Slander from Google

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
publisher of slander and defamation.

For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
to the court date.

Douglas MacDonald

--
The Eulogy of Australia's last WW1 soldier...
Passed away at age 106.
"Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe"
Thank you Digger, may you Rest in Peace.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.

You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the publisher
of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that if you
are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that being
the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally. Luckily, although
UK law is a bit silly about this, I doubt you'll be successful under US
law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.skiing.alpine (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>publisher of slander and defamation.
>
>For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>to the court date.
>
>Douglas MacDonald

Scott,

I thought you might be interested in the above referenced legal
action, especially because it's being offered for free.

Looks like you and Douglas might have something in common.

-Astro
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>publisher of slander and defamation.

Don't be an idiot, man.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.

To my knowledge no internet company has been found liable for content posted via
its services. OTOH, they usually will cooperate with the police or a court
order to provide details about the offending poster. Your lawyer will probably
need to get a court order in your home state/province and send that to Google
(or better, the offenders ISP if that is clear from the Google header). They
will provide what data they can.

Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
or reporter.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.

You won't win.

>I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from Google to join with me
>in a law suite.

For an orgy?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up to
> the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald



------

What was said, about whom?......any links?
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I glad he's is not my neighbor, he probley suies everybody for anything.


"Fascinated Fed" <seat@thefrontrow.com> wrote in message
news:36pcibF52dr1mU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>> publisher of slander and defamation.
>>
>> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
>> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
>> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
>> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
>> to the court date.
>>
>> Douglas MacDonald
>
>
>
> ------
>
> What was said, about whom?......any links?
>
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"SteveJ" <SJ@comcast.net> wrote in message
news😀IidnexZdp-iHprfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
>I glad he's is not my neighbor, he probley suies everybody for anything.



Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! - if he hears you saying that he might have you in court
before you can say, "Cheque Book".....and don't forget, he's got a Queen's
Counsel to act for him...bwaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>publisher of slander and defamation.

Were you born naturally stupid, or do you have to actually work at it?

-Astro
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>
>
> You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the publisher
> of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that if you
> are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that being
> the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally. Luckily, although
> UK law is a bit silly about this, I doubt you'll be successful under US
> law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.
>
As I understand the law of defamation in Australia, the one publishing
the work is the one to sue. Google publish the posts made to their http
forums to news groups as ASCI text. This is no different from me letting
you write whatever you want in a magazine I publish.

It may be true that headers contain an IP address but when it is a proxy
server in Cario or Mexico, Google have the technology to forbid access
on the basis of the source not being identifable.

Total rubbish about ISPs refusing access. They too have the facilities
to block IP addresses on proxy servers refusing to give up the real IP
and most don't. It is these who will sufffer and have to finally be
responsible for whom they let use their service.


--
EOS my GOD,
Give me ISO for I have not yet seen the light.
Take away my grain, give me colour and you
shall have given me the edge!
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:24:37 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>
>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>or reporter.
>

If by "on camera" you mean "live", then I would have thought (though IANAL)
that the situation would be the exact opposite:

Just as ISPs/telcos have no opportunity to "edit/review/control" what is
posted to usenet/spoken down a phone, then a TV station would have no
chance to intervene if a (previously reliable) reporter on live TV started
spouting slander [it would be slander because it's spoken; libel is for the
written word]. As such, I suspect that they could be held not responsible.

If, however, the TV station *elected* to show a pre-recorded tape, then
they _have_ made an "editorial decision" and would probably be included in
an action for slander.

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Graham Holden wrote:

> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:24:37 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>>or reporter.
>>
> If by "on camera" you mean "live", then I would have thought (though IANAL)
> that the situation would be the exact opposite:
>
> Just as ISPs/telcos have no opportunity to "edit/review/control" what is
> posted to usenet/spoken down a phone, then a TV station would have no
> chance to intervene if a (previously reliable) reporter on live TV started
> spouting slander [it would be slander because it's spoken; libel is for the
> written word]. As such, I suspect that they could be held not responsible.
>
> If, however, the TV station *elected* to show a pre-recorded tape, then
> they _have_ made an "editorial decision" and would probably be included in
> an action for slander.

I was just making the example as simple as possible. Airing tapes is, as you
say, an editorial decision and usually made with more than one source of
information. (There was a similar case here where a newspaper quoted something
said on air by a former Premier (provincial first minister). The Premier sued
the radio station and the newspaper. He lost against the newspaper as it was
just reporting what the radio station said (and attributed it to the radio
station)).

