... Consider that you are a very good programmer. Consider that you are about to release a great piece of software. Consider that somebody else releases a hideously buggy unacceptable piece of software, and claims that it was written by you, shooting your credibility as a coder to hell. What do you do?
IRC (Score:1)
The Law is truly messed up!
Re:Details of the Laurence Godfrey/Demon case (Score:2)
Re:The Truth is Rather More Interesting . . . (Score:2)
The best solution is to apply common sense, IMHO.
At the point that a message has reached urban legends status, it should be fairly straightforward to obtain ISP compliance.
Otherwise, placing an ISP on notice of the falsehood of a message, and simultaneously addressing the most recent publisher of the defamatory posting can sometimes create legal rights where they did not exist before.
And yes, distribution of urban-legend stuff takes on a life of its own, but this particular type of republication doesn't seem (to me at least) to be likely to be republished by mere meme-replication, but rather by an intent to republish by someone.
It is one thing to publish a plea for wondrous things for a sick child, and understand why that e-mail makes the rounds. I'm not sure I see how it would happen in the present case absent someone's desire to see the bad news make the rounds without regard for its truth.
But, of course, none of this is legal advice. Sometimes, the best solution for bad speech is just to use proper fora to set the record straight. Otherwise, there is usually a solution short of litigation or the threat thereof -- if folks would just apply good common sense.
The Truth is Rather More Interesting . . . (Score:4)
In the U.S., the law concerning republication is complex, in part, because as noted by some other postings, the United States Constitution precludes the state from infringing the freedom of speech in many cases.
The cases seem to universally acknowledge the proposition that mere publication is not, by itself, enough. "Those who merely deliver or transmit defamatory material previously published by another will be considered to have published the material only if they knew, or had reason to know, that the material was false and defamatory." Barres v. Hold, Rinehart & Winston, 330 A.2d 38 (N.J. 1974); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts section 581.
There is a historically qualified privilege for carriers such as telegraph companies, unless the plaintiff establishes common-law (not constitutional) malice on the part of the defendant. And there is the Cubby case.
These general rules are further supported by Supreme Court case law setting forth the constitutional doctrine requiring "fault" as a minimum prerequisite for at least most liability for demfamation. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). There are also some criminal obscenity cases holding that a book store cannot be liable for contents of unreviewed books that they vend.
On top of all of that, there is also a "fair reporting" privilege for news reporting, because of first Amendment concerns. Repeating a defamatory statement is simply not actionable in public-figure or public-official cases unless the republisher knows the statement is false or is subjectively aware of the probable falsity (which almost never is the case). And in non-public figure cases, the plaintiff will still have difficulty demonstrating the requisite level of "fault" under applicable post-Gertz rules.
But like "fair use" in copyright, you can't win simply by calling "fair use! fair use!" Its a complex, difficult analysis that defies simple statements of bright-line rules and, is likely to vary from case to case on particular facts. The law is careful that its protection of the Constitutional right does not provide a Constitutional refuge or excuse to widely distribute a quietly published defamatory statement, but is also careful to protect the fourth estate and general first amendment principles.
For this reason, it is a serious mistake to focus on these cases merely on the technical questions of how a republication is accomplished. The liability will depend upon a host of highly fact-specific inquiries, and could likely go either way depending on those particular facts.
While it is not a popular thing for a lawyer to answer a question with "maybe," it would nevertheless be irresponsible to suggest that bright line rules govern this subtle and sticky question. I can envision circumstances where an URL-list (regardless of how distributed) can be unactionable mere bibliographic referencing of a document, and still others where it constitutes part of an intentional and willful plan to republish a defamation known to be false.
So, I wouldn't leap to conclusions -- the truth, as it often is for legal matters, is much more interesting. . .
Business as usual (Score:1)
We all know this is business as usual. Nothing lost, nothing gained. This happens all the time, be it in a school-environment (do you know how much some operators read ? Shameful.) or on the 'free' internet (see also : WebSense, CyberSitter, Libraries, or simply AOL
My 2 cents, probably worth a lot less.
