IP: thin edge of the wedge

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

        "When you come to the fork in the road, take it" - L.P. Berra
                              John F. McMullen
                               johnmac () acm org
                        http://www.westnet.com/~observer




---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:02:22 +0900
From: eldon <eldon () GOL COM>
Reply-To: Philosophy and Psychology of Cyberspace
     <CYBERMIND () LISTSERV AOL COM>
To: CYBERMIND () LISTSERV AOL COM
Subject: thin edge of the wedge


while in oz i caught sight of the following article in the sydney morning
herald
(it's dated saturday, march 14;
didn't have time to copy it then -
typing speeds slow as they are,
staying with family and friends,
most lists set to nomail for the duration,
online friends knowing that they may be privileged to receive random
virtual postcards....)


but reading this sent a slight chill up the corporeal spine -




------


"Internet provider pays $10,000 over libel"
by David Passey


"In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, an Australian
Internet provider has been sued for defamation after allegations that a
London academic was psychiatrically ill were repeatedly published on its
service.


"Six allegations of illness, authored by an Australian user and published
through the Internet service provider Melbourne PC Users Group, were
circulated despite the subject's plea to stop the publications.


"Although the Melbourne PC Users Group settled out of court on March 3 for
more than $10,000, it has done so without admitting liability. The case
against the author is before the Supreme Court in London.


"For the first time, the case has brought into sharp focus the potential
for an Internet service provider to be liable globally for defammatory
material published through its services.


"A leading technology lawyer, Mr Philip Argy, of Mallesons Stephen Jaques,
said he believed this case demonstrated that service providers were
potentially liable across international borders.


"His reading of the law was that liability could be established if the
material was proven to be defammatory; if the service provider knew the
material was being published; and if no action was taken to stop it.


"According to the complainant, London physicist Dr Laurence Godfrey, the
allegations were published on a service known as News Groups, a public
forum not unlike talk-back radio in which people openly correspond.
An estimated 2,000 people in Britain had access to these allegations, which
Dr Godfrey said threatened to severely harm his reputation. Around the
world, an estimated 30,000 people could have tapped into the claims.


"'I specifically requested that the provider put a stop to these
allegations,' Dr godfrey said. 'They specifically wrote back to say they
wouldn't. It happened six times and that's why I sued for defamation.


"'I'm a lecturer and there is a very wide readership of these newsgroups by
people in academic institutions - students, research staff and my
colleagues - and so these allegations were especially damaging.'


"Mr Willian Ford, speaking for the service provider, which has 11,500
members in Australia, said its initial reaction was that it was not their


responsibility to censor material on the service.


"This, however, contradicts a warning published in its August 1996 journal,
PC Update, which said: 'The committee must act immediately when it sees a
potential for defamation proceedings. So any member who treads into that
territory is virtually guaranteed to lose...access to all our electronic
services...'


"Mr Ford said: 'In the first instance we didn't believe the material was
defammatory. We therefore contacted Mr Godfrey to tell him we were not
obliged to act. But later we told the member to desist. We told him to stop
and he did.'"


------