If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:41:13 -0800, Matthew Montchalin
wrote: Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely intense any way you look at it. ]IMO, you're asking for something you really don't want, unless you're a big fan of censorship. Once you ask someone like Google to start reading posts to judge the quality thereof, you're asking them to make judgement calls; this is almost never a good thing. To counter that 'not a good thing', you'll need governmental intervention, which is universally a "bad thing". Not to mention trying to determine which government you'd like to have doing the intervention. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 15:41:13 -0800, Matthew Montchalin
wrote: Just accepting posts from a proxy elevates the scrutiny that it ought to be subject to, a kind of scrutiny that ought to be extremely intense any way you look at it. ]IMO, you're asking for something you really don't want, unless you're a big fan of censorship. Once you ask someone like Google to start reading posts to judge the quality thereof, you're asking them to make judgement calls; this is almost never a good thing. To counter that 'not a good thing', you'll need governmental intervention, which is universally a "bad thing". Not to mention trying to determine which government you'd like to have doing the intervention. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
So the answer would be "no", eh?
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} writes:
They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued libellous postings. Neglecting to do something isn't the same as aiding and abetting. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Lionel writes:
Yes - simple, & remarkably stupid too: (1) Unless a Australian judge decides to flout 150+ years of Australian & British legal precedent, the posts will most definitely be judged highly defamatory. When they are, then Google can be required or requested to remove them. Until that time, removing posts just because someone objects to them raises serious First Amendment questions, at least in the U.S. Accusations of defamation are legion on USENET, and they are usually baseless. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} writes:
Nevertheless, they ARE the publishers of the libel ... No. They are publishers if they control content. If they do not control content, they are more like common carriers. The telephone company is not responsible for crimes committed with its lines. Google should not be responsible for libels carried out with its servers--unless it is editing content, which apparently it is not. ... and under the laws of the country in which action is being brought, are liable once they have been placed on notice of the defamation if they fail to remove it. The defamation has to be proved, which means a court decision, generally speaking. A simple accusation of defamation means nothing (and in fact it may be a defamation in itself). Moreover, by failing to reject posts made through well-known open proxies, they are continuing to provide an easy path for libels to be published through them. Here again, Google is not under any specific obligation to reject posts made through "well-known" open proxies (whatever "well-known" means). -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill writes:
]IMO, you're asking for something you really don't want, unless you're a big fan of censorship. Many people love censorship, as long as it's applied others. They are the same ones who squeal the loudest when it is applied to them, however. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 06:37:09 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: Brian {Hamilton Kelly} writes: Nevertheless, they ARE the publishers of the libel ... No. They are publishers if they control content. If they do not control content, they are more like common carriers. The telephone company is not responsible for crimes committed with its lines. Google should not be responsible for libels carried out with its servers--unless it is editing content, which apparently it is not. That idea seems to be restricted to the US. The law in other common-law jurisdictions is probably more similar to that of England, according to which anyone who diseminates copies (or even one copy) of the libel to third parties (or even one third party) is a publisher. A provider which keeps a copy of the libel on its server and makes it available to others on request undoubtedly qualifies. Whether this *should* be the case is another question, but that is the way it is. -- Don Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
On Tuesday, in article
"Big Bill" wrote: On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 19:45:39 +0000 (GMT), (Brian {Hamilton Kelly}) wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 21:57:15 -0700, in article "Big Bill" wrote: So how is Google preventing victims from finding the perp? They are aiding and abetting the perpetrator(s) by failing to reject posts made through well-known open proxies, thus facilitating continued libellous postings. I have a problem with shutting out legitimate users on the chance that you'll also shut out people who do things we don't like. Even illegal things. Why should a "legitimate" user have any need to go via an open proxy? There is no reason not to go directly to the posting site; using a proxy is either a vector for mischief, or someone attempting to circumvent his employer's strictures against use of facilities not approved by policy. -- Brian {Hamilton Kelly} "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." Blaise Pascal, /Lettres Provinciales/, 1657 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Beware of Troll Alert! | Lewis Lang | Digital Photography | 6 | February 10th 05 12:04 AM |
CASH REWARD by camera merchant - $500 | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | August 11th 04 06:44 PM |
CASH REWARD by camera retailer - $500 | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | August 11th 04 04:27 PM |
CASH REWARD by photo retailer - $500 | [email protected] | In The Darkroom | 0 | August 11th 04 04:24 PM |