As to 'slander' v. 'libel', it could be argued that the broadcast of a recorded
utterance is the broadcast of a 'document' and thus libel. (If "live" then it
is slander.) But that's just my opinion ... I have no idea how civil courts
interpret it.

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:50:08 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Goolge isn't publishing anything until it gets an editor. As soon as
>> they edit or censor one post, they become a publisher. It's for that
>> reason, they won't edit anything.
>
>This is an oft-repeated myth that is completely incorrect.

I disagree.

To quote a legal site (link at the bottom)

i) By exercising responsibility and attempting to regulate the nature
of the content, the online service provider may then become a
publisher and can be sued for libel. On the other hand, if they do
absolutely nothing, they could be sued for negligence for failing to
maintain security procedures, or for negligent misstatement.

>There is *no* legal basis in the US to say that editing or censoring makes
>you responsible for what remains. The court decision (the Prodigy case)
>that said so was specifically and deliberately invalidated by later
>legislation that says exactly the opposite.

Cite please.

Here's one assessment I found of that case:

<start of clip>

A second New York case, Stratton Oakmount v. Prodigy 23 Med. L.R. 1794
(S.C., Nassau County 1995), involving a libel action by Stratton
Oakmount, arose out of an allegedly defamatory posting on a finance
oriented bulletin board on the Prodigy Online Service. The originator
of the defamation was falsely identified and remains unknown.

On a motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff, the court
found that Prodigy was a "publisher" for the following reasons:

i) In the past, Prodigy had held itself out as being a "family
oriented" computer network and exercised editorial control over the
content of its editorial boards in order to make itself more appealing
to certain segments of the market.

ii) Prodigy had posted "content guidelines" to its users regarding
what Prodigy regarded as proper and appropriate for posting on
Prodigy's bulletin boards.

iii) Prodigy used a software screening program to screen postings for
offensive language.

iv) Prodigy retained "board leaders" to enforce the guidelines.

v) Prodigy employed technological means to delete postings that
violated the guidelines.

On October 24, 1995, Stratton Oakmount announced that it was dropping
its $200 million libel lawsuit against Prodigy Online Service. Prodigy
had assembled new evidence to show that, since 1992, it had used a
computerized keyword search solely to weed out messages containing
obscene language, but had not scanned messages for defamatory speech.
This evidence, coupled with an apology from Prodigy, was enough to
convince Stratton Oakmount to drop the case.

<end clip>

This suggests that the case was dropped when Prodigy proved they had
*not* edited the content, rather than the introduction of any new
legislation.

More (and the source of my clip) can be found at:
http://www.cyberlibel.com./liabilit.html

...where it summarizes the UK, US, Canada laws that relate.

As I requested above, I would be interested in seeing this new
legislation you mentioned, do you know what it was called?

--
Owamanga!
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This suggests that the case was dropped when Prodigy proved they had
> *not* edited the content, rather than the introduction of any new
> legislation.

The disposition of the case is not relevant; what is relevant is the
later legislation invalidating the precedent.

> As I requested above, I would be interested in seeing this new
> legislation you mentioned, do you know what it was called?

47 USC Section 230, enacted in 1996.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html

The Congressional Conference Report on section 230 states:

"[O]ne of the specific purposes of [section 230] is to overrule
Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions which
have treated such providers and users as Publishers or speakers of
content that is not their own because they have restricted access
to objectionable material."

See also Zeran v. America Online.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:45:40 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This suggests that the case was dropped when Prodigy proved they had
>> *not* edited the content, rather than the introduction of any new
>> legislation.
>
>The disposition of the case is not relevant; what is relevant is the
>later legislation invalidating the precedent.
>
>> As I requested above, I would be interested in seeing this new
>> legislation you mentioned, do you know what it was called?
>
>47 USC Section 230, enacted in 1996.
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html
>
>The Congressional Conference Report on section 230 states:
>
> "[O]ne of the specific purposes of [section 230] is to overrule
> Stratton-Oakmont v. Prodigy and any other similar decisions which
> have treated such providers and users as Publishers or speakers of
> content that is not their own because they have restricted access
> to objectionable material."
>
>See also Zeran v. America Online.

He key part here I believe is:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider."

This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.

So, OP, go ahead, sue them.

;-)

--
Owamanga!
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> He key part here I believe is:
>
> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
> another information content provider."
>
> This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
> account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
> content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.

The "information content provider" is the person posting the message.