Re:Some people should think through consequences (Score:1)
You couldn't have links either to smut or words with swears too....ha ha, I learned recently that I'm not a "respectable person" after being kicked out of a women's webring for links that contained swears.
Sad sad sad.
One thing to say for Demon ... (Score:2)
At least they made the EFFORT to let their customers know what is going on. And, as I saw someone else post, it sounds like a temporary, emergency measure, not like generalized policy.
This is better than the American ISPs with pre-installed censorware garbage. Especially Cybersitter.
(Someone refresh my memory here? I know there were a few out there that did this and either didn't publicize it at all or else didn't publicize exactly WHAT Cybersitter was blocking. And that's a story in and of itself
Like a big diaper... (Score:1)
Like they mentionned in their statement, they're not clear on the laws, so instead of taking a chance that the user himself will be sued, and not them, they're covering their butts.
And since they're not taking risks, they're going to kill replies, and references to the original post. A little extreme, but still logical.
Censorship? No. Excessive butt covering? Definitely.
Bughammer
"Know the fact before you distort them"
- Ernest Hemmingway
English law (Score:1)
I guess it's all about perspective... (Score:2)
However, if we can assume for the moment that things are similar in the UK as they are in the US (specifically a highly litigous society that is grasping at straws trying to shoehorn emerging technologies into outdated laws very inconsitantly) it makes perfect sense. If I was the owner of a company like that, and knew that there was a really good chance that someone would file a lawsuit against me for some outrageous amount of money becuase someone posted something through my services, I'd be prohibiting that kind of activity as much as a 'reasonable man' would be able to.
I agree that this new medium of the Internet should be treated in many ways like a phone system -- that is, the carrier can't be held responsible for the message that other people send -- but so far, that issue is mired in controversy as far as the courts are concerned. While putting up a test case and fighting for our rights is a very admirable goal, it's also a good way to speed up financial ruin -- lawyers are expensive and loosing a lawsuit would probably be enough to shut down a company due to the outrageous sums that get awarded. If I was running such a business, I'd let someone else take the fight and protect my investment by following the old 'reasonable man' standard of what I filter, simply so I can stay in business.
Cowardly? Absolutely! But principles of fighting for freedom don't apply too much when talking about the dollars and cents (or pounds) involved in a business. If, of course, people leave filtering and deleting ISPs in droves, there will be a similar economic impact -- the only thing a business really responds to. Of course, no matter what the customers want, if an ISP is sued for not filtering or deleting a post or whatever, they run a good chance of being litigated out of business. If the customers, however, sucessfully petition the government to change the legal environment -- get it officially ruled into law that an ISP should be treated like a LEC, in regards to content responsiblity -- then an ISP has little to be concerned about in that regard.
Re:Not quite their fault (Score:1)
I dunno if this particular battle is worth it. (Score:1)
The article refers to Thai women (and by implication the Thai race as animals) because they are willing to be paid for sex. I personally fell like the buyers are the real animals, the sellers the victims. Besides, there are plenty of white prostitutes, just look around.
I wouldn't post the guy out of spite. I hate people with no respect for other people. Whether they have the right to say those things I don't really care, it wouldn't be on my server. And my server wouldn't link it because of my own first ammendment right.
If the asshole still wants to post, post it on his own server.
Sure I'm against censorship, but I reserve the right to censor. What can I say, I'm complicated.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Infinite Links? (Score:1)
Re:This is sad. (Score:1)
Re:so what? (Score:1)
Yikes stripes! There go our rights! (Score:1)
I work for a small ISP and I am frightened. We do not block anything, but at least we let our subscribers KNOW we don't. And we don't go peeking into their email, etc.
Still, there is a fine line between moderating a discussion for relevancy, as they do here at
Where do you draw that line?
DemonUK censorship (Score:1)