$500 REWARD FOR IDENTITY OF TROLL

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"

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"

So the answer would be "no", eh?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

On Wednesday, in article

"Mxsmanic" wrote:

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.

Another stupid septic that doesn't understand his own Constitution's
Amendments.

Accusations of defamation are legion on USENET, and they are usually
baseless.

News Service Providers in the real world have to be very confident that a
reported defamation is baseless; that's why they employ Crack Legal
Teams.

--
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

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