There is no "hiding". The end result of the Prodigy precedent was that
it became impossible for any service provider to exercise any form of
control whatsoever over anything, including illegal material posted
by their customers, access to pornography by minors, etc. This was
clearly not desirable, so Congress invalidated the decision. It's
pretty simple, really.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:04:02 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> He key part here I believe is:
>>
>> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
>> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
>> another information content provider."
>>
>> This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
>> account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
>> content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.
>
>The "information content provider" is the person posting the message.
>
>There is no "hiding". The end result of the Prodigy precedent was that
>it became impossible for any service provider to exercise any form of
>control whatsoever over anything, including illegal material posted
>by their customers, access to pornography by minors, etc. This was
>clearly not desirable, so Congress invalidated the decision. It's
>pretty simple, really.

I get it. The individual is an 'information content provider'

So, he as a 'user' of the interactive computer service is also
protected by claiming that another 'information content provider'
(anyone on the internet) provided the libel.

This must make it virtually impossible for a celebrity to bring about
a liability case relating to the internet... I can always find
*someone* else that said that nasty thing about Michael Jackson before
I did. Another 'information content provider' that I'm just repeating.

Cool.

--
Owamanga!
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I get it. The individual is an 'information content provider'
>
> So, he as a 'user' of the interactive computer service is also
> protected by claiming that another 'information content provider'
> (anyone on the internet) provided the libel.

Of course; if someone else posted it, he's not responsible.

> This must make it virtually impossible for a celebrity to bring about
> a liability case relating to the internet... I can always find
> *someone* else that said that nasty thing about Michael Jackson before
> I did. Another 'information content provider' that I'm just repeating.

It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it.

If you say "Michael Jackson diddles little boys" it doesn't matter if
someone else said it first. If you say "The National Enquirer reported
yesterday that Michael Jackson diddles little boys" that's a different
statement entirely.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Henry Law wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>
>
> Don't be an idiot, man.

Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
one did it to you. Do you?

FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
the identity of the person responsible... Cadillac's are not all that
much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit and
an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from the
court as costs. It is going to happen.

Doug
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:25:06 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Henry Law wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>>
>>
>> Don't be an idiot, man.
>
>Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
>parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
>that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
>defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
>one did it to you. Do you?

Yes, you have a legal right to sue, but you are trying to sue the
wrong entity. You don't sue the power company for a flyer posted on
the power pole. You have to find and sue the author of the flyer.
Usenet is just a huge public place to post things, with the data
copied to thousands of servers around the world, some archive the data
for hours or days (most ISPs), others archive it for years (e.g.
DejaNews/Google).

>FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
>the identity of the person responsible...

Why? What is so important about an apparently-anonymous usenet post
that you are going to these extremes?

>Cadillac's are not all that
>much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit and
>an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from the
>court as costs. It is going to happen.

You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
that is) either doesn't know about or doesn't understand usenet and is
giving you poor advice.

Instead of suing Google you should be suing John Doe and then
subpoenaing Google for records and following the trace back (using
subpoenas as needed) until it can't be followed anymore. When you
reach the spot where the trace can't be followed anymore, claim THAT
entity is your John Doe, asserting that unless they can prove an
identifiable someone else posted it that they are responsible. Hold
them responsible for the post that came from their server if they
won't give up who sent it to THEM.

IMHO there should be no system to post anonymously to usenet, but it's
going to take suing each entity that runs an anonymizer (or who
otherwise refuses to disclose who transmitted the info to them) to get
those services stopped. It's not Google's fault that anonymizers
exist, and even if Google itself didn't archive those posts, anonymous
posts would still go to thousands of other usenet servers around the
world (including other servers with large archives) and as soon as
someone posted a reply, THAT post would go to Google and be archived
there. So getting Google to stop posting them to their archive would
not really change the fact that the item was posted and widely
distributed, to be easily seen by anyone with internet access.

jc
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> Henry Law wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as
>>> the publisher of slander and defamation.
>>

<snip Mr Law's helpful but tardy advice>

>
> Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
> parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a
> principal that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone
> slanders or defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give
> a hoot if some one did it to you. Do you?
>
> FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
> the identity of the person responsible... Cadillac's are not all that
> much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit
> and an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from
> the court as costs. It is going to happen.
>

I'll bet yours is not the first such action taken against a major
"carrier". I'll bet the QC is eager to make a name in an arena that
influences him personally in the same way a video game influences a
player: it can't hurt him, and it might be fun. In your case, someone
else (you) is going to pay the price. So much easier to show enthusiasm
in those circumstances, ne?

Speaking of costs, does the contract with your attorneys specify at what
point they advise you of the futility of your plan, and allow you to
gracefully admit defeat? Mr Google's very existence is tied up in this
kind of thing. Can you imagine the kind and amount of resources they
will bring to bear? They will not likely offer to settle: then every
_other_ kook with an eye on their net worth will jump in the game. Even
if they _do_ make you an out-of-Court offer, wouldn't acceptance be
deserting your principal (sic)?

If you want to be known as "The Guy Who Sued Google© And Won", vain
hope; if you don't mind being "Another Nice Guy Who Flirts With Reality
But Not Very Seriously", carry on. More power to you, but mind your
health. You're on the road to Ulcer, Stroke, and Heart Attack Country.

Resp'y,


--
Frank ess
"There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
thinking, plain or fancy."
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:01:30 GMT, JC Dill <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:25:06 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Henry Law wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be an idiot, man.
>>
>>Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
>>parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
>>that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
>>defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
>>one did it to you. Do you?
>
>Yes, you have a legal right to sue, but you are trying to sue the
>wrong entity. You don't sue the power company for a flyer posted on
>the power pole. You have to find and sue the author of the flyer.
>Usenet is just a huge public place to post things, with the data
>copied to thousands of servers around the world, some archive the data
>for hours or days (most ISPs), others archive it for years (e.g.
>DejaNews/Google).
>
>>FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
>>the identity of the person responsible...
>
>Why? What is so important about an apparently-anonymous usenet post
>that you are going to these extremes?
>
>>Cadillac's are not all that
>>much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit and
>>an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from the
>>court as costs. It is going to happen.
>
>You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
>that is) either doesn't know about or doesn't understand usenet and is
>giving you poor advice.
>
>Instead of suing Google you should be suing John Doe and then
>subpoenaing Google for records and following the trace back (using
>subpoenas as needed) until it can't be followed anymore. When you
>reach the spot where the trace can't be followed anymore, claim THAT
>entity is your John Doe, asserting that unless they can prove an
>identifiable someone else posted it that they are responsible. Hold
>them responsible for the post that came from their server if they
>won't give up who sent it to THEM.
>
>IMHO there should be no system to post anonymously to usenet, but it's
>going to take suing each entity that runs an anonymizer (or who
>otherwise refuses to disclose who transmitted the info to them) to get
>those services stopped. It's not Google's fault that anonymizers
>exist, and even if Google itself didn't archive those posts, anonymous
>posts would still go to thousands of other usenet servers around the
>world (including other servers with large archives) and as soon as
>someone posted a reply, THAT post would go to Google and be archived
>there. So getting Google to stop posting them to their archive would
>not really change the fact that the item was posted and widely
>distributed, to be easily seen by anyone with internet access.

First, I agree with everything you've said. But I think the point you
may have missed is that the 'slanderous' poster is using Google to
generate the posts. Ryadia (hopefully) isn't targeting Google just
because they happen to archive the posts.

Usenet has a problem with Google. They allow any idiot to set up a
Google account and then start posting to usenet. This needs to stop.
If it takes a few lawsuits, then so be it.

--
Owamanga!
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:rm6f01petq9p9uehv24r4npdgccv31695f@4ax.com...

> You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
> that is).......<


Ah, in the UK, 'QC' can either mean a Queen's Counsel (a Lawyer with
considerably higher qualifications than a mundane 'Solicitor') or a brand of
cheap sherry.

In this case, one wonders whether all this nonsense isn't fuelled by an
excess of the latter.....
 
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:110fgjqvpduq72@corp.supernews.com...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I get it. The individual is an 'information content provider'
>>
>> So, he as a 'user' of the interactive computer service is also
>> protected by claiming that another 'information content provider'
>> (anyone on the internet) provided the libel.
>
> Of course; if someone else posted it, he's not responsible.
>
>> This must make it virtually impossible for a celebrity to bring about
>> a liability case relating to the internet... I can always find
>> *someone* else that said that nasty thing about Michael Jackson before
>> I did. Another 'information content provider' that I'm just repeating.
>
> It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it.
>
> If you say "Michael Jackson diddles little boys" it doesn't matter if
> someone else said it first. If you say "The National Enquirer reported
> yesterday that Michael Jackson diddles little boys" that's a different
> statement entirely.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com


National colloquialism's must surely play a part here?

In the UK, for instance, 'diddling' someone usually means swindling them
(like the camera manufacturers who charge us nearly twice the price of
identical products on sale to the American market)

Thus, if Michael Jackson diddled little boys, that would make him a pretty
low sort of person - but certainly not a grotesque gender challenged sexual
predator with a peculiar chemically concocted complexion who conveys the
impression that he has just emerged from a coffin on the set of a low budget
film about the un-dead.

Which of course, Mr Jackson isn't, wasn't, didn't and never could be.
Honestly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom