Apology to Dr Laurence Godfrey
codeZ
apology.
During the past several weeks I have made many postings to the newsgroup
sci.physics under the pseudonym of "codeZ", in which I have made numerous
statements about physics that were completely erroneous and in many cases
fundamentally flawed and wholly misleading to those readers of the newsgroup
not expert in the subject. When my errors were pointed out to me by various
physicists in the newsgroup, including Dr Laurence Godfrey, instead of
recognising and correcting my mistakes I continued to insist that I was
right
and responded with a stream of unjustified insults and false allegations of
incompetence, ignorance, lack of comprehension and inability on the part of
those correcting me. When those physicists responded in kind, rightly
pointing out that it was I who was entirely ignorant of the subject matter,
I
foolishly continued to maintain that I was right and in doing so I
compounded
my errors in physics and made further false and defamatory allegations about
the physicists involved.
I have now recognised that my behaviour on the newsgroup was wholly
unacceptable and I sincerely apologise to all those concerned. In particular
I apologise for the defamatory statements that I have made about physicists
including Dr Godfrey and I unreservedly retract those statements and
acknowledge that there is no factual basis whatsoever to them.
I did not identify myself in my postings and I did not make it clear that I
was only an undergraduate student. When I informed Dr Godfrey of these facts
he agreed to accept by way of compensation for the defamatory statements
that
I made about him the small amount of money that I was able to offer him, on
the condition made by Dr Godfrey that I pay this sum to 3 charities of his
choice rather than to him.
Accordingly I have agreed with Dr Godfrey's proposals that I make the
following charitable donations on his behalf:
1. ŁUK50 to the Free Representation Unit, 4th Floor Peer House, 8-14
Verulam Street, London WC1X 8L2, England;
2. ŁUK50 to Amnesty International, PO Box 4, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 1RU,
England;
3. The remainder from $450 in New Zealand currency to NZ CCS, PO Box 8066,
27
Kilmarnock Street, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand
I have agreed to purchase International Money Orders or similar instruments
where necessary and to send these payments by post to the charities
concerned
within 7 days. Dr Godfrey has agreed to waive his rights to damages and
costs
for the statements that I have published on receiving from me copies of the
receipts from these charities.
Vitali Deev
Brian
Crossposted to sci.physics from nz.general
This post is unusual in that it is a type of post that happens rarely
in usenet.
There is a tradition of flames in usenet, that I hope, if ever
defamation actions in usenet do reach a court of law, that is taken
into account. I think the type of discussion here on usenet is
strong, robust, and characterised by "shooting from the hip". I hope
that never changes.
But this post is a good reminder to us all, that there are boundaries
between the type of discussion I've just described, and defamation.
In this case, I presume that Vitali Deev has gone over acceptable
boundaries foolishly presuming that a pseudonym would protect his/her
identity.
The outcome of the presumed negotiations that have occurred between
Vitali Deev and Dr Laurence Godfrey appears to be a good solution. The
offending actions were made on usenet, and the apologies made live on
the record in usenet.
Perhaps the only other course of action that should occur, is that
Vitali Deev be asked to remove from the Google record all the
defamatory statements that were made about Dr Godfrey, while leaving
the apologies he has made on sci.physics intact.
Other than that, I applaud the actions of Vitali Deev in making the
apologies published. The fact that apologies on usenet happen so
rarely speaks for the personal difficulties in doing so. Humiliation
aint nice, pretty, or easy. I also applaud the actions of Dr Godfrey
in negotiating and accepting the terms of the apology.
Some may be surprised at my comments. I'm on the record as speaking
forcefully about the incompetent and disgraceful actions of a number
of so called professionals involved in the tragedy of justice
associated with the Christchurch Creche case in New Zealand, that
resulted in the wrongful imprisonment of Peter Ellis. I'll continue to
do so.
Brian
Randy Poe
> There is a tradition of flames in usenet, that I hope, if ever
> defamation actions in usenet do reach a court of law, that is taken
> into account. I think the type of discussion here on usenet is
> strong, robust, and characterised by "shooting from the hip". I hope
> that never changes.
>
> But this post is a good reminder to us all, that there are boundaries
> between the type of discussion I've just described, and defamation.
Yes. And despite this part of the statement:
> >I have made numerous
> >statements about physics that were completely erroneous and in many cases
> >fundamentally flawed and wholly misleading to those readers of the newsgroup
> >not expert in the subject
I would hope that nobody considers such statements actionable.
They're part of the newsgroup traffic. This is an unmoderated
newsgroup, and nobody should feel that defamation cops are
going to descend on them if they just make misinformed
statements.
I wouldn't want other undergraduates or high-school students
to feel they have to self-censor on the grounds of saying
something stupid. Doing so and being corrected is a very
effective way of learning. People who choose to ignore
the corrections and maintain their ignorance deliberately
still have a right to do so, and a right to maintain a
presence here. Ultimately the only person hurt by such
actions is themselves.
As for the "wholly misleading to those readers... not expert",
so what? If students are going to use the internet as their
main source of research, as they do, they'd better develop
their own skills for assessing the quality of that information.
I think the crackpots are an excellent teaching tool. I
think students could learn a great deal by reading the
work of some of the most vocal loons, and their critics,
thinking through the issues and deciding for themselves who
to believe.
I have written CodeZ a letter of support to encourage him
not to engage in personal defamation such as got him burned
here, but otherwise to maintain just as loony a presence here,
to engage in as much debate about IDEAS, as he chooses.
Note to Laurence Godfrey's attorneys: I have not condoned
CodeZ's actions regarding Prof. Godfrey, nor have I
offered any opinion on this action. That is between you
two. I don't condone defamation. I do condone wide-open
exchange of ideas, including crackpotty ones.
- Randy
Brian
(Keith Rodgers) wrote:
>Just do a search of Google Groups on Mr Godfrey and you will find a host
>of similar apologies so beware Mr Scrooge. :-) He can reach as far as NZ,
>Telecom has already settled out of court with him.
Scrooge's reply in particular implies that Godfrey is perhaps an
unreasonable person in being interested in money, without
consideration of the value of personal reputation.
Seems to me that it is an entirely reasonable thing to do to attack
defamatory comments.
Just as it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable to defend
reasonable criticism.
An apology, as given in this thread, is equivalent to a "guilty" plea.
I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of that apology, and no reason
to hypothesise that the apology may have even been partly motivated by
fear of court action.
Brian
>
>There was also one non-apology (copy below) that made me smile:
>
>"Recently, I failed to post articles to this newsgroup deriding or
>defaming a certain Dr. Laurence Godfrey, and therefore also failed to
>have good cause to post retractions of, or apologies for, those
>postings.
>
>It has been pointed out to me by persons who have requested to remain
>nameless that my actions, in having failed to do so, were both
>unreasonable and extraordinarily inconsiderate towards Dr. Godfrey.
>
>I therefore unreservedly apologise for having failed to defame Dr.
>Godfrey, and specifically for failing to give him just cause to complain
>of my behaviour, or to demand retraction, and for any distress or
>inconvenience this may have caused the good Doctor.
>
>I hope that this posting constitutes sufficient redress that we can put
>this unfortunate matter behind us and move on."
>
>--
>Keith Rodgers, Technical Advisor
>Energy Safety Service, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, NZ
>Opinions expressed here are exclusively my own.
Brian
wrote:
>Brian wrote:
>> There is a tradition of flames in usenet, that I hope, if ever
>> defamation actions in usenet do reach a court of law, that is taken
>> into account. I think the type of discussion here on usenet is
>> strong, robust, and characterised by "shooting from the hip". I hope
>> that never changes.
>>
>> But this post is a good reminder to us all, that there are boundaries
>> between the type of discussion I've just described, and defamation.
>
>Yes. And despite this part of the statement:
>
>> >I have made numerous
>> >statements about physics that were completely erroneous and in many cases
>> >fundamentally flawed and wholly misleading to those readers of the newsgroup
>> >not expert in the subject
>
>I would hope that nobody considers such statements actionable.
>They're part of the newsgroup traffic. This is an unmoderated
>newsgroup, and nobody should feel that defamation cops are
>going to descend on them if they just make misinformed
>statements.
Of course not. It is one thing to make erroneous statements, crackpot
statements even. There is nothing to suggest that simply erroneous
statements were the basis of the apology however.
Defamation involves the wrongful and untruthful attacking of the good
reputation and integrity of another person.
Brian
Brian
(z replaces x)> wrote:
crossposted to sci.physics
>An apology is one thing, but to seek to get money from someone over an
>opinion they've freely posted in a discussion is getting a bit far fetched.
>Also politicians and the media would be paying out all the time. Of course
>in some serious cases they're had to. Though the funny thing was when Helen
>Clark had to pay up $5,000 over her bad slip up (early last year I think it
>was), she used government tax dollars to do it.
>
>If the guy was wrong, then it must've been easy enough to prove that he was
>wrong, which would then make a fool out of him. Getting an apology should
>be enough, when it comes to a simple discussion forum, which isn't much
>different from what one would find at a party or some other casual
>gathering.
>
>E. Scrooge
If a person has simply posted an opinion about physics, even if
crackpot, then that is NOT defamation. Does not require an apology to
another person.
But if a person makes defamatory comments ABOUT another person, that
are NOT true, as appears in this case, then an apology is quite
appropriate. And what is wrong with measuring personal reputation
and integrity in monetary terms?
If the person defamed, as in this case, suggests that monetary
compensation be given to charity, that is their right. I'd think no
worse of them for taking the money, and doing what they would like to
do with it.
It's the same rules in a party or some casual gathering. Defamation
that is not true, is not appropriate there. It's not here either.
Brian
bevyn quiding
Brian <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in article
<3c7e8fba....@news.wave.co.nz>...
> Perhaps the only other course of action that should occur, is that
> Vitali Deev be asked to remove from the Google record all the
> defamatory statements that were made about Dr Godfrey, while leaving
> the apologies he has made on sci.physics intact.
to be honest im not all that comfortable with that course of action.
I think archival material should by and large be left alone even if
distasteful.
Bevyn
Brian
Consider if it was you defamed.
Defamation has in the past caused whole book runs to be recalled. The
ONLY course of equivalent action on usenet is for the offending
statements to be withdrawn. To leave them remaining is to perpetuate
the original offence.
We're not talking about censorship of ideas, or even reasonable
criticism of people. This is purely about defamation of another
person.
Brian
E. Scrooge
"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3c7ea755....@news.wave.co.nz...
But did it have any real affect on that person? Apart from being proven
wrong, a lot of people (the few that saw it at least, not everyone on the
net bothers to read all of the dribble in the newsgroups) may have treated
what was said as just a lot of useless waffle. And don't try to say that
there aren't a lot of threads that are simply full of useless waffle of
opinions and oddball viewpoints. This thread could well be one of them.
Now Dr Godfrey has posted something about an agreement that was made between
the certain parties involved. But did these other parties also agree to him
posting about what was agreed to?
By doing so, has Dr Godfrey overstepped any possible confidentiality to the
other parties of what was discussed between them yesterday? Why bother
openly posting about a private agreement about the removal of a few posts?
It seems strange that some people are now posting about posts that are about
to be removed, and what was or wasn't privately agreed to about it (if one
can believe what was said about it anyway).
By the looks of it from what I've seen (not that I've seen all the crap
involved, mind you), after getting a small dent in their car, someone now
wants the car totally replaced. They see a chance to make a gain from it,
and they went for it.
BTW (By The Way)...
Is the Queen demanding an apology from Helen Clark for sitting down before
she did, and not choosing to say grace? Why shouldn't the Queen make some
money out of it as well? After all she was insulted on worldwide TV (not
just in some tin pot little newsgroup). If it's good enough for a "user" of
a very very small newsgroup, then it must be good enough for the Queen to
get whatever money that she can out of Helen Clark.
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:20:51 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
> crossposted to sci.physics
That's not my problem. This stuff came to NZ.GENERAL, nz.general didn't go
sci.fizzer. As far as I know you chose to cross post it.
It depends on what was actually said. All I've bothered to notice is an
apology involving money, posted in nz.general.
If we called each other fools, Brian. That would be no big deal. If I was
to falsely accuse you of doing something illegal, that would be a different
story. In a case where someone say calling themselves "code red", are many
people going to take any wild claims from that person all that seriously?
Especially if they're well known to post a lot of rubbish about things.
As for parties and gatherings, we've all more than likely heard things that
one could make money out of.
Does Richard Prebble calling someone "dog tucker" (which he did, and on
nationwide TV) amount to defamation of someone? After all, to imply that
someone is dog food, is simply not true at all. Of course in Prebble's
context of it, we all know what "dog tucker" meant at the time he said it.
But a lawyer would have the choice of the meaning that best suits him to
build a case against it.
E. Scrooge
Ron sometimes
> But did it have any real affect on that person? Apart from being
> proven wrong, a lot of people (the few that saw it at least, not
> everyone on the net bothers to read all of the dribble in the
> newsgroups) may have treated what was said as just a lot of useless
> waffle. And don't try to say that there aren't a lot of threads that
> are simply full of useless waffle of opinions and oddball viewpoints.
> This thread could well be one of them.
Scrooge. You obviously need to read up on defamation.
> Now Dr Godfrey has posted something about an agreement that was made
> between the certain parties involved. But did these other parties
> also agree to him posting about what was agreed to?
Ask him. Nothing like getting the gen from the horse's mouth.
> By doing so, has Dr Godfrey overstepped any possible confidentiality
> to the other parties of what was discussed between them yesterday?
I'd doubt it. Dr Godfrey seems totally au fait with defamation and it
would be a real surprise to learn he would divulge an agreed
confidentiality.
> Why bother openly posting about a private agreement about the removal
> of a few posts?
To inform? To scuttle silly theories from the uninformed?
> It seems strange that some people are now posting about posts that are
> about to be removed, (snippy)
It's not strange at all. It's topical. It's an unusual happening.
> By the looks of it from what I've seen (not that I've seen all the
> crap involved, mind you), after getting a small dent in their car,
> someone now wants the car totally replaced. They see a chance to make
> a gain from it,and they went for it.
You really DO need to read something about defamation.
A few years ago I heard an entirely untrue dfeamatory remark made on
radio about a person I know. She didn't hear the broadcast and as far as
I know I was the only person who identifed her as the one defamed by the
remark. The radio station eventually apologised to her and the radio
person was fired.
> BTW (By The Way)...
> Is the Queen demanding an apology from Helen Clark for sitting down
> before she did, and not choosing to say grace?
Of course she isn't. How could she? There's nothing defamatory about
beating Liz to the grits, or not saying grace.
> Why shouldn't the Queen make some
> money out of it as well? After all she was insulted on worldwide TV
> (notjust in some tin pot little newsgroup). If it's good enough for a
> "user" of a very very small newsgroup, then it must be good enough for
> the Queen to get whatever money that she can out of Helen Clark.
Sorry to press the point Scrooge but you must read a little about
defamation. Dr Godfrey was defamed -- Lizzie wasn't.
rinh
Brian
(z replaces x)> wrote:
>
>"Brian" wrote:
>> "E. Scrooge" wrote:
>> crossposted to sci.physics
> That's not my problem.
I didn't think it a problem at all. <smile>
> This stuff came to NZ.GENERAL, nz.general didn't go
> sci.fizzer. As far as I know you chose to cross post it.
Absolutely. I deliberately chose to cross post it, as the issues
occurred in sci.physics. I was simply making it clear that _I_ was
crossposting it.
>> If a person has simply posted an opinion about physics, even if
>> crackpot, then that is NOT defamation. Does not require an apology to
>> another person.
>>
>> But if a person makes defamatory comments ABOUT another person, that
>> are NOT true, as appears in this case, then an apology is quite
>> appropriate. And what is wrong with measuring personal reputation
>> and integrity in monetary terms?
>>
>> If the person defamed, as in this case, suggests that monetary
>> compensation be given to charity, that is their right. I'd think no
>> worse of them for taking the money, and doing what they would like to
>> do with it.
>>
>> It's the same rules in a party or some casual gathering. Defamation
>> that is not true, is not appropriate there. It's not here either.
>>
>> Brian
> It depends on what was actually said. All I've bothered to
> notice is an apology involving money, posted in nz.general.
The apology was from a person who agreed that he had defamed somebody
else, and of sufficient seriousness that he was amking a public
statement, and agreeing to give money to charities.
>If we called each other fools, Brian. That would be no big deal.
This is not an issue of defining what is defamatory. The defamation
was accepted by the person apologising. There was no disagreement.
> If I was
>to falsely accuse you of doing something illegal, that would be a different
>story. In a case where someone say calling themselves "code red", are many
>people going to take any wild claims from that person all that seriously?
>Especially if they're well known to post a lot of rubbish about things.
>As for parties and gatherings, we've all more than likely heard things that
>one could make money out of.
>Does Richard Prebble calling someone "dog tucker" (which he did, and on
>nationwide TV) amount to defamation of someone? After all, to imply that
>someone is dog food, is simply not true at all. Of course in Prebble's
>context of it, we all know what "dog tucker" meant at the time he said it.
>But a lawyer would have the choice of the meaning that best suits him to
>build a case against it.
I think talking about what defamation is, and what it isn't is a
reasonable discussion point. But it is not at issue here.
By apologising, guilt is accepted.
You can say anything you like here. There is no censorship. But
there may be consequences. Those are issues that you and I have to
consider whenever we post.
If somebody wishes to take action against you, that is their right.
It is then your choice to exacerbate, explain, defend, or apologise,
or even do nothing.
In this case an apology was tendered.
Brian
bevyn quiding
> >to be honest im not all that comfortable with that course of action.
> >I think archival material should by and large be left alone even if
> >distasteful.
> Consider if it was you defamed.
I have taken that into consideration it was not an ill considered remark
that i made
but to remove the comments from google or other archive is to undermine
the value
of the archive and not remove them from the public forum. The genie is
already out
of the bottle you can't shove it back in just by removing a few messages.
> Defamation has in the past caused whole book runs to be recalled. The
by the accuser or the subject of the accusation? or both?
Is living in fear a good course of action?
> ONLY course of equivalent action on usenet is for the offending
> statements to be withdrawn. To leave them remaining is to perpetuate
> the original offence.
these messages remain useful because they tend to give more insight into
the accuser
than the subject to remove most of the messages is like recording only half
conversations
and attributing complete record to them.
> We're not talking about censorship of ideas, or even reasonable
> criticism of people. This is purely about defamation of another
> person.
and what is unreasonable criticism? A tricky question to which there is no
absolute
answer.
and also purely about defamation of people is not quite the case. It's
about
feel good happy endings. it's an illusion that serves no useful purpose.
Imagine if every flame ever sent was removed from all the archives.
I'm certain most people who have been flamed would prefer they never had
been and a plaster on their wounded pride would be nice however there
is another side to the coin of the person studying flames wars and online
interaction if these messages are removed from the archive then
their[the archives] usefulness as source material for study of usenet
culture
is severely undermined. An extreme case certainly but very real risks are
taken
when materials are deleted.
like i said i'm uncomfortable with it, but then i'm uncomforatble with a
lot of things.
just one of those areas where competing interests collide.
B
Steve Austin
> >Vitali Deev be asked to remove from the Google record all the
> >defamatory statements that were made about Dr Godfrey, while leaving
> >the apologies he has made on sci.physics intact.
>
> parties.
Hope you're happy, Dr Tosser.
PapaBear
"Steve Austin" <bio...@man.com> wrote in message
news:3c7ee...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Uncalled for.
Try to show a little respect for others hmmm?
PapaBear
Steve Austin
> was only an undergraduate student. When I informed Dr Godfrey of these facts
> he agreed to accept by way of compensation for the defamatory statements
> that I made about him the small amount of money that I was able to offer him,
> on the condition made by Dr Godfrey that I pay this sum to 3 charities of his
> choice rather than to him.
Here's some advice for the future: If someone threatens to sue you, wait until
it *actually happens* before paying anything.
Douglas Eagleson
You need to be careful reading the "acceptable responses"
by reading the actual postings. Many true slanders occur
and are never prosecuted by the victim. Because it is not
anything, but to much trouble.
A professional sometimes has a reputation to protect and
sometime feels required to take the trouble.
That is the problem with a virtual professional. They
call themselves experts and claim a privilege.
And the priviledge is a lower standard of evidence for
a scientific evidence.
Do not feel so bad about it, you picked the right
kind to abuse.
Douglas Eagleson
Gaithersburg, MD USA
Col
Go to Google and read some of his posts. Join some groups he is in. Then come
back and make the same statement .
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
Gib Bogle
> Go to Google and read some of his posts. Join some groups he is in. Then come
> back and make the same statement .
To save me the trouble of tracking it down, do you know what codeZ's
fight with Godfrey was about? I'm slightly curious.
On the general issue of freedom to abuse, the great thing about Usenet
is the anarchic free-for-all spirit of it. But ... there are some users
who would strain anyone's patience. And you know, sometimes a good
sharp smack is the best way to remind children of their social
responsibilities. No real freedom without responsibility.
Don Mackie
jake.t...@the.marae.com wrote:
> Go to Google and read some of his posts. Join some groups he is in. Then
> come
> back and make the same statement .
He's been around a l o n g time (in usenet terms).
--
"Any PC built after 1985 has the storage capacity to house an evil spirit,"
Reverend Jim Peasboro
Horry Wachope
wrote:
I can't believe he fell for it.
And I thought physicists were supposed to be clever :-)
Gil
Gil
How come TO MY KNOWLEDGE you've never sued anyone in the US?
Gil
The problem with that is that you're forcing an aggrieved party to go to
court and expend a lot of resources, and you leave them with the feeling
that you weren't going to apologize unless you had to.
It's like saying "lead the cop on a three-mile chase at 100 mph before you
agree to pull over." Once you pull over the cop is going to be PISSED!
Internet defamers flout the law until they see they might suffer its
consequences. They aren't usually sorry they defamed, but sorry they
miscalculated the resources of the person they chose to attack.
Dan Riley
> How come TO MY KNOWLEDGE you've never sued anyone in the US?
He has filed suit in the UK against US entities--see:
http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/news/godfrey.html
http://www.cit.cornell.edu/computer/news/briefs98.html#godfrey2
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,13467,00.html
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/defamation2.html
and also
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,18764,00.html
for Godfrey's suit vs. Demon Internet for not deleting an article
that did not originate from Demon.
The first wired article above says that "if an American entity does
not have assets in England, it's unclear that a UK libel judgment
could even be enforced in the US", but larger ISPs and Universities
have significant assets in England or do business there.
The internet presents a number of thorny jursdiction questions;
see, for example,
http://www.eff.org/Cases/Heathmount_v_Technodome.com/20011205_eff_pr.html
where a Canadian coporation sued a Canadian citizen in US courts
in Virginia, or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_760000/760782.stm
for a French court ruling that Yahoo must block access from France to
certain auctions in the US.
--
Dan Riley d...@mail.lns.cornell.edu
"Mr. Ellison is presently the sole member of the Plan Committee. The
Plan Committee did not meet during fiscal year 2001, and during that
same period, acted 46 times by unanimous written consent."
Gil
In which country?
> > By the looks of it from what I've seen (not that I've seen all the
> > crap involved, mind you), after getting a small dent in their car,
> > someone now wants the car totally replaced. They see a chance to make
> > a gain from it,and they went for it.
>
> You really DO need to read something about defamation.
In which country?
>I heard an entirely untrue dfeamatory remark made on
> radio about a person I know. She didn't hear the broadcast and as far as
> I know I was the only person who identifed her as the one defamed by the
> remark. The radio station eventually apologised to her and the radio
> person was fired.
How nice.
> > Why shouldn't the Queen make some
> > money out of it as well? After all she was insulted on worldwide TV
> > (notjust in some tin pot little newsgroup). If it's good enough for a
> > "user" of a very very small newsgroup, then it must be good enough for
> > the Queen to get whatever money that she can out of Helen Clark.
>
> Sorry to press the point Scrooge but you must read a little about
> defamation. Dr Godfrey was defamed -- Lizzie wasn't.
What damages did he suffer from this defamation? Can he point to the loss
of jobs, contracts, etc? I'm not drawing conclusions, just asking.
In the United States, even in cases of libel per se, there is something
called "nominal damages" where someone might win a judgment of $1.00 US to
ease the damage caused him. He also might win a million, but it's not that
cut and dried. Recently, a California judge pointed out that the internet
is not like a newspaper in that it enables one to talk back and refute
defamatory material.
It's not that easy to win a libel judgment in the US for this and many other
reasons.
Gil
>
> He has filed suit in the UK against US entities--see:
I meant filed suit in the United States. I know he sued Cornell. I also am
pretty sure the US will not enforce a UK libel judgment because of the first
amendment and §230, among other things, at least the way the courts have
ruled so far.
Karen Hayward
soc.culture.canada added. I'm interested in their comments :-)
Brian, shifting the content of the thread a bit :-) ,I did a quick
search on 'Laurence Godfrey' in 'soc.culture.canada' . It made for
interesting reading. I get the impression that Dr Godfrey came into
that group and soon began insulting Canadians, Canada, the culture,
etc. That, not surprisingly, got a reaction from various Canadians in
the group.
It appears, from remarks in soc.culture. canada, that he has done this
in other groups, such as the Thai group....someone was complaining
about him insulting people from Thailand and their country.
While you probably can't strictly defame a country and it's
peoples..it would be extremely difficult to prove at a
guess...couldn't Dr Godfrey's behaviour in doing that be described as
'provocative' and 'inflammatory' ? No excuse for defaming him...but...
I'd be interested in what Dr Godfrey has to say about that type of
behaviour...or if he even sees it in that way.
Karen Hayward
Steve Austin
> until
> > it *actually happens* before paying anything.
>
> The problem with that is that you're forcing an aggrieved party to go to
> court and expend a lot of resources, and you leave them with the feeling
> that you weren't going to apologize unless you had to.
No, my point is that he shouldn't have crapped himself and got into a fluster
about it unless he actually *did* get sued. When Dr Tosser threatened him
with legal action, CodeZ should have just ignored him as the response, rather
than go into a panic and start offering money.
Gib Bogle
>
> > > Hope you're happy, Dr Tosser.
> >
> > Uncalled for.
> >
> > Try to show a little respect for others hmmm?
>
> over a Usenet post -- WTF is that? Grow some balls, Dr Tosser, and stop
> acting so self-important and egotistical.
Growing balls makes someone less egotistical? Interesting. That would
explain why women are so egotistical.
Brian
>What damages did he suffer from this defamation?
Presumably, at the very least, a loss of "fame". That is the nature
of all defamation. Most people value that extremely highly.
Note that we are not discussing whether he was defamed or not. That
question has been decided in this case, by the offender agreeing that
defamation had occurred.
> Can he point to the loss of jobs, contracts, etc?
I do not see the relevance of this question. That could be relevant
in deciding the seriousness of the defamation, and in setting
penalties. But in this case that issue has already been agreed between
the offender and the person defamed. They both agreed that a suitable
penalty would be that an apology be given, and money given to
specified charities.
> I'm not drawing conclusions, just asking.
>In the United States, even in cases of libel per se, there is something
>called "nominal damages" where someone might win a judgment of $1.00 US to
>ease the damage caused him. He also might win a million, but it's not that
>cut and dried. Recently, a California judge pointed out that the internet
>is not like a newspaper in that it enables one to talk back and refute
>defamatory material.
Some defamation cases are settled with a judgement of $1.00
(incidentally, of any sort of currency). Some defamation cases are
settled with a judgement of a million. THIS defamation case was
settled .... in agreement between the parties, and without a court
... with an apology, and some donations to charity.
Perhaps THIS case sets some sort of precedent for usenet defamation.
Perhaps not. Time will tell.
>It's not that easy to win a libel judgment in the US for this and many other
>reasons.
Why is this relevant? This case involved people in two countries
outside the US.
Brian
Brian
I've also done a search on him, and am aware of where it is all at.
Some thoughts come to mind:
[1] Godfrey could be a saint, and he would end up with mud on him ...
for two reasons
(a) In any argument, mud sticks to all participants. Unfortunate, but
just the way it happens.
(b) He has walked into the very heart and essence of what people have
loved about the internet from the start ... it's "freedom", and
anarchy.
[2] Godfrey does appear to have a history of being provocative, and
perhaps even insulting. That may be in common with very many people
in usenet. I'm certainly one person who perhaps could be included on
similar sorts of lists of people.
It may actually be easier to swallow, if he had been a saint, when he
took defamation action. OK he wasn't, but as you say, that's still no
excuse for anybody to defame him.
[3] Perhaps some people are simply jealous at what he has won. Lots
of people, including myself, have been defamed on usenet, and we
haven't taken action. Why the hell should he succeed?
[4] I note (I may be wrong), that there has been nobody defending the
actual defamatory comments. The arguments have been over whether Demon
(in the UK) should be able to be sued, whether codeZ (in New Zealand)
should have paid etc. Not that what was actually said was not
defamatory.
Brian
Gil
And ignoring him leads to Godfrey retaining a lawyer, preparing a case,
filing it, and by then, why should he withdraw it. The apology was the
defendant's chance to AVOID trial. Your answer makes it so that he may have
not been able to do that once it's filed.
It's like a mugger saying "I'll put my pistol down AFTER I see your Uzi." I
notice you didn't copy my remarks about making the cops chase someone at 100
mph before agreeing to pull over.
Godfrey was right to one extent, and that is that CodeZ should have been
prepared to go to court if he felt strong enough to make the statements, and
apparently he was not, so he should have kept his mouth shut in the first
place or continued to defend himself. Since he didn't want to, his position
weakened, and he had to cave in more or less.
Gil
anonymous remailer for allowing defamatory material through its conduit?
That's the type of case I'd like to see brought, as some people totally
avoid prosecution that way.
muhaha
"Laurence Godfrey" <laur...@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
news:3c8da387....@news.virgin.net...
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:44:11 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>
> >Perhaps the only other course of action that should occur, is that
> >Vitali Deev be asked to remove from the Google record all the
> >defamatory statements that were made about Dr Godfrey, while leaving
> >the apologies he has made on sci.physics intact.
>
> As it happens this is precisely what was agreed yesterday between the
> parties.
>
> Laurence
> >
>
Steve Austin
Not necessarily. Dr Tosser is just a psycho who is hell-bent on suing
anyone who "defames" his already, in my opinion, crappy reputation.
Heck, he might even sue me for saying this! Shock, horror!
Steve Austin
> anonymous remailer for allowing defamatory material through its conduit?
Nope. You can't sue a remailer because they didn't author the post; they
are just the carrier. Just as you can't sue the post office for delivering
a letter that happened to contain a death threat.
Peter
>> Scrooge. You obviously need to read up on defamation.
>
>In which country?
Does not matter, UK and NZ defamation law is essentially the same. It
suits Westminster style politicians to have draconian defamation law.
The First Amendment takes some edge off USA defamation law.
Also read up on Reciprocity of Judgements Act. Many countries have
such Acts (including States within Countries eg USA and Oz). The NZ
one never envisaged netlibel and gives excessive leverage to the likes
of Dr G.
Steve Austin
> > over a Usenet post -- WTF is that? Grow some balls, Dr Tosser, and stop
> > acting so self-important and egotistical.
>
> Growing balls makes someone less egotistical? Interesting. That would
> explain why women are so egotistical.
Learn to read. The growing balls statement was finished (hence the commas)
and the self-important/egotistical part were "standalone" additions. I told
him to "grow some balls" in the context of not being so "hurt" by what others
may say about him.
E. Scrooge
"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3c7fd343....@news.wave.co.nz...
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:33:02 -0500, "Gil" <g...@gil.gil> wrote:
>
>
> >What damages did he suffer from this defamation?
>
> Presumably, at the very least, a loss of "fame". That is the nature
> of all defamation. Most people value that extremely highly.
>
> Note that we are not discussing whether he was defamed or not. That
> question has been decided in this case, by the offender agreeing that
> defamation had occurred.
>
>
>
> > Can he point to the loss of jobs, contracts, etc?
>
> I do not see the relevance of this question. That could be relevant
> in deciding the seriousness of the defamation, and in setting
> penalties. But in this case that issue has already been agreed between
> the offender and the person defamed. They both agreed that a suitable
> penalty would be that an apology be given, and money given to
> specified charities.
>
But how many people even bothered to notice it? How many people do you
think bother with the newsgroups, and out of those, how many people do you
think gives a shit about some fool over in the UK or anywhere else in the
world?
Has the BBC or CNN taken this so called defamation seriously?
"Loss of fame"? Surely the guy doesn't rely on a few people from the
newsgroup for fame. You must be joking, to seriously make an assumption
like that?
If you have any so called "fame", Brian lad, then you might as well know
that it doesn't mean a damn thing to me. Especially if whatever you think
that you have has actually come from the news groups.
This so called agreement that you're going on about, wasn't the result of
any excessive pressure being put onto someone to make such an agreement was
it? It's not likely that someone was actually THREATENED into making such
an agreement was it?
I think Brian that you would have a bloody hard job proving that anyone had
any so called actual "fame" in the newsgroups to start with.
Have you ever thought that the few people that take part in these newsgroups
might think that you don't know the difference between full worldwide media
attention through all channels including TV, radio, and newspapers.
Compared to a very limited small number of people that take part in what is
mostly just a lot of mindless chatter in the newsgroup?
After seeing how you avoided to answer this good question:
"Can he point to the loss of jobs, contracts, etc?"
Which you can't possibly point to either. No doubt you'll avoid any other
such questions that don't happen to suit you to answer properly. If you
don't know what affect it's had on him, then how can you then say that it's
had any possible affect on him at all, including any so called "fame" that
he might've had or even not had within the newsgroups.
E. Scrooge
Gib Bogle
> Learn to read. The growing balls statement was finished (hence the commas)
> and the self-important/egotistical part were "standalone" additions. I told
> him to "grow some balls" in the context of not being so "hurt" by what others
> may say about him.
Oh. So balls reduce sensitivity. Interesting idea.
E. Scrooge
So in your view it's quite legal to threaten someone to make them cough up
some money, Brian?
Defamation - Shouldn't happen.
Threatening money out of someone - Totally illegal.
Who's to "legally" decide if in fact any defamation took place, along with
any possible penalties for it, you or the courts?
Godfrey may well have deserved the apology that he rightfully got. But to
say if he or anyone else "won" (in your own word) anything else from it is
starting to stretch things a bit. In the tactics that used to get money
from the student did he still keep "winning" (as you like to call it). Did
the student's brilliant apology not prove beyond doubt what he was actually
threatened into agreeing to by Godfrey?
There are no winners Brian, but perhaps one of them in the aftermath of it
all is a damn sight bigger loser than the other one is.
It's interesting that while believing that Godfrey was 100% right in all of
his actions, that you chose to do a search with regard to his past conduct
involving his activities within the news groups. That could well be an
invasion of ones privacy, as all emails are considered to be just as private
as any other mail is, even if a certain number of people do get to see it.
And some people do refer to posts as emails.
E. Scrooge
Old Man
news:59ou7uovroen0b4os...@4ax.com...
Codez is neither clever nor a physicist.
[Old Man]
Dan Riley
Depends on the jurisdiction. If the remailer is notified of the
defamation and takes no action, they may lose their protection under
UK law. See the case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet--there's a link in
a previous post of mine. NZ and AU law may be similar, since they
descend from the same tradition (US law does to, but the US Bill of
Rights drastically changed the standards and burden of proof for
defamation and libel).
Ron sometimes
> > Scrooge. You obviously need to read up on defamation.
>
> In which country?
Hint -- "I, Vitali Deev of Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, make
the following apology".
> > > By the looks of it from what I've seen (not that I've seen all the
> > > crap involved, mind you), after getting a small dent in their car,
> > > someone now wants the car totally replaced. They see a chance to make
> > > a gain from it,and they went for it.
> >
> > You really DO need to read something about defamation.
>
> In which country?
Hint -- "I, Vitali Deev of Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, make
the following apology".
>
> >I heard an entirely untrue dfeamatory remark made on
> > radio about a person I know. She didn't hear the broadcast and as far
> > as I know I was the only person who identifed her as the one defamed
> > by the remark. The radio station eventually apologised to her and the
> > radio person was fired.
> How nice.
If you think so. Nice or not, it's a risk faced by anyone who defames
another.
> > > Why shouldn't the Queen make some
> > > money out of it as well? After all she was insulted on worldwide TV
> > > (notjust in some tin pot little newsgroup). If it's good enough for
> > > a "user" of a very very small newsgroup, then it must be good enough
> > > for the Queen to get whatever money that she can out of Helen Clark.
> > Sorry to press the point Scrooge but you must read a little about
> > defamation. Dr Godfrey was defamed -- Lizzie wasn't.
> What damages did he suffer from this defamation? Can he point to the
> loss of jobs, contracts, etc?
He didn't need to. Defamation doesn't only require the defamed to have
loss of job or contracts.
> I'm not drawing conclusions, just asking.
Ask Dr Godfrey. His e-mail was included in his post here.
> (snip) Recently, a California judge pointed out that
> the internet is not like a newspaper in that it enables one to talk back
> and refute defamatory material.
Inference -- Californian law allows someone to publish defamatory
remarks on the internet but not in print? In NZ if you post something on
the internet you have 'published' it.
> It's not that easy to win a libel judgment in the US for this and many
> other reasons.
Irrelevant. And we were talking about defamation. No, I am not going to
do research for you.
ronh
Ron sometimes
> "Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3c7fd343....@news.wave.co.nz...
> > On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:33:02 -0500, "Gil" <g...@gil.gil> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >What damages did he suffer from this defamation?
> >
> > Presumably, at the very least, a loss of "fame". (snip)
> > Brian
>
> But how many people even bothered to notice it? (snip)
Scrooge, you REALLY DO need to learn something about defamation.
ronh
Brian
wrote:
>> >What damages did he suffer from this defamation?
>>
>> Presumably, at the very least, a loss of "fame". That is the nature
>> of all defamation. Most people value that extremely highly.
>
>For one to lose "fame" one has to have "fame" in the first place.
We ALL have fame.
>This Dr Tosser was a complete nobody to me until this thread started.
>Now I know he's just a loser who loves to sue people at the drop of
>a hat due to a feeling of extreme self-importance.
Or perhaps to an objection to having defamatory things said about him.
Read the apology again! Vitali Deev (codeZ) said that he made "false
and defamatory statements". I'm impressed with Vitali for being
willing to make such an apology. It must have been a difficult thing
for him to have done.
Now you attack the victim of these false allegations, and seem to
ignore what had actually been done!
Absolutely amazing.
And you call *him* tosser!
Brian
Brian
(z replaces x)> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3c7fd343....@news.wave.co.nz...
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:33:02 -0500, "Gil" <g...@gil.gil> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >What damages did he suffer from this defamation?
>>
>> Presumably, at the very least, a loss of "fame". That is the nature
>> of all defamation. Most people value that extremely highly.
>>
>> Note that we are not discussing whether he was defamed or not. That
>> question has been decided in this case, by the offender agreeing that
>> defamation had occurred.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Can he point to the loss of jobs, contracts, etc?
>>
>> I do not see the relevance of this question. That could be relevant
>> in deciding the seriousness of the defamation, and in setting
>> penalties. But in this case that issue has already been agreed between
>> the offender and the person defamed. They both agreed that a suitable
>> penalty would be that an apology be given, and money given to
>> specified charities.
>>
>> Brian
>
>But how many people even bothered to notice it?
The number of people are irrelevant to the question of defamation.
Vitali Deev has accepted that he has defamed Laurence Godfrey. He has
apologised. Why do you question his apology?
> How many people do you
>think bother with the newsgroups, and out of those, how many people do you
>think gives a shit about some fool over in the UK or anywhere else in the
>world?
Irrelevant.
>Has the BBC or CNN taken this so called defamation seriously?
>"Loss of fame"? Surely the guy doesn't rely on a few people from the
>newsgroup for fame. You must be joking, to seriously make an assumption
>like that?
You show a complete lack of appreciation of the nature of fame. Do
some homework.
>If you have any so called "fame", Brian
We ALL have fame.
> lad,
interesting thing to add in such a discussion. Can you not argue the
facts by themselves, without attacking the person ... no matter how
small the intended slight?
>then you might as well know
>that it doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
That is *your* choice. But most people are concerned about their
reputation. That is why our country, and most other countries have
laws against defamation.
If you want to argue that defamation does not exist, that is your
right, but it is also another topic. In this case the perpetrator
and victim, have agreed on what happened, and have come to a mutually
satisfactory solution.
>Especially if whatever you think
>that you have has actually come from the news groups.
My fame is affected by everything I do.
>This so called agreement that you're going on about, wasn't the result of
>any excessive pressure being put onto someone to make such an agreement was
>it?
What evidence do you have for so called pressure? And so what,
anyway? A good defence against defamation is that the statements are
true. In this case the person apologising agreed that they were NOT
true.
>It's not likely that someone was actually THREATENED into making such
>an agreement was it?
>
>I think Brian that you would have a bloody hard job proving that anyone had
>any so called actual "fame" in the newsgroups to start with.
I don't have to "prove" it. It's a fact. We ALL have fame.
>
>Have you ever thought that the few people that take part in these newsgroups
>might think that you don't know the difference between full worldwide media
>attention through all channels including TV, radio, and newspapers.
>Compared to a very limited small number of people that take part in what is
>mostly just a lot of mindless chatter in the newsgroup?
That is irrelevant. As others have pointed out, you need to do a
little bit of research about defamation.
>
>After seeing how you avoided to answer this good question:
>"Can he point to the loss of jobs, contracts, etc?"
As I've responded before. That is irrelevant to the question of being
defamed. It may be relevant to assessing damages.
But the issue is not relevant in this case. Defamation was accepted
by Vitali, who admitted making false allegations and defaming Laurence
Godfrey. And the parties concerned had negotiated the settlement.
If *they* are in agreement, why the hell do you wish to question the
validity of their decision?
>Which you can't possibly point to either. No doubt you'll avoid any other
>such questions that don't happen to suit you to answer properly. If you
>don't know what affect it's had on him, then how can you then say that it's
>had any possible affect on him at all, including any so called "fame" that
>he might've had or even not had within the newsgroups.
As I replied to you above, and also in another reply to "Steve
Austin", we ALL have fame.
Brian
Brian
<ga...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:40:10 GMT, laur...@godfreynet.net (Laurence
>Godfrey) wrote:
>>
>>As it happens this is precisely what was agreed yesterday between the
>>parties.
>>
>>Laurence
>>>
>
>Hmmm.......Looks like Netlibel can be a lucrative career change
>given the articles I've just finished reading about your exploits.
Doesn't appear so to me. Perhaps for the legal teams involved. If
anybody seriously thinks that spending 250,000 GBP with a chance of
losing the lot, and a potential gain of 15,000 GBP, is a "lucrative
career", I'd suggest they were stupid.
It sounds like the actions to me of a person who values his reputation
exteremely highly.
Why is Godfrey demonised for success in this legal action, and not the
internet company for their actions?
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_695000/695596.stm
>So is this the real you in this photo? Just curious.
From the above URL:
"I don't think there is a right, in fact I'm quite sure there's no
right, to libel other people on the internet, to concoct fabricated
allegations and try to destroy people's reputations."
"Dr Godfrey said his argument had been vindicated and he now hoped
ISPs would act responsibly if anyone else found themselves in a
similar situation"
I'd support those sentiments.
Brian
Brian
(z replaces x)> wrote:
>So in your view it's quite legal to threaten someone to make them cough up
>some money, Brian?
Where is there any evidence of threatening behaviour?
>Defamation - Shouldn't happen.
>Threatening money out of someone - Totally illegal.
It is not illegal to take action against another person using lawful
means .. such as the courts. I do not know whether Laurence Godfrey
did this or not, but I see no reason why he should not have. And if
he was contemplating doing so, I think it would be quite appropriate
for him to have informed the person he intended taking action against.
Definitely NOT illegal.
>Who's to "legally" decide if in fact any defamation took place, along with
>any possible penalties for it, you or the courts?
In this case, the two parties came to an agreement outside of the
courts.
>Godfrey may well have deserved the apology that he rightfully got. But to
>say if he or anyone else "won" (in your own word) anything else from it is
>starting to stretch things a bit. In the tactics that used to get money
>from the student did he still keep "winning" (as you like to call it).
He got NO money! The agreement was for money to be given to charity!
If they had both agreed that Laurence Godfrey got some money, I would
not begrudge that either, but in this case, it didn't happen.
>Did
>the student's brilliant apology not prove beyond doubt what he was actually
>threatened into agreeing to by Godfrey?
Absolutely not. It proves that he agreed that he had defamed.
You seem to read all sorts of things into a full stop, the spaces
between lines, and your own imagination, it seems.
>There are no winners Brian, but perhaps one of them in the aftermath of it
>all is a damn sight bigger loser than the other one is.
Perhaps the alternative is that they are both winners? Laurence
Godfrey has got back his reputation. Vitali Deev has an opportunity
to reclaim his self respect.
>It's interesting that while believing that Godfrey was 100% right in all of
>his actions, that you chose to do a search with regard to his past conduct
>involving his activities within the news groups.
Why is that interesting? They were referred to. I wanted to find out
more. Simple as that.
> That could well be an
>invasion of ones privacy, as all emails are considered to be just as private
>as any other mail is, even if a certain number of people do get to see it.
>And some people do refer to posts as emails.
You are suggesting that referring to the web, is invading a person's
privacy! That is the most stupid thing I've seen written on usenet
for a long long time. Alt.usenet.kooks type of stuff.
Brian
E. Scrooge
"Ron sometimes" <freshf...@xtraspam.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1f8f9s5.as4pl7zcyx5yN%freshf...@xtraspam.co.nz...
You need to know the difference between spreading something around a few
people, compared to spreading all over the media where half the world could
possibly see it. Also if he didn't have any fame as far as anyone in the
newsgroups are concerned, then how could he lose something that no could
care whether he had it or not in the first place?
If you were to assault someone, you should know the difference between
pushing them, compared to putting them in Hospital. Both are assaults, but
one is a Hell of a lot more serious than the other one is.
It's very doubtful if you'd notice the difference, though.
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
Going by you and your lack of understanding of the difference between
spreading something in a small group compared to going to the worldwide
media about it. If I was to write some crap about you down on a piece of
paper defaming you, you'd say that was just as bad as going on nationwide TV
about it.
You just said that any level of difference is completely "irrelevant". If
you bump into someone with your car, would you consider that to be just as
serious as knocking them down and killing them?
Would you say that difference was also "irrelevant"?
As for us having fame. Do you really believe that you were replying to Lee
Majors (the $6,000,000 man)? LOL
As for yourself, you could be a female stripper for all that I know about
someone that chooses to call themselves "Brian". While what you post under
might well mean something to you, it means bugger all to me.
You show a complete lack of just how meaningless the newsgroups can be at
times. For the a big proportion of the time, they're used for nothing more
than entertainment.
It might surprise and upset you somewhat, but I'd be willing to bet that a
lot of people that take part in these groups couldn't give two stuffs about
this thread and the conversations in it. Unlike yourself, it doesn't worry
me if bugger all people bother to waste their time reading all this.
E. Scrooge
White Rabbit
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:40:10 GMT, laur...@godfreynet.net (Laurence
> Godfrey) wrote:
>>
>>As it happens this is precisely what was agreed yesterday between the
>>parties.
>>
>>Laurence
>>>
>>>
> Hmmm.......Looks like Netlibel can be a lucrative career change given
> the articles I've just finished reading about your exploits.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_695000/695596.stm
>
> So is this the real you in this photo? Just curious.
Hi, Kooky!
How've you been?
Waaaay too litigious here (at least, for max). I'm heading back to the
other place.
--
White Rabbit
Steve Austin
> ignore what had actually been done!
>
> Absolutely amazing.
>
> And you call *him* tosser!
Truth be known: I was trying to rile the good Dr up to see if he would
threaten to sue ME. Apparently he's so quick to do so, I had to test it
for myself. No, I don't have anything better to do with my time. :)
person x
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:58:49 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
> >So in your view it's quite legal to threaten someone to make them cough
up
> >some money, Brian?
>
> Where is there any evidence of threatening behaviour?
"About a week ago I was contacted by Dr X and asked to disclose
my full name and address or he would issue proceedings in the English High
Court for my statements."
E. Scrooge
In that case you'd say that you're not responsible for anything that you
happen to post into the newsgroups? That must be right wouldn't it, Brian?
In the case that clever Kooky has found.
Did the ISP involved actually post the damaging material concerning Godfrey
themselves?
Now think carefully, Brian.
Or did the ISP simply provide a service for anyone to post messages into it,
including any possible damaging ones?
If you were to defame Dr Godfrey, should he go after you, or should he go
after your ISP. Would it possibly depend on who can afford to pay the most?
"If anybody seriously thinks that spending 250,000 GBP with a chance of
losing the lot, and a potential gain of 15,000 GBP, is a "lucrative
career", I'd suggest they were stupid."
You said that anyone spent 250,000 GBP? It never said that at all. The ISP
paid out £15,000 in a settlement instead of possibly taking the chance of
losing up to £200,000.
Brian, do you actually believe that your ISP should be guilty of everything
that you choose to post in the news groups? And do you believe that your
ISP should be guilty of everything that you do on the net itself?
Think about it, Brian. If you believe that the ISPs should be, then no fool
would bother providing an ISP under those conditions.
These posts are stored on many ISPs as well as Google. How can you go after
just 1 ISP for providing the same service that a lot of other ISPs also do?
"Why is Godfrey demonised for success in this legal action, and not the
internet company for their actions?"
Because the ISP never posted the information in the first place. Your ISP
doesn't write your messages for you, does it? That's some service you've
got there, Brian. Do you ring up your ISP and dictate to some poor sod the
nonsense that you would like them to post into the news groups for you? LOL
"Hello? I've got another message I'd like you do for me and post into the
newsgroup, in reply to that prick Scrooge again."
LOL
One could ask you, Brian. Why do you disrespect Dr Godfrey by just simply
calling him "Godfrey"?
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:58:49 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
> >So in your view it's quite legal to threaten someone to make them cough
up
> >some money, Brian?
>
> Where is there any evidence of threatening behaviour?
No one said that there wasn't any. But why would the student be silly
enough to payout so much money spread around different charities? Obviously
if he felt that he had a choice in the matter, he would've just left it at
the apology. Pass well proven records have provided more than enough
evidence that just a simple apology wouldn't be good enough for Dr G.
Besides it was a stand alone question that looked easy enough for anyone to
understand and answer it, without having to answer it with another question
like you chose to do.
If you can't answer the simple question, then just say so, Brian.
> >Defamation - Shouldn't happen.
> >Threatening money out of someone - Totally illegal.
>
> It is not illegal to take action against another person using lawful
> means .. such as the courts. I do not know whether Laurence Godfrey
> did this or not, but I see no reason why he should not have. And if
> he was contemplating doing so, I think it would be quite appropriate
> for him to have informed the person he intended taking action against.
> Definitely NOT illegal.
"Possibly" telling someone to pay up or they'll end up being sued for
thousands of pounds in court, if they don't choose to settle on paying some
cash right away. Could well be considered as a threat to make sure that the
student pays up without any fuss. After all suing people isn't new to DR G,
as you well know he's done in it before, and "could've" very well informed
the lad of that very fact, as a "possible" way of applying even more
pressure to make him pay up quickly.
Informing someone that they may take legal court action is one thing. But
to "possibly" tell them that if they don't come up with some cash, then
they'll take them to the courts to decide, is a threat to get an instant
cash payout
> >Who's to "legally" decide if in fact any defamation took place, along
with
> >any possible penalties for it, you or the courts?
>
> In this case, the two parties came to an agreement outside of the
> courts.
Yes that was an agreement, but it was one the a "legal" court had made. If
I hadn't said "legally" decide... - then your reply would've been quite
true. But as far as the courts know, no defamation between the 2 parties
even took place, simply because it never reached the courts for them to then
have the chance to "legally" decide on it.
> >Godfrey may well have deserved the apology that he rightfully got. But
to
> >say if he or anyone else "won" (in your own word) anything else from it
is
> >starting to stretch things a bit. In the tactics that used to get money
> >from the student did he still keep "winning" (as you like to call it).
>
> He got NO money! The agreement was for money to be given to charity!
> If they had both agreed that Laurence Godfrey got some money, I would
> not begrudge that either, but in this case, it didn't happen.
The point is that more than likely some pressure was applied for the student
to payup, no matter where the money ended up.
> >Did
> >the student's brilliant apology not prove beyond doubt what he was
actually
> >threatened into agreeing to by Godfrey?
>
> Absolutely not. It proves that he agreed that he had defamed.
>
> You seem to read all sorts of things into a full stop, the spaces
> between lines, and your own imagination, it seems.
> >There are no winners Brian, but perhaps one of them in the aftermath of
it
> >all is a damn sight bigger loser than the other one is.
>
> Perhaps the alternative is that they are both winners? Laurence
> Godfrey has got back his reputation. Vitali Deev has an opportunity
> to reclaim his self respect.
But just which reputation are you talking about? The one that he obviously
has for suing people, or some other kind of reputation that not many people
actually know about?
> >It's interesting that while believing that Godfrey was 100% right in all
of
> >his actions, that you chose to do a search with regard to his past
conduct
> >involving his activities within the news groups.
>
> Why is that interesting? They were referred to. I wanted to find out
> more. Simple as that.
>
> > That could well be an
> >invasion of ones privacy, as all emails are considered to be just as
private
> >as any other mail is, even if a certain number of people do get to see
it.
> >And some people do refer to posts as emails.
>
> You are suggesting that referring to the web, is invading a person's
> privacy! That is the most stupid thing I've seen written on usenet
> for a long long time. Alt.usenet.kooks type of stuff.
>
> Brian
But then that depends on just what you're searching for and your reasons for
it. Suppose that you had found that he'd been arrested at sometime long ago
in his past (just as an example)?
Would you then use something like that against someone that now has a good
reputation?
E. Scrooge
Brian
(z replaces x)> wrote:
Do you normally make so many assumptions?
Brian
Gil
The weakness I see with anonymous remailers is that they are inherently
defective, and cause this type of problem.
Brian
I don't understand how you draw such a conclusion.
I suggest you enrol in Logic 101
> That must be right wouldn't it, Brian?
Is there a 100 course?
>
>In the case that clever Kooky has found.
>Did the ISP involved actually post the damaging material concerning Godfrey
>themselves?
>
>Now think carefully, Brian.
>Or did the ISP simply provide a service for anyone to post messages into it,
>including any possible damaging ones?
You need to read the record, Scrooge.
In my opinion the ISP deserved to be sued.
So did the courts obviously.
>
>If you were to defame Dr Godfrey, should he go after you, or should he go
>after your ISP. Would it possibly depend on who can afford to pay the most?
I'm not sure where you are coming from. From reading above, you have
little clue about the case with Demon Internet. You need to read the
record.
If somebody is responsible for defamation, an action can be taken
against them. Simple as that. Whether it be a person posting on the
internet, or the ISP.
>"If anybody seriously thinks that spending 250,000 GBP with a chance of
>losing the lot, and a potential gain of 15,000 GBP, is a "lucrative
>career", I'd suggest they were stupid."
>
>You said that anyone spent 250,000 GBP? It never said that at all. The ISP
>paid out £15,000 in a settlement instead of possibly taking the chance of
>losing up to £200,000.
Legal fees, Scrooge.
Read a little Scrooge. It's not too hard.
>Brian, do you actually believe that your ISP should be guilty of everything
>that you choose to post in the news groups? And do you believe that your
>ISP should be guilty of everything that you do on the net itself?
An ISP is responsible for their own actions, Scrooge.
>Think about it, Brian. If you believe that the ISPs should be, then no fool
>would bother providing an ISP under those conditions.
It's not too hard, Scrooge. ISPs seem to have survived quite well
since the Demon case. You need to read up on WHY they were found
culpable, Scrooge.
>
>These posts are stored on many ISPs as well as Google. How can you go after
>just 1 ISP for providing the same service that a lot of other ISPs also do?
Read about the case for five minutes, Scooge, instead of hypothesising
here for five minutes.
>"Why is Godfrey demonised for success in this legal action, and not the
>internet company for their actions?"
>
>Because the ISP never posted the information in the first place. Your ISP
>doesn't write your messages for you, does it? That's some service you've
>got there, Brian. Do you ring up your ISP and dictate to some poor sod the
>nonsense that you would like them to post into the news groups for you? LOL
>"Hello? I've got another message I'd like you do for me and post into the
>newsgroup, in reply to that prick Scrooge again."
>LOL
You may have "lots of laughter" but the laughs on you. It seems
you've got no idea why they were found guilty bt the courts. Read,
Scrooge.
>One could ask you, Brian. Why do you disrespect Dr Godfrey by just simply
>calling him "Godfrey"?
No disrespect intended. If any disrespect is read, I'll apologise.
Brian
Peter
<ke...@xtra.co.nz.lackofspam> wrote:
>> Where is there any evidence of threatening behaviour?
>
>"About a week ago I was contacted by Dr X and asked to disclose
>my full name and address or he would issue proceedings in the English High
>Court for my statements."
>
>
I would hope that NZ ISP's respect the Privacy Act and do not divulge
names and addresses of E-mail users unless a NZ Court orders
otherwise.
If Dr X obtained such a name and address in contravention of the NZ
Privacy Act, this would appear to be good reason for any British High
Court decision to be unenforceable in NZ.
White Rabbit
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 03:05:25 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>>
>>"I don't think there is a right, in fact I'm quite sure there's no
>>right, to libel other people on the internet, to concoct fabricated
>>allegations and try to destroy people's reputations."
>>
>>"Dr Godfrey said his argument had been vindicated and he now hoped ISPs
>>would act responsibly if anyone else found themselves in a similar
>>situation"
>>
>>
>>I'd support those sentiments.
>>
>>Brian
>
> Well prior to this thread I'd never even heard of him but a quick search
> on google and he certainly is a legend in his own time. :o)
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=godfrey+net-legend&btnG=Google+Search
Some comments on Mr. Godfrey's alleged modus operandi:
-------
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:SfZui_uxYVUC:www.universitybusiness.com/9807/legal.html>
Cornell lawyer Nelson Roth says Cornell was willing to act on Godfrey's
complaints under the university's code of conduct, but only if he followed
university procedures-which Godfrey declined to do. "[The case] is part of
Mr. Godfrey's tactic, which has been characterized elsewhere as 'bait and
sue,'" says Roth. "He engages in puerile and infantile exchanges making
derogatory, nasty, and, perhaps, some might say, racist comments. He gets
response. Then he'll immediately fire off a complaint and demand damages.
We think it's a form of legal extortion."
--------
<http://normative.zusammenhaenge.at/faelle/godfrey_v_demon.html>
In his latest judgement (23 April), Mr Justice Morland allowed a
substantial amendment to the defence, recognising Dr Godfrey's documented
provocative conduct, stating:
"It could well be submitted that these postings are puerile, unseemly and
provocative. In effect, they invite vulgar and abusive response. As Mr
Barca (Demon's legal counsel) put it these postings are designed to tempt
people to overstep the mark and defame the Plaintiff so that he can sue."
--------
--
White Rabbit
Dirk Van de moortel
"codeZ" <de...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a5l0tu$q6g$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> I, Vitali Deev of Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand, make the following
> apology.
[snip]
> Vitali Deev
Looks like you have been Godfrey'd too:
http://groups.google.com/groups?num=20&hl=en&newwindow=1&q=%22have+been+godfrey%27d%22&btnG=Google+Search
Dirk Vdm
E. Scrooge
It would appear that there's really no need for you to apologise to this guy
over a little thing like that, compared to the postings that it appears that
he's done about places and people in order to get into a nasty little debate
with them. And can you guess his reasons for possibly doing such posts that
would be sure to put peoples backs up, in the hope of possibly provoking a
nasty response out of them?
From the information that's come to me, there's a good chance that you might
well be the Brian Ross that has been in Canada, or is at least associated
with Canada, and you either are, or once were a student.
Now then you might find the information that the White Rabbit has found on
the website in the Rabbit's post of some interest, since you could well be
quite familiar with Canada, or at least you have the good sense to know damn
well just what is insulting, and what isn't. Here's the bit about what is
alleged that the person that you fully support has posted about Canada and
the good people of Canada:
"Postings allegedly made by the Plaintiff about Canada:-
"...Toronto...next to Ottawa is the most boring city in the most boring
country in the world. As for importing criminal immigrants, instead of
complaining I think you Canadians should be grateful for any immigrants you
can get. Frankly, I think it's extraordinary that you are able to persuade
anyone to go to live in Canada. I assume these people have either been
misinformed, or like so many Canadian immigrants, have been unable to get
into any other country and have ended up in Canada as their last resort"
"Judging by your post, and knowing your awful country as I do, I should
think that after finding out what Canada is really like they too would be
much happier had they not gone to live there."
"Does Canada deport people for being 'arseholes'? It hardly seems credible,
as most of Canada's population would now be living elsewhere."
"A Canadian is a bigoted, boring, uneducated, apathetic, untalented
individual, rightly suffering from a massive inferiority complex about being
Canadian."
"I suspend my manners when dealing with Canadians. Moreover I am quite
entitled to re-post any racist garbage I receive by e-mail from Canadians,
or anything else I wish to post""
Have a good look at that website Brian, it would appear that your hero can
be quite abusive when he wants to be.
Would you treat any German tourists like this (as below from the same
website), Brian, and would support anyone that does?
"I always go out of my way to be as rude as possible to German tourists when
I encounter them in public places (I want them to feel as uncomfortable and
unwelcome here as they made me feel in their country when I lived there),
and I find this is usually rather easy for me as German travellers tend to
behave in an aggressive [sic] arrogant and superior way."
What a great guy eh, Brian? You don't think that the foreign student in
Christchurch might well have been provoked into posting what he did, do you?
E. Scrooge
Brian
Godfrey) wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:00:47 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
>(z replaces x)> wrote:
>>"Postings allegedly made by the Plaintiff about Canada:-
>
>Notice the word "allegedly". Do you know what it means?
Scrooge needs to understand both the meaning of the word, and also
that allegations are easy to make. The questions that I do not
understand are
(1) why he chooses to believe the allegations, rather than what has
transpired later in court, where such allegations have been shown to
be false
(2) why he chooses to attack the victim of defamation, rather than
providing support. In both the Demon case that he has referred to, and
in the most recent New Zealand case, Laurence Godfrey has been shown
to have been defamed.
>I include an extract from a press briefing put out after my 2 cases
>against Demon (in which those allegations were made) were won by me:
>'Concerning Demon's claim that Dr Godfrey provoked the libellous
>postings in question, Dr. Godfrey commented: "I am very glad that
>Demon have finally apologised for and withdrawn the misconceived claim
>that I provoked the libellous postings. The provocation allegation was
>nothing but a costly red herring. Some of the statements attributed to
>me, including the very words which were alleged to have provoked the
>first libel, were not mine at all." '
>
>>What a great guy eh, Brian? You don't think that the foreign student in
>>Christchurch might well have been provoked into posting what he did, do you?
>
>I suggest you read the whole of the following, before repeating the
>false allegations of provocation. And in future, try informing
>yourself before going around throwing around false allegations.
>Otherwise you may find yourself having to prove in court something
>that cannot be proven.
Scrooge may call that a "threat". I call it reasonable advice.
Scrooge has NO evidence that the student was "provoked". From the
evidence that I've seen, that was definitely not the case.
The student did the honorable thing and apologised. I do not
understand why Scrooge should take it upon himself and undermine that
apology.
I have no further comment on the press clippings. Normally I'd snip
here, but I think in this case people like Scrooge need to be given
every opportunity to READ the contents. I'll leave intact. Thankyou
Laurence for the information.
Brian
>DEBACLE FOR DEMON
>DEMON ADMITS DEFEAT IN INTERNET LIBEL ACTIONS - 30 March 2000
>
>In a dramatic last-minute collapse, it was announced today that Demon
>Internet Limited have agreed to pay Laurence Godfrey a sum estimated
>to be a quarter of a million pounds in costs and damages in two libel
>actions brought by Dr. Godfrey. Demon are also liable for their own
>legal costs estimated at several hundred thousand pounds.
>
>The trial of the first of the two actions was due to begin on Monday
>3rd April. The case would have been the first major contested Internet
>libel trial to come to the High Court in England.
>
>In a ruling last year, Mr Justice Morland held in effect that ISPs
>could not ignore requests for removal by the victims of defamatory
>Usenet postings. Despite this, Demon continued to fight these cases
>virtually to the door of the court.
>
>Demon, an Internet service provider now owned by Thus plc.(formerly
>Scottish Telecom), provide its customers with access to Usenet
>newsgroups via its news servers. Dr. Godfrey, an English physicist,
>brought the first of these two cases over a 1997 Usenet message which
>was forged so as to appear to have been written by him. The second
>case was concerned with a libellous message posted by one of Demon's
>own customers in 1998.
>
>In an agreed statement made in the High Court today, Demon apologised
>to Dr. Godfrey for not removing the defamatory postings from its news
>servers. Demon also apologised to Dr. Godfrey for the injury and
>distress they had caused him. Demon further apologised for wrongly
>alleging in its defence that Dr. Godfrey had deliberately provoked the
>libellous postings. Demon consented to a court order by which it is to
>pay Dr. Godfrey £15,000 damages and his legal costs in both libel
>actions (estimated at £230,000).
>
>Dr. Godfrey said after today's announcement: "I am delighted with the
>result. It is sad that it has taken more than 3 years of sustained
>effort to redress a wrong that could so easily have been avoided by
>Demon and to extract an apology from them."
>
>Nick Braithwaite, Dr Godfrey's solicitor said: "This was a David and
>Goliath case which Goliath could never hope to win. It has established
>a firm precedent that ISPs can be publishers in English libel law, and
>the scale of damages extracted demonstrates the capacity of the
>Internet to blight a person's reputation."
>
>The cost to Demon of defending both actions is likely to be in the
>region of half a million pounds most of it in the first action. There
>never was any realistic defence to either action and, as Demon confirm
>in today's statement, they have never sought to suggest that there was
>any truth in either of the libels. Dr Godfrey said today: "If Demon
>had taken the simple steps that I had asked of them at the outset,
>this monumental waste of money could have been avoided. Demon have
>established a precedent which they claim has adversely affected the
>ISP industry. All that they have to show for their efforts is a bill
>for about half a million pounds, defeat at the hands of a physicist
>with limited resources and a large dose of humble pie."
>
>Concerning Demon's claim that Dr Godfrey provoked the libellous
>postings in question, Dr. Godfrey commented: "I am very glad that
>Demon have finally apologised for and withdrawn the misconceived claim
>that I provoked the libellous postings. The provocation allegation was
>nothing but a costly red herring. Some of the statements attributed to
>me, including the very words which were alleged to have provoked the
>first libel, were not mine at all."
>
>Finally Dr. Godfrey commented: "While I started these actions on my
>own, I owe my success to the dedication and skill of my legal
>advisers; to my wife and friends who have supported me throughout; and
>to the kindness and generosity of those who agreed to be witnesses. I
>am glad to have been vindicated in bringing these actions and in my
>reputation."
>
>INFORMATION
>
>A copy of the Statement in Open Court which was read out today by Mr
>Gordon Bishop is attached.
>
>
>
>STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT
>
>Counsel for the Claimant (Gordon Bishop)
>
>My Lord, in this action for libel I appear on behalf of the Claimant,
>Dr Laurence Godfrey. The Defendant, Demon Internet Limited, is
>represented by my learned friend Mr Daniel Gosland.
>
>Dr Godfrey is a physicist who has lectured in physics, mathematics and
>computer science and conducted research in nuclear physics at various
>academic institutions throughout the world.
>
>Demon is an Internet Service Provider, now owned by Thus plc. At the
>beginning of 1997 Demon was the largest English ISP having some
>90,000 subscribers. One of the Internet services it provides is
>access via its news servers to Usenet newsgroups. One of those
>newsgroups is called "soc.culture.thai", a discussion group for those
>interested in the political and social affairs of Thailand.
>
>On 12 January 1997 a posting appeared on the soc.culture.thai
>newsgroup, as carried by the Demon news servers, which purported to
>have been made by Dr Godfrey, but was in fact a forgery. It was
>squalid, obscene and defamatory of Dr Godfrey. Not surprisingly he
>took strong exception to it and made strenuous efforts to have it
>removed, including sending several faxes to Demon asking them to
>remove it from their news servers. Regrettably Demon did nothing
>about the posting with the result that it remained on Demon's news
>servers until its expiry on about 27 January 1997. A letter of
>complaint sent a few days later by Dr Godfrey's solicitor was also
>unanswered. Consequently, Dr Godfrey commenced proceedings against
>Demon.
>
>In July of the following year another posting, this time originating
>from one of Demon's own customers, made further defamatory allegations
>about Dr Godfrey. That posting appeared in the uk.legal newsgroup,
>which has a much wider readership in this country than
>soc.culture.thai. Once again, Dr Godfrey's requests for removal were
>not complied with by Demon and he felt compelled to bring a second
>action in respect of that posting.
>
>My Lord, Demon has never sought to suggest that there was any truth in
>either of these libels but contended that it was not responsible or
>liable for their publication and was not under any duty to remove them
>from its news servers. The legal position has now been clarified
>during the course of this case, and this has resulted in Demon and its
>new owners changing their procedures.
>
>Demon has now agreed to pay Dr Godfrey damages together with his legal
>costs in respect of both actions and Dr Godfrey is satisfied that
>this payment will afford proper recompense for the injury and distress
>that he has suffered. Demon is also here today by its solicitor to
>apologise to Dr Godfrey for not removing the postings from its servers
>and for alleging in its defence that Dr Godfrey had deliberately
>provoked them, a contention which it now withdraws. In those
>circumstances Dr Godfrey is content to take matters no further and I
>am happy to inform your Lordship that the parties have resolved all
>their differences.
>
>Solicitor for the Defendant (Mr Daniel Gosland)
>
>My Lord, on behalf of the Defendant I accept all that my learned
>friend has said. Demon regrets that it did not remove the postings
>when it was notified of their defamatory content by Dr Godfrey and is
>happy to take this opportunity to apologise to him for the injury and
>distress he has been caused.
>
>Counsel for the Claimant
>
>My Lord, all that remains is for me to ask for permission to withdraw
>the record.
>
>
>
>BRIEFING NOTES
>
>In relation to the first libel action, Dr. Godfrey sent several faxes
>to Demon asking them to remove the forged posting from their news
>servers, but although the faxes were received by Demon they did not
>remove the posting. Shortly afterwards, a letter sent by Dr. Godfrey's
>solicitor was also unanswered. Said Dr. Godfrey: "I came to discover,
>as a result of my researches of comments made in newsgroup postings
>and elsewhere by Demon's staff, that I had been a victim of Demon's
>policy of not removing defamatory material from its news servers in
>response to complaints".
>
>When, more than two years later, a news article in ZDNet News (Fri, 11
>Jun 1999, by Jane Wakefield) reported: "David Furniss, Demon's
>managing director ... concedes there 'may have been a possibility of
>an administrative error on our part that caused a delay in the
>postings being removed'", Dr. Godfrey was surprised at this, having by
>then also found several examples of Demon's failure to respond to
>complaints about defamatory postings by other people.
>
>In a later article in ZDNet News (Fri, 9 Jul 1999), Jane Wakefield
>wrote: "..managing director David Furniss' comments on ZDNet News that
>the defamatory postings in the Godfrey case may have remained on its
>server due to an "administrative error". The ISP's defence was turning
>to debacle...". Dr. Godfrey commented: On the one hand, defamatory
>postings were not removed by Demon as a matter of policy, but in my
>case apparently three faxes and a letter were ignored as the result of
>'administrative error'".
>
>When Dr. Godfrey, who at the start of his first action was acting in
>person, issued libel proceedings a year after Demon failed to remove
>the defamatory posting, Demon vigorously defended the action. While
>Dr. Godfrey had made it clear that he only sought small damages, Demon
>continued to pour money into defending the first action even as their
>prospects of success dwindled.
>
>Demon initially pleaded in the first action that it was not a
>publisher; that its role in publication was passive; that it had no
>duty to remove a defamatory posting from its news servers once
>notified; and that it had a defence under section 1 of the Defamation
>Act 1996. (Section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 gives ISPs and others
>a defence where they were not at fault in disseminating a libellous
>article).
>
>In March 1999, a court ruling showed that all these assertions were
>entirely wrong. Dr. Godfrey, by then represented by Nick Braithwaite
>of solicitors Bindman and Partners and libel barrister Mr. Justin
>Rushbrooke, succeeded in striking out the relevant portions of Demon's
>defence. In a landmark judgment in the High Court on 26 March 1999,
>Mr. Justice Morland ruled that Demon were publishers at common law and
>that Demon's defence under s.1 of the Defamation Act 1996 was "in law
>hopeless".
>
>In the course of that hearing, Demon's counsel Mr. Manuel Barca went
>to some lengths to distinguish for the judge between the way Demon
>treated defamatory postings originating from its own customers and
>those which originated from elsewhere (as in the first action):
>"The originator of the message [in the first action] is not a customer
>or user of [a Demon] account...."
>"Demon accepts responsibility for what its customers do and even...for
>what people who are not necessarily its customers but are using its
>customers' accounts are doing"
>"..anyone using Demon to gain access to the Internet, Demon accepts
>that it has a controlling responsibility for."
>
>Yet, the second action (the writ for which had not at that time been
>issued) was in respect of a defamatory posting by a Demon customer
>which appeared just 7 months beforehand. Despite Mr. Barca's
>submissions to the contrary, in that case (just as in the first case)
>Dr. Godfrey's requests to Demon to remove the defamatory posting were
>not complied with.
>
>Immediately after the March 1999 judgment, Demon issued a press
>release saying that it would appeal the decision of Mr. Justice
>Morland in the interests of freedom of expression on the Internet. It
>continued to maintain this posture until, finally, the time to appeal
>expired in June 1999. Even after it was out of time, Demon insisted
>that it could still appeal: "David Furniss, Demon's managing
>director...told ZDNet [on 10 June 1999] ..that Demon may still go
>ahead with the appeal." (11 Jun 1999, ZDNet News, by Jane Wakefield).
>Demon never did lodge an appeal.
>
>Once the core of Demon's defence had been struck out in the first
>case, there appeared to be no reasonable prospect of Demon winning.
>Despite this, Demon sought and obtained leave to amend their defence
>in the first action (which they later adopted in the second action) so
>as to allege that Dr. Godfrey had deliberately provoked the defamatory
>posting.
>
>Today, almost a year later, Demon have finally acknowledged that these
>allegations were wrong: "Demon is here today ... to apologise to Dr.
>Godfrey for not removing the postings from its servers and for
>alleging in its defence that Dr. Godfrey had deliberately provoked
>them, a contention which it now withdraws".
>
>As a result of Demon's amendment, Dr. Godfrey was forced to obtain
>statements from a large number of witnesses in England and abroad and
>a huge number of documents. The amendment, which never had any real
>prospect of success, greatly increased the costs of both parties:
>costs for which Demon are now almost wholly liable.
>
>Demon's provocation amendment did nothing to advance its case, because
>it could not demonstrate any connection between Dr. Godfrey's
>statements and the libels in either of the actions. However, the
>amended pleading did cause further damage to Dr. Godfrey's reputation,
>particularly as Demon issued a press release that encouraged readers
>to view the second judgment of Mr. Justice Morland, which contained
>words wrongly attributed to Dr. Godfrey, by means of a sensational and
>misleading warning that the judgement contained "adult-oriented
>material that some people may find offensive". In a further press
>release dated 11th June 1999 Demon incorrectly implied that Mr.
>Justice Morland had found as a fact that Dr Godfrey's conduct was
>provocative.
>
>With still no prospect of winning the first action (the second not
>having yet been issued), Demon said: "We have in no way changed our
>stance, and are extremely confident of winning the case against Dr
>Laurence Godfrey" (11 June 1999).
>
>While wrongly alleging provocation and boasting about its prospects of
>success, Demon described Dr. Godfrey's claim in the first action as
>"scurrilous", "unsubstantiated" and "unjustified", and asserted that
>he was threatening the "entire ethos of freedom of speech on the
>Internet". In particular, Demon claimed to be champions of free
>speech: "Demon Internet continues its campaign in the interests of
>Internet users to ensure freedom of speech. It has not conceded in the
>court case brought by Laurence Godfrey and is committed to fight this
>and any such action".
>
>In June 1999 Dr. Godfrey discovered that, far from being champions of
>Internet free speech, Demon had itself successfully sued for libel
>over Usenet postings in 1996 (17 months before Dr. Godfrey issued his
>first action). The author, a former Demon employee, was served with a
>writ issued after he had publicly apologised for his comments. Demon
>and Mr. Stanford (the co-plaintiff and former managing director of
>Demon) obtained a default judgment for libel and an injunction against
>the author.
>
>Also in June 1999, copies of letters containing Dr. Godfrey's home
>address and telephone number were sent by Demon to several of their
>customers who had had their Usenet posting access barred by Demon
>because they had posted links to a copy of the libellous posting in
>the first action. As a result of Demon's letters, within hours Dr.
>Godfrey's personal details were re-published in various places on
>Usenet and the web and the safety of Dr. Godfrey's wife and child, as
>well as his own safety, was compromised. At the same time, Demon sent
>to those customers a copy of the libellous posting in the first
>action, despite Mr. Justice Morland having only recently agreed to Dr.
>Godfrey's request to omit the libellous words from his second
>judgement in order to avoid their unnecessary dissemination.
>
>When, in June 1999, Dr Godfrey made a formal offer to accept damages
>of £2,500 in the first case, Demon rejected the offer and announced a
>few days after the offer was made: "Demon Internet continues to fight
>the case, and is confident of winning it" (5 July 1999). Dr. Godfrey
>then instructed a leading libel barrister, Mr. Gordon Bishop, to
>present his case at the trial .
>
>Until 3 weeks ago, Demon took the position that Dr. Godfrey was not
>entitled to any damages at all. Again, Demon were entirely wrong. Of
>the £15,000 damages now to be paid to Dr. Godfrey, £5,000 is damages
>in the first action. Since rejecting Dr. Godfrey's offer of £2,500,
>Demon have succeeded in doubling their damages bill in that action at
>a price of several hundred thousand pounds of additional costs
>(incurred by both parties) in the 8 months leading to trial.
>
>In the second action, in which Dr. Godfrey was in person throughout,
>the defamatory posting originated from a Demon news server and was
>made by a Demon customer whose postings had previously been the
>subject of numerous complaints to Demon, from persons other than Dr
>Godfrey. In this case Dr. Godfrey claimed that Demon had failed to
>take reasonable care in respect of that customer and were therefore
>liable for publication from the outset (rather than once notified, as
>in the first case) and therefore also for publication to persons in
>England and Wales and elsewhere (rather than just readers of Demon's
>news servers as in the first case). Three weeks ago Demon made an
>offer to settle this action by paying the sum of £5 into court in
>respect of Dr. Godfrey's damages, which was not accepted. Today's
>settlement included a sum of £10,000 for damages in the second action,
>
>
>Despite briefing a leading libel QC and making an eleventh hour
>application, served only hours before the hearing, to bring forward
>the trial of the second action by about 8 months, in the end Demon was
>unable to break Dr. Godfrey's resolve and appears to have had no
>choice but to settle both actions, agreeing to pay damages and Dr.
>Godfrey's costs and to a statement being made in open court.
>
>Demon confirm that they have now changed their procedures for dealing
>with libellous messages. They insist that the law needed clarifying
>and indeed Dr. Godfrey's actions have done just that. However, the law
>has been clarified to be exactly as Dr. Godfrey understood it to be at
>the outset and exactly as his legal advisers advised him.
Brian
Why do you take the point of view that Vitali has had something done
to him? He has clearly apologised for what he has done. The evidence
that I have seen is clear that Vitali defamed Laurence Godfrey of his
own free will.
Vitali has done the honorable thing and publicly apologised for what
was said. I think that speaks a lot for him, in a very positive sense.
Why do you wish to undermine that apology, which must have been
extremely difficult to do?
Isn't it time to *support* victims of defamation, as we normally
support victims of all other sorts of crime?
Brian
Dirk Van de moortel
"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:3c81359f....@news.wave.co.nz...
I don't see a honourable thing here, and I don't see anyone deserving
support.
I see someone who was stupid enough to think that he could hide
behind Usenet "anonymity" and have some fun trying to make a fool
of someone else, and then, by whatever action was taken by the
"victim", be "forced" to write something that looks like an apology
I don't believe one single word of it.
I also see someone who seems be turning getting "defamed" into
some kind of art form.
Dirk Vdm
E. Scrooge
"Laurence Godfrey" <laur...@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
news:3c8f2715....@news.virgin.net...
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:00:47 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
> >news:3c807a70....@news.wave.co.nz...
> >> On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:34:53 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> >> (z replaces x)> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One could ask you, Brian. Why do you disrespect Dr Godfrey by just
> >simply
> >> >calling him "Godfrey"?
> >>
> >> No disrespect intended. If any disrespect is read, I'll apologise.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >
>
>
> >"Postings allegedly made by the Plaintiff about Canada:-
>
Are you serious? Are you asking me this because you want want to find out
exactly what it means for yourself?
It was "pasted" directly from the website (which is on the net, free (no
charge what so ever) for all that come across it to see) for Brian to see
these things for himself.
I hope that Brian doesn't mind, but just in case you were wondering I'm 99%
sure that Brian fully knows what the word "allegedly" means just as well as
I do.
In fact I'm even more sure than that, but I wouldn't want someone to say
that I was making a completely false claim about what Brian knows, on his
behalf.
> I include an extract from a press briefing put out after my 2 cases
> against Demon (in which those allegations were made) were won by me:
Yes it is a well known "fact" that you legally won your 2 cases against
Demon.
Notice the word "fact", and yes, I do know what the word "fact" means.
If you don't mind me asking. Why did you only go after the one ISP (Demon),
as there are many ISPs all linked up through the net to what is known as
"usenet"? Once something is on "usenet" it means that it's on all ISPs that
are involved with providing this service. Some of which provide more
newsgroups that others. Never the less there are many large ISPs that store
everything for at least a few weeks on very large servers for the use of
their own customers.
For all that anyone knows, you may have gone after many other ISPs as well
as just the one that was involved in the cases which you have "WON". You
more than likely have some idea about how "usenet" actually works (this is
only a suggestion that you do, and not to be taken as fact).
So why didn't you take every ISP that stores usenet information off to
court?
Keeping in mind that ISPs don't provide access to every possible newsgroup
that's on "usenet", but only the several thousand that they choose to.
> 'Concerning Demon's claim that Dr Godfrey provoked the libellous
> postings in question, Dr. Godfrey commented: "I am very glad that
> Demon have finally apologised for and withdrawn the misconceived claim
> that I provoked the libellous postings. The provocation allegation was
> nothing but a costly red herring. Some of the statements attributed to
> me, including the very words which were alleged to have provoked the
> first libel, were not mine at all." '
>
> >What a great guy eh, Brian? You don't think that the foreign student in
> >Christchurch might well have been provoked into posting what he did, do
you?
>
> I suggest you read the whole of the following, before repeating the
> false allegations of provocation. And in future, try informing
> yourself before going around throwing around false allegations.
> Otherwise you may find yourself having to prove in court something
> that cannot be proven.
That looks like a threat!
Do you know what it means?
Just so that you fully understand, and don't take that obvious question to
mean something completely different.
Do you know what the word "threat" means?
Do you really believe in all complete honesty and in the best use of the
English language as you know it, that "allegations" about you don't even
exist?
In your threat above, you've just suggested that the existence of these
allegations can't be proven. You know very well that I never claimed that
any of these "allegations" were ever created by me.
Also not once did I ever say that the allegations weren't any more than just
that. You have just suggested that the existence of allegations can't be
proven. Just so you fully understand, because I'm not sure that you
actually do. We're talking about the existence of them, NOT whether they
are true or not, as you seem to think.
I can't help but notice that you didn't sign your post like you have with
your other posts.
Either you didn't bother (fair enough), or one could possibly conclude that
your post may well have been done by someone else that was using your
computer at the time?
I see that in a post that Brian has just posted (as I sit and write this
reply), that he's suggested that "Scrooge may call that a threat".
Now what do you think might have possibly given him such an idea as that, Dr
Godfrey? Can you see any possible reason for Brian to even suggest such a
claim as that?
I must really thank Brian, don't you think?
Because if Brian feels there might be a reason why I should call what you
had posted a "threat", then perhaps I now have a pretty good reason to treat
it as one. Now that someone else has freely chosen to interpret as such.
To be completely true about it, Brian has also added what he thinks himself
in regard to it. But that still doesn't make his first suggestion any less
than it.
Thanks, Brian. It's good to see exactly how you chose to interpret it on my
behalf. You are a true gentleman and a scholar.
On a completely different note (almost ;-)), and just out of interest.
Does God exist?
Can YOU prove something that cannot be proven? IMO there is no proof one
way, or the other. There isn't enough information within the infinite
possibilities to base a definite answer about whether God exists or not IMO
(O = opinion).
E. Scrooge
Brian
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
You say that he was trying to make a fool out of somebody else. What
was actually said went further than the general usenet flame.
Few people seem to appreciate the difference between a flame which
refers to what a person has said, and a flame that introduces an
allegation of an untruthful fact about a person.
Vitali was guilty.
He was called on it.
He apologised.
That to me is extremely unusual, and I suspect a very difficult thing
to do. I have the utmost admiration for him in being prepared to
make such a public apology. It was very honorable.
Why should Laurence Godfrey not deserve the support of other readers
for what was untruthfully said about him?
You say that you see Laurence Godfrey seeming to turn "getting
"defamed" into some kind of art form." A strange perspective. That
ignores that he was not the person doing anything. You correctly use
the word "get".
Would you be similarly unsympathetic to a person who unfortunately
became a victim of multiple rapes? Does it automatically become
_their_ fault because they are a victim more than once?
I really find the attitudes being expressed on this thread quite
amazing.
Brian
Dirk Van de moortel
"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message news:3c8151e7....@news.wave.co.nz...
Well, I just don't buy it.
I think he was forced to "apologise".
Nothing honourable about that.
> Why should Laurence Godfrey not deserve the support of other readers
> for what was untruthfully said about him?
I.m.o. because he seems to make a hobby (and in this case an art) out of it.
I feel no symphathy for that and do not support it.
Just my opinion.
Dirk Vdm
White Rabbit
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:11:44 -0600, White Rabbit
> <white....@my.real.box.com> wrote:
>
>>In his latest judgement (23 April), Mr Justice Morland allowed a
>>substantial amendment to the defence, recognising Dr Godfrey's
>>documented provocative conduct, stating:
>
> The judge did nothing of the sort. These are words which have been taken
> from a misleading press release put out by Demon at the time and since
> withdrawn from Demon's press release site on the web.
Sorry, Laurence....you're busted!
<http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/240.html>
Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited [1999] EWHC QB 240 (23rd April, 1999)
"1. This judgment is confined to the Defendants' application for leave to
amend the Defence under paragraph 18.7 by adding particulars of instances
of the Plaintiff's conduct in mitigation of damage."
[A number of postings allegedly made by the Plaintiff about Thailand,
Canada and Germany are listed in Paragraphs 9 - 11. Owing to their
offensive nature, I have not quoted them. Those interested should visit
the link above.]
"15. Although I appreciate that the sample of the postings which I have set
out is eclectic and some eighty postings are pleaded which themselves
according to Mr Rushbrooke are only a small proportion of over three
thousand postings made by the Plaintiff, it could well be submitted that
these postings are puerile, unseemly and provocative. In effect they
invite vulgar and abusive response. As Mr Barca put it these posting are
designed to tempt people to overstep the mark and defame the Plaintiff so
that he can sue."
"30. In my judgement the amendments to the Defence sought should be
allowed. They are relevant and admissible to establish the Defendants'
case as pleaded in Paragraph 18.7 of the Defence."
--
White Rabbit
E. Scrooge
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:41:05 GMT, laur...@godfreynet.net (Laurence
> Godfrey) wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:00:47 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> >(z replaces x)> wrote:
>
>
> >>"Postings allegedly made by the Plaintiff about Canada:-
> >
> >Notice the word "allegedly". Do you know what it means?
>
>
> Scrooge needs to understand both the meaning of the word, and also
> that allegations are easy to make. The questions that I do not
> understand are
>
> (1) why he chooses to believe the allegations, rather than what has
> transpired later in court, where such allegations have been shown to
> be false
For a start, I was lead to believe that some of these "allegations" (do
people really need the dictionary meaning of the word so that they can
understand what's being discussed here? and every other word that some
might think others aren't too sure about?) were actually based on posts that
someone had done.
Like any post one can read whatever they want to that's in it. Whether it's
a lot of waffle or otherwise.
Did "I" actually say that I believed the allegations to be fact. Just when
can an allegation be regarded as a proven fact?
There is however a definite fact that allegations (whatever they may be
about) do in fact exist. If they didn't exist, then there wouldn't be any
allegations about anything to see in the first place.
> (2) why he chooses to attack the victim of defamation, rather than
> providing support. In both the Demon case that he has referred to, and
> in the most recent New Zealand case, Laurence Godfrey has been shown
> to have been defamed.
I think in my recent post, you'll find that there's a lot more ISPs involved
in providing the full usenet service than just Demon. Demon is only one
very small strand in the usenet web of newsgroups and posts. Without Demon
usenet would still survive. ISPs only provide a service for others to use.
In the incident with the student, why did Dr G. not go after the students
ISP as well? Not that the ISP had anything to do with what the student
chose to post, any more that your ISP had with your posts, Brian
Most ISPs handle thousands of new posts each day into the groups that they
provide. Can you possibly understand that Brian?
Can you expect your ISP to sit there and read every post that comes in
before adding it to their server? Just how many posts do you download from
your ISP. Do you do hundreds each day, or just the few that you choose to
read?
I have said that they are both victims.
The first victim rightfully being Dr G. and the second victim on the way in
which the matter was handled once it got past a straight forward apology
with the retraction of any false claims.
Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen it written anywhere. Did Dr G.
make a complaint to the student's ISP about the post that concerned him, in
which the ISP would've then given the student a warning?
> >I include an extract from a press briefing put out after my 2 cases
> >against Demon (in which those allegations were made) were won by me:
>
> >'Concerning Demon's claim that Dr Godfrey provoked the libellous
> >postings in question, Dr. Godfrey commented: "I am very glad that
> >Demon have finally apologised for and withdrawn the misconceived claim
> >that I provoked the libellous postings. The provocation allegation was
> >nothing but a costly red herring. Some of the statements attributed to
> >me, including the very words which were alleged to have provoked the
> >first libel, were not mine at all." '
> >
> >>What a great guy eh, Brian? You don't think that the foreign student in
> >>Christchurch might well have been provoked into posting what he did, do
you?
> >
> >I suggest you read the whole of the following, before repeating the
> >false allegations of provocation. And in future, try informing
> >yourself before going around throwing around false allegations.
> >Otherwise you may find yourself having to prove in court something
> >that cannot be proven.
>
>
> Scrooge may call that a "threat". I call it reasonable advice.
Thank you, Brian. As you might've seen in my other post, I came to the same
possible conclusion about the "threat" as you did. Otherwise if you would
never have had such a thought to even take the time to mention it, along
with your "other" opinion about it.
> Scrooge has NO evidence that the student was "provoked". From the
> evidence that I've seen, that was definitely not the case.
I have NO evidence about who chose the amount of money that was decided to
be paid out.
What do you think would've happened if the student had chosen to offer
nothing more than the apology, Brian?
The student had put himself in a corner, agreed? However, he then wasn't
allowed to come out of the corner with just an apology. If that's not
right, then why was there any money involved?
Brian you managed to reason all by yourself that a possible "threat" had
just been made to me. It's in your own post, who's to say that the student
might not have been treated any differently?
You may have made that judgement on my behalf, but that still doesn't change
the FACT that it was you who chose to make such a judgement about it.
> The student did the honorable thing and apologised. I do not
> understand why Scrooge should take it upon himself and undermine that
> apology.
That's not entirely true is it, Brian?
You are right about the apology, but the student did quite a bit more than
just apologise. You do the student a very big injustice by not mentioning
that cash figure was also involved.
> I have no further comment on the press clippings. Normally I'd snip
> here, but I think in this case people like Scrooge need to be given
> every opportunity to READ the contents. I'll leave intact. Thankyou
> Laurence for the information.
>
> Brian
That was very nice of him.
Now perhaps you'd also expect him to be nice enough to apologise for the
"threat" that YOU seem to think that he had made towards me?
It was your own mind that chose to decide that a possible "threat" had been
made against me, which then prompted you to freely say so in your recent
post about it.
I don't actually expect an apology from Dr G. but I like the way your mind
works, in that you do notice the obvious, Brian. ;-)
E. Scrooge
Old Man
> >substantial amendment to the defence, recognising Dr Godfrey's documented
> >provocative conduct, stating:
>
> taken from a misleading press release put out by Demon at the time and
> since withdrawn from Demon's press release site on the web.
>
> cases) had *alleged* provocative behaviour. Moreover, Demon has since
> publicly apologised for that allegation and withdrawn it. Kindly read
> and absorb the following:
>
>
> STATEMENT IN OPEN COURT (30/3/2000)
>
> Counsel for the Claimant (Gordon Bishop)
>
> My Lord, in this action for libel I appear on behalf of the Claimant,
> Dr Laurence Godfrey. The Defendant, Demon Internet Limited, is
> represented by my learned friend Mr Daniel Gosland.
>
> Demon has now agreed to pay Dr Godfrey damages together with his legal
> costs in respect of both actions and Dr Godfrey is satisfied that
> this payment will afford proper recompense for the injury and distress
> that he has suffered. Demon is also here today by its solicitor to
> apologise to Dr Godfrey for not removing the postings from its servers
> and for alleging in its defence that Dr Godfrey had deliberately
> provoked them, a contention which it now withdraws. In those
> circumstances Dr Godfrey is content to take matters no further and I
> am happy to inform your Lordship that the parties have resolved all
> their differences.
>
> Solicitor for the Defendant (Mr Daniel Gosland)
>
> My Lord, on behalf of the Defendant I accept all that my learned
> friend has said. Demon regrets that it did not remove the postings
> when it was notified of their defamatory content by Dr Godfrey and is
> happy to take this opportunity to apologise to him for the injury and
> distress he has been caused.
>
>
> >provocative. In effect, they invite vulgar and abusive response. As Mr
> >Barca (Demon's legal counsel) put it these postings are designed to tempt
> >people to overstep the mark and defame the Plaintiff so that he can sue."
> >
>
> after winning the cases against Demon and press briefing. Note that
> Demon withdraw this allegation and apologised for it..
>
> Laurence
Wherein does one achieve fame through an infamous action
against freedom of speech? Where is the justice in attacking
a messenger that is free of complicity and has no intent to
do harm? Wherein is the honor in plundering those with
deep pockets? Through Laurence's overbearing self-interest,
are ISPs, reacting in fear of financial ruin, to become reluctant
Big Brothers via pre-censorship of news-group messages?
Perhaps Laurence would prefer ideological government
officials to perform the task, as they have for him in civil court?
One would imagine that, whilst slumming on the Internet, those
with precious reputations to protect, would go incognito, ego
permitting, that is. [Old Man]
Old Man
news:3c912b47....@news.virgin.net...
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:11:44 -0600, White Rabbit
> <white....@my.real.box.com> wrote:
>
> >substantial amendment to the defence, recognising Dr Godfrey's documented
> >provocative conduct, stating:
>
> >provocative. In effect, they invite vulgar and abusive response. As Mr
> >Barca (Demon's legal counsel) put it these postings are designed to tempt
> >people to overstep the mark and defame the Plaintiff so that he can sue."
> >
>
Old Man
news:3c912b47....@news.virgin.net...
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 11:11:44 -0600, White Rabbit
> <white....@my.real.box.com> wrote:
>
> >substantial amendment to the defence, recognising Dr Godfrey's documented
> >provocative conduct, stating:
>
> >provocative. In effect, they invite vulgar and abusive response. As Mr
> >Barca (Demon's legal counsel) put it these postings are designed to tempt
> >people to overstep the mark and defame the Plaintiff so that he can sue."
> >
>
Brian
(z replaces x)> wrote:
>
>"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:3c812f7d....@news.wave.co.nz...
>> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 19:41:05 GMT, laur...@godfreynet.net (Laurence
>> Godfrey) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:00:47 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
>> >(z replaces x)> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>"Postings allegedly made by the Plaintiff about Canada:-
>> >
>> >Notice the word "allegedly". Do you know what it means?
>>
>>
>> Scrooge needs to understand both the meaning of the word, and also
>> that allegations are easy to make. The questions that I do not
>> understand are
>>
>> (1) why he chooses to believe the allegations, rather than what has
>> transpired later in court, where such allegations have been shown to
>> be false
>
>For a start, I was lead to believe that some of these "allegations" (do
>people really need the dictionary meaning of the word so that they can
>understand what's being discussed here? and every other word that some
>might think others aren't too sure about?) were actually based on posts that
>someone had done.
>Like any post one can read whatever they want to that's in it. Whether it's
>a lot of waffle or otherwise.
If you're wishing to change the law such that there is no offence of
defamation, you need to take that up politically, Scrooge.
I'll not support your cause.
>Did "I" actually say that I believed the allegations to be fact. Just when
>can an allegation be regarded as a proven fact?
If you're not sure enough about the truth of any allegation you're
making, and it's defamatory, you are making yourself liable. Simple
as that.
>There is however a definite fact that allegations (whatever they may be
>about) do in fact exist. If they didn't exist, then there wouldn't be any
>allegations about anything to see in the first place.
The key, Scrooge, to making allegations about somebody else, is to
make sure they are true.
>
>
>> (2) why he chooses to attack the victim of defamation, rather than
>> providing support. In both the Demon case that he has referred to, and
>> in the most recent New Zealand case, Laurence Godfrey has been shown
>> to have been defamed.
>
>I think in my recent post, you'll find that there's a lot more ISPs involved
>in providing the full usenet service than just Demon. Demon is only one
>very small strand in the usenet web of newsgroups and posts. Without Demon
>usenet would still survive. ISPs only provide a service for others to use.
Why do you not READ the information that Laurence Godfrey posted?
That makes it quite clear that Demon were not found to be acting
unlawfully because they were an ISP, in common with the many other
ISPs that you refer to. It was their own actions.
There are millions of people in the world, Scrooge. Just because one
person is found guilty of defamation, does not mean that somebody else
may decide to defame as well. But that is not a reason to excuse any
one act of defamation.
In the Demon case, they were found to be guilty. You may argue that
an ISP cannot be guilty of anything. That is your right, if you wish,
to argue the indefensible. But the fact is that Demon had to cough
up. Why do you think that happened, Scrooge?
>
>In the incident with the student, why did Dr G. not go after the students
>ISP as well?
Can you think of a reason why he should have, Scrooge?
Scrooge, you REALLY need to READ the information that Laurence Godfrey
helpfully posted, before you go about making erroneous and stupid
conclusions.
The issue associated with Demon, and the recent defamation by the
student, have different circumstances, and different conclusions.
>Not that the ISP had anything to do with what the student
>chose to post, any more that your ISP had with your posts, Brian
Who is claiming such, Scrooge.
In the recent case of the student, the student agreed that he had
defamed, and apologised for making that defamation. End of story.
Satisfactory conclusion for the parties concerned, but you, it seems,
will not let it go. Why?
>Most ISPs handle thousands of new posts each day into the groups that they
>provide. Can you possibly understand that Brian?
Have I ever expressed a contrary view, Scrooge?
>Can you expect your ISP to sit there and read every post that comes in
>before adding it to their server?
Have I ever voiced an expectation otherwise, Scrooge?
>Just how many posts do you download from
>your ISP. Do you do hundreds each day, or just the few that you choose to
>read?
Once again, the relevance of the question is baffling. You're sinking
into absurdity, quickly.
>I have said that they are both victims.
Ok, I'll take your word for that. Cannot recall it specifically. I
would have argued strongly against that then.
>The first victim rightfully being Dr G. and the second victim on the way in
>which the matter was handled once it got past a straight forward apology
>with the retraction of any false claims.
Are you trying to claim the student was a victim!!! If he was a
victim of anything, he was a victim of his own behaviour. But he
apologised, and agreed to make donations to charity. Seems to me to
the mutual agreement of himself and the person he defamed. There is
no evidence that he is unhappy with the outcome, or that he thinks of
himself as a victim. Why should you?
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen it written anywhere. Did Dr G.
>make a complaint to the student's ISP about the post that concerned him, in
>which the ISP would've then given the student a warning?
That I presume is one choice a victim of defamation can make, if that
is his choice. But you seem to be implying that a victim of
defamation is not entitled to the protection of the law, and should be
able to use the law as a remedy, if he feels that aggrieved.
>
>> >I include an extract from a press briefing put out after my 2 cases
>> >against Demon (in which those allegations were made) were won by me:
>>
>> >'Concerning Demon's claim that Dr Godfrey provoked the libellous
>> >postings in question, Dr. Godfrey commented: "I am very glad that
>> >Demon have finally apologised for and withdrawn the misconceived claim
>> >that I provoked the libellous postings. The provocation allegation was
>> >nothing but a costly red herring. Some of the statements attributed to
>> >me, including the very words which were alleged to have provoked the
>> >first libel, were not mine at all." '
>> >
>> >>What a great guy eh, Brian? You don't think that the foreign student in
>> >>Christchurch might well have been provoked into posting what he did, do
>you?
>> >
>> >I suggest you read the whole of the following, before repeating the
>> >false allegations of provocation. And in future, try informing
>> >yourself before going around throwing around false allegations.
>> >Otherwise you may find yourself having to prove in court something
>> >that cannot be proven.
>>
>>
>> Scrooge may call that a "threat". I call it reasonable advice.
>
>Thank you, Brian. As you might've seen in my other post, I came to the same
>possible conclusion about the "threat" as you did. Otherwise if you would
>never have had such a thought to even take the time to mention it, along
>with your "other" opinion about it.
Sheesh, Scrooge, your powers of logic are slipping into the negative.
I said that you _may_ call that a "threat". The assertion was based
on other just as loopy stuff that you've recently made on the matter.
I specifically wished to make it clear that I called it sopmething
else.
>> Scrooge has NO evidence that the student was "provoked". From the
>> evidence that I've seen, that was definitely not the case.
>
>I have NO evidence about who chose the amount of money that was decided to
>be paid out.
I do neither. Why would you presume other than the fact that the
amount to be paid out (to charity) was determined by anything else,
than a mutually acceptable negotiation between the parties.
Can you please explain the relevance of who made the choice?
>What do you think would've happened if the student had chosen to offer
>nothing more than the apology, Brian?
I do not know, Scrooge. I can guess, like you and everybody else can.
Laurence Godfrey _may_ have elected to take the matter to law, if he
so chose. That is the right of us all to use the law. It's the
civilised manner of settling disputes, that beats lynch mob justice
any day. If he did take the matter to the law, the outcome would
have depended on the evidence placed before the court.
Do you have any sort of problem with the law being used, Scrooge?
>The student had put himself in a corner, agreed? However, he then wasn't
>allowed to come out of the corner with just an apology. If that's not
>right, then why was there any money involved?
How do you know that he was not allowed to come out with only an
apology? It is possible that he offered to make the payment. Another
possibility is that the suggestion of making a payment was made, that
he accepted.
Rather than going down the path of maybes, and drawing conclusions as
you have done with no evidence to support them, why not just consider
the FACTS.
An apology was given. In fact multiple apologies were given on the
sci.physics newsgroup. The details of the settlement were announced
by the person who was guilty of defamation.
All seems straight forward to me. No need to complicate it further,
Scrooge.
>Brian you managed to reason all by yourself that a possible "threat" had
>just been made to me.
Start a course in Logic, Scrooge. Quickly.
>It's in your own post,
No it's not, Scrooge.
>who's to say that the student
>might not have been treated any differently?
Differently to what, Scrooge?
The law is there to protect the innocent, as well as provide justice
to the guilty. (Doesn't always do it well, but that's the aim)
>You may have made that judgement on my behalf, but that still doesn't change
>the FACT that it was you who chose to make such a judgement about it.
I made no judgement on your behalf. I said that you "may" consider a
statement as a threat. Given your posting history, I'd not be
surprised about a lot of things that you "may" consider, that I would
certainly not agree with.
>
>> The student did the honorable thing and apologised. I do not
>> understand why Scrooge should take it upon himself and undermine that
>> apology.
>
>That's not entirely true is it, Brian?
>You are right about the apology, but the student did quite a bit more than
>just apologise. You do the student a very big injustice by not mentioning
>that cash figure was also involved.
That was part of the apology! Sheesh!
>> I have no further comment on the press clippings. Normally I'd snip
>> here, but I think in this case people like Scrooge need to be given
>> every opportunity to READ the contents. I'll leave intact. Thankyou
>> Laurence for the information.
>>
>> Brian
>
>That was very nice of him.
>Now perhaps you'd also expect him to be nice enough to apologise for the
>"threat" that YOU seem to think that he had made towards me?
<snip>
Your comprehension skills are pitiful, Scrooge.
There is NOTHING that Laurence Godfrey has said to you that deserves
consideration of an apology to you. Quite the reverse.
It's the posts of people such as yourself, that give me a clearer
understanding of the hassles that Laurence Godfrey has experienced
over the last few years.
Brian
Brian
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You say that he was trying to make a fool out of somebody else. What
>> was actually said went further than the general usenet flame.
>>
>> Few people seem to appreciate the difference between a flame which
>> refers to what a person has said, and a flame that introduces an
>> allegation of an untruthful fact about a person.
>>
>> Vitali was guilty.
>> He was called on it.
>> He apologised.
>>
>> That to me is extremely unusual, and I suspect a very difficult thing
>> to do. I have the utmost admiration for him in being prepared to
>> make such a public apology. It was very honorable.
>
>Well, I just don't buy it.
>I think he was forced to "apologise".
>Nothing honourable about that.
He was not forced.
It was the student's choice to apologise, or not.
He could have defended his actions.
The law is there to protect the innocent, and allow victims of crime
to get justice. Much better than lynch mob stuff, in my opinion.
>> Why should Laurence Godfrey not deserve the support of other readers
>> for what was untruthfully said about him?
>
>I.m.o. because he seems to make a hobby (and in this case an art) out of it.
I've seen no evidence that any defamation that he has chosen to take
action over was reasonable in the first place.
If people choose not to defame him, his "hobby" as you call it stops
immediately.
>I feel no symphathy for that and do not support it.
I'm not sure why people feel so antagonistic towards him, seemingly
based on him successfully showing that he has been defamed.
Sympathy and support are less important.
>Just my opinion.
Mine too <smile>
Brian
Col
>In the recent case of the student, the student agreed that he had
>defamed, and apologised for making that defamation. End of story.
>Satisfactory conclusion for the parties concerned, but you, it seems,
>will not let it go. Why?
Just because he agreed he had defamed does not necessarily mean he would be
found guilty of defamation in a court of law. The student may have decided that
his life should not involve paying expensive lawyers fees defending himself as
well as paying off a student loan. Godfrey does appear to have a domineering
presense and as such I can see a student wilting at such a threat. Perhaps it
may be classed by many as outright bullying. This is all publicity for Godfrey
of course.
Perhaps the knowledge gained will open up a different career path for many on
usenet .Perhaps Woger, Scooter, Janice and a few others will be attempting to
make a good income from litigation. :)
--
Col
Col's law.
Thinly sliced cabbage..
DH
(z replaces x)> wrote:
<big snip>
>
>Going by you and your lack of understanding of the difference between
>spreading something in a small group compared to going to the worldwide
>media about it. If I was to write some crap about you down on a piece of
>paper defaming you, you'd say that was just as bad as going on nationwide TV
>about it.
>You just said that any level of difference is completely "irrelevant". If
>you bump into someone with your car, would you consider that to be just as
>serious as knocking them down and killing them?
>Would you say that difference was also "irrelevant"?
>
>As for us having fame. Do you really believe that you were replying to Lee
>Majors (the $6,000,000 man)? LOL
>As for yourself, you could be a female stripper for all that I know about
>someone that chooses to call themselves "Brian". While what you post under
>might well mean something to you, it means bugger all to me.
>
>You show a complete lack of just how meaningless the newsgroups can be at
>times. For the a big proportion of the time, they're used for nothing more
>than entertainment.
>
>It might surprise and upset you somewhat, but I'd be willing to bet that a
>lot of people that take part in these groups couldn't give two stuffs about
>this thread and the conversations in it. Unlike yourself, it doesn't worry
>me if bugger all people bother to waste their time reading all this.
>
>E. Scrooge
1. Don't equate a defamation suit with an action for damages in
negligence - the two are quite different
2.Defamation is a 'strict liability' tort. That is, it does not matter
if the defendant intended to defame the plaintiff or not. It does
not matter what the defendant intended by the words. What is important
is the meaning of the words to the reasonable reader.
3. An action in defamation requires three elements to be proved by the
plaintiff;
a) That a defamatory statement being made,
b) It was of and concerning the Plaintiff,
c) It was published to a third party.
4. The size of the audience may be relevant to damages
5. There is no "defamation free" zone on the internet, nor are
comments in newgroups other than a form of publication - see Godfrey v
Demon Internet
6. It matters not that the material was accessed from a server in the
US and viewed in Australia (see Gutnik v Dow Jones)
HOWEVER
If you were to raise a theoretical argument that could be advanced to
the Court that the standard for defamatory comment in a newsgroup was
based upon the CONTEXT of the discussion, you may be able to further
what I think is your point of view
Cheers
DH
Brian
wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:18:29 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>
>>In the recent case of the student, the student agreed that he had
>>defamed, and apologised for making that defamation. End of story.
>>Satisfactory conclusion for the parties concerned, but you, it seems,
>>will not let it go. Why?
>
>Just because he agreed he had defamed does not necessarily mean he would be
>found guilty of defamation in a court of law.
It's irrelevant what a court of law would have decided. There is no
need for a court of law. He has agreed ...without a court of law ...
that he is guilty.
> The student may have decided that his life should not
> involve paying expensive lawyers fees defending himself
> as well as paying off a student loan.
He *may* have done anything. The fact is, you have no evidence for
suggesting so, apart from an overzealous desire to persist in treating
the student as the victim rather than the guilty party.
Some people have a warped view of justice. Apologising for the
criminal, excusing the criminal, blaming the victim. It's quite
amazing.
>Godfrey does appear to have a domineering
>presense
He appears to me as a person who values his reputation a great deal.
For that I say good on him. I understand.
> and as such I can see a student wilting at such a threat.
I have seen no evidence of him being threatened. Perhaps Laurence
Godfrey informed him that he would like an apology, or else he would
seek justice using the law. But *if* so, how is seeking justice
using the law threatening? The law is there to protect the innocent!
> Perhaps it may be classed by many as outright bullying.
You have no evidence for that at all.
Defamatory.
Your "perhaps" would not help you much, if your comment was acted
upon.
> This is all publicity for Godfrey of course.
I think such a comment is stupid.
>Perhaps the knowledge gained will open up a different career path for many on
>usenet .Perhaps Woger, Scooter, Janice and a few others will be attempting to
>make a good income from litigation. :)
Anybody can litigate. It's an option.
The law is there to protect everybody. Even Scooter deserves to be
free of untrue defamatory allegations.
It's not a crime to make a true defamatory statement though. I'm sure
Morgan Fahey in New Zealand lost a lot of fame through the publicity
of his crimes.
Brian
John Cawston
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:26:04 -0600, White Rabbit
> You really should learn something about law before you comment upon
> legal judgments. The judge allowed the defendant's new amendments.
> That means he allowed their new *allegations* to be added into their
> pleadings. That is all it means. The judge made no findijng of fact.
> The matter was not tried. Those allegations remained as unproven
> allegations in the pleadings until they were later withdrawn by the
> defendant and apologised for.
As a matter of interest. Did you make those comments about Thai women, Canadians
and Germans?
JC
Old Man
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 23:24:00 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You say that he was trying to make a fool out of somebody else. What
> >> was actually said went further than the general usenet flame.
> >>
> >> Few people seem to appreciate the difference between a flame which
> >> refers to what a person has said, and a flame that introduces an
> >> allegation of an untruthful fact about a person.
> >>
> >> Vitali was guilty.
> >> He was called on it.
> >> He apologised.
> >>
> >> That to me is extremely unusual, and I suspect a very difficult thing
> >> to do. I have the utmost admiration for him in being prepared to
> >> make such a public apology. It was very honorable.
> >
> >Well, I just don't buy it.
> >I think he was forced to "apologise".
> >Nothing honourable about that.
>
> He was not forced.
> It was the student's choice to apologise, or not.
> He could have defended his actions.
Old Man was amongst those on the receiving end of codez's
naively abusive tongue. Believe me when I say that codez
possesses absolutely no honor nor respect for truth. Only
induced unmitigated fear would force an apology out of him.
You will note that codez has apologized to no one else but
Godfrey. However, Old Man does not wish for an apology
from codez because he clearly lacks the capability of a credible
source. It is virtually beyond comprehension that Godfrey
would take insult from such an obvious baffoon as codez.
[Old Man]
Col
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 15:07:01 +1300, Col <jake.t...@the.marae.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 01:18:29 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>>
>>>In the recent case of the student, the student agreed that he had
>>>defamed, and apologised for making that defamation. End of story.
>>>Satisfactory conclusion for the parties concerned, but you, it seems,
>>>will not let it go. Why?
>>
>>Just because he agreed he had defamed does not necessarily mean he would be
>>found guilty of defamation in a court of law.
>
>It's irrelevant what a court of law would have decided. There is no
>need for a court of law. He has agreed ...without a court of law ...
>that he is guilty.
>
I realise once he "agreed " that no court of law is needed . i was just putting
myself in his shoes being a kid when confronted with something like he had to. I
don't condone him defaming anybody if indeed he did but it would not be abnormal
for a person to not want to go to court . The one redeeming feature was that he
had a cheaper way out either offered to him or tendered by him .
>
>> The student may have decided that his life should not
>> involve paying expensive lawyers fees defending himself
>> as well as paying off a student loan.
>
>He *may* have done anything. The fact is, you have no evidence for
>suggesting so, apart from an overzealous desire to persist in treating
>the student as the victim rather than the guilty party.
YOu have no evidence that he didn't .
>Some people have a warped view of justice. Apologising for the
>criminal, excusing the criminal, blaming the victim. It's quite
>amazing.
>
I wasn't apologising
>
>
>>Godfrey does appear to have a domineering
>>presense
>
>He appears to me as a person who values his reputation a great deal.
>For that I say good on him. I understand.
>
>
>
>
>> and as such I can see a student wilting at such a threat.
>
>I have seen no evidence of him being threatened. Perhaps Laurence
>Godfrey informed him that he would like an apology, or else he would
>seek justice using the law. But *if* so, how is seeking justice
>using the law threatening? The law is there to protect the innocent!
>
>
>
>
>> Perhaps it may be classed by many as outright bullying.
>
>You have no evidence for that at all.
I never stated it was classed as that . I said it may be by some
>Defamatory.
Nonsense .
>Your "perhaps" would not help you much, if your comment was acted
>upon.
When did you get your LLB ?
>
Well if he is, as a few have suggested on here, using the situations for a
purpose, any publicity is good publicity and he should not be bothered again by
anyone defaming him should he ?
>I think such a comment is stupid.
>
You would ..
>
>
>>Perhaps the knowledge gained will open up a different career path for many on
>>usenet .Perhaps Woger, Scooter, Janice and a few others will be attempting to
>>make a good income from litigation. :)
>
>Anybody can litigate. It's an option.
>
>The law is there to protect everybody. Even Scooter deserves to be
>free of untrue defamatory allegations.
The stupid thing is that many on usenet encourage retorts by virtue of they way
they post .
>It's not a crime to make a true defamatory statement though. I'm sure
>Morgan Fahey in New Zealand lost a lot of fame through the publicity
>of his crimes.
>
>
One thing is for sure Brian and that is that if you met some of the people you
defend here all we would see is your shoe size ..
Brian
<ga...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 20:25:37 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>>
>>The student did the honorable thing and apologised.
>
>That's another thing, not truly knowing what went down between both
>parties and after reading said apology I am left wondering whether Dr
>Laurence actually penned those words for Vitali Deev to sign.
>
><quote>
>I have now recognised that my behaviour on the newsgroup was wholly
>unacceptable and I sincerely apologise to all those concerned. In
>particular I apologise for the defamatory statements that I have made
>about physicists including Dr Godfrey and I unreservedly retract those
>statements and acknowledge that there is no factual basis whatsoever
>to them.
></quote>
>
>This paragraph concerns me. Note the part about defamatory statements
>made about physicists including Dr G.
Why does it concern YOU? Vitali Deev made the statement.
If the statement was true, and there is no reason to suggest it was
not, why should his apology not include everybody he has defamed?
Why does everyone expect some sort of Clayton's apology? (For those
outside New Zealand, this is a NZ term for an apology you make when
you're not really making an apology)
If he defamed a person, or people, why are you concerned about him
apologising!
An apology, is a good way of sincerely trying to make amends for any
misdeed. Victims of many crimes express a desire for an apology.
>Can Vitali Deev now expect these
>other physicists to contact him demanding payment too?
I guess it depends on what he has actually said. Perhaps the apology
he has made is enough for them.
Are you implying that if a criminal has committed two crimes, he
should be forgiven for any crime subsequent to the first?
This "go soft on crime" approach is amazing.
>I believe he
>was a fool to agree to pay anything myself and leave himself wide open
>for others to extort more money out of him.
What he has done, has allowed himself to leave this debacle somewhat
ashamed, but at least with a feeling that he can hold his head high,
having done the right thing. I respect him for his actions
enormously. Even more so, knowing of all the advice here that crime
is ok.
If I were a future employer, I would have little hesitation in
employing such a person, where I would have grave reservations about
somebody who is not prepared to take personal responsibility for his
own actions.
Lastly: Nobody extorted money. He agreed to make some donations to
CHARITY.
This implies that Laurence Godfrey was sufficiently aggrieved to feel
that some monetary compensation should take place ... or that Vitali
Deev felt sufficiently ashamed that he thought he would underscore the
sincerity of his apology by providing some monetary compensation ...
or both .... but that Laurence Godfrey wished to prevent the very
accusation that you have nevertheless made.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
>Tell me Laurence. Why do you stir up the Canadians ? .. I have a lot of time for
>Canadians
Tell me Col. Why do you attempt to stir up Laurence Godfrey? Based
on what Laurence Godfrey has said on this thread, I have a lot of time
for the sorts of things he is saying, and his willingness to explain
over and over again to the intellectually challenged.
Brian
Brian
>Old Man was amongst those on the receiving end of codez's
>naively abusive tongue. Believe me when I say that codez
>possesses absolutely no honor nor respect for truth. Only
>induced unmitigated fear would force an apology out of him.
>You will note that codez has apologized to no one else but
>Godfrey. However, Old Man does not wish for an apology
>from codez because he clearly lacks the capability of a credible
>source. It is virtually beyond comprehension that Godfrey
>would take insult from such an obvious baffoon as codez.
>[Old Man]
I have not followed the offending threads in sci.physics. I first
learnt of this action, by the apology appearing in nz.general
I can only speculate on why he apologised.
I hope that he was sincere.
Despite what you say, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Brian
Col
Listen you caterwhauling pignut. I read his dissertation on the matter after I
posted this so go fart peas at the moon . No doubt if he is wrong someone will
come up with a few postings with the correct headers.
Furthermore I do not have to explain to a snipe like you why I ask a question of
anyone else .
E. Scrooge
> On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:07:55 +1300, "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@xfree.co.nx
> (z replaces x)> wrote:
> >
> >"Brian" <bri...@wave.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> defamation, you need to take that up politically, Scrooge.
>
> I'll not support your cause.
I think that you've drifted off into the realms of fantasy, Brian.
Who said anything about changing the law? Who finally decides if an
offence has even taken place, you, a lynch mob, or the courts?
There is no cause for you to support.
Did anyone tell you to support a cause? Is someone forcing you to support a
cause.
> >Did "I" actually say that I believed the allegations to be fact. Just
when
> >can an allegation be regarded as a proven fact?
>
> If you're not sure enough about the truth of any allegation you're
> making, and it's defamatory, you are making yourself liable. Simple
> as that.
That's an allegation that you've chosen to make.
> >There is however a definite fact that allegations (whatever they may be
> >about) do in fact exist. If they didn't exist, then there wouldn't be
any
> >allegations about anything to see in the first place.
>
> The key, Scrooge, to making allegations about somebody else, is to
> make sure they are true.
I can only allege that you, Brian ...., wrote this post of yours that I'm
replying to. But the simple fact is that I have no actual proof that you
were the person that has done this post under your name and headers.
In a court of law, I can't actually say that I saw you sit down and type it.
I can only allege that you more than likely have done the post that's under
your name and "headers".
If you should choose to, then it's up to you to confirm that you actually
are the author of all of your posts. Pretty extreme, but there are some
places that will only deal with the actual facts, not a lot of assumptions.
Tell me, Brian. If you got pulled over for speeding by a cop. Would you
rather get a ticket which could lose your licence for a while, or slip the
cop $20 to let you off with just warning? Providing in this option of pure
fiction that both parties agreed to settling it with a warning involving
$20.
> >In the incident with the student, why did Dr G. not go after the students
> >ISP as well?
>
> Can you think of a reason why he should have, Scrooge?
To complain about the student for what he'd done would be the best reason.
What happened with Demon could be another.
> Scrooge, you REALLY need to READ the information that Laurence Godfrey
> helpfully posted, before you go about making erroneous and stupid
> conclusions.
>
> The issue associated with Demon, and the recent defamation by the
> student, have different circumstances, and different conclusions.
>
>
>
>
> >Not that the ISP had anything to do with what the student
> >chose to post, any more that your ISP had with your posts, Brian
>
> Who is claiming such, Scrooge.
>
> In the recent case of the student, the student agreed that he had
> defamed, and apologised for making that defamation. End of story.
> Satisfactory conclusion for the parties concerned, but you, it seems,
> will not let it go. Why?
What case? It never went to trial, Brian. It was an incident, or situation
if you like. I know that you didn't mean court case, but it seems to be
easy for people to get the wrong idea around here, with some of things
that's been suggested that others have said.
It would appear that he's agreed to something to possibly save himself and
the nonsense from being dragged through the courts, in my opinion.
Now that both parties are in full agreement with the final outcome of it
all. There's no point in saying that a possible defamation had even taken
place. A financial transaction has taken place between two parties, which
involves some charities. It was never based on a truly legal decision as a
result from any court action.
Apart from admitting that what he did was wrong, there hasn't been one bit
of true evidence that the victim has actually suffered in anyway from what
the student had done.
Tell me, Brian. If you got pulled over for speeding by a cop. Would you
rather get a ticket which could lose your licence for a while, or have the
choice to slip the cop $20 to let you off with just warning? Providing in
this option of pure fiction that both parties agreed to settling it with a
warning involving $20.
What would you have done in the student's situation, Brian, while under the
pressure of possibly ending up in court? Agree to anything just to get it
over and done with, or would you have chosen for it to be dragged through
the courts?
When it came to the decision of applying a penalty far greater than just an
apology, the student then became a victim. That or going to court over it,
was hardly a great freedom of choice for the student, any more than it
would've been had you been in his shoes trying to get it over and done with
as quickly as possible.
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't seen it written anywhere. Did Dr
G.
> >make a complaint to the student's ISP about the post that concerned him,
in
> >which the ISP would've then given the student a warning?
>
> That I presume is one choice a victim of defamation can make, if that
> is his choice. But you seem to be implying that a victim of
> defamation is not entitled to the protection of the law, and should be
> able to use the law as a remedy, if he feels that aggrieved.
But due to an agreement outside of the courts there was no victim of
defamation. In fact the agreement can't be considered as a legal fine for
defamation against someone.
The law was never involved in this situation.
You seem to be biased when it comes to what is actually law and legal within
the justice system.
If the student feels that he was pressured in making a bad decision which
caused him to pay out a reasonable sum of money, then he has every right to
go to the law about it. I'm sure that Dr Godfrey would have no worries if
the student should decided to do so. After all Dr Godfrey must feel that
the agreement with the student is completely legal and all above board. And
he is completely in the right in regards to his actions, isn't he?
Would you not agree with that, Brian?
> >> Scrooge may call that a "threat". I call it reasonable advice.
> >
> >Thank you, Brian. As you might've seen in my other post, I came to the
same
> >possible conclusion about the "threat" as you did. Otherwise if you
would
> >never have had such a thought to even take the time to mention it, along
> >with your "other" opinion about it.
>
> Sheesh, Scrooge, your powers of logic are slipping into the negative.
> I said that you _may_ call that a "threat". The assertion was based
> on other just as loopy stuff that you've recently made on the matter.
>
> I specifically wished to make it clear that I called it sopmething
> else.
Yes, and I said that you did provide another opinion about it. I don't mind
helping you to make that quite clear either, after all we wouldn't want any
misunderstandings about it.
But before you made your own opinion about it. It was YOU that chose to
"post" that I might have called what was said by DR G. a "threat".
In a true court of law, you would now be asked if you DID or DID NOT use the
word "threat" in your post before you had even seen or talked about it in
this regard anywhere else beforehand.
You can say that you thinking on my behalf, which isn't quite possible. LOL
But when you "chose" to use the word "threat", you were still thinking for
yourself. Were you not?
> >> Scrooge has NO evidence that the student was "provoked". From the
> >> evidence that I've seen, that was definitely not the case.
> >
> >I have NO evidence about who chose the amount of money that was decided
to
> >be paid out.
>
> I do neither. Why would you presume other than the fact that the
> amount to be paid out (to charity) was determined by anything else,
> than a mutually acceptable negotiation between the parties.
>
> Can you please explain the relevance of who made the choice?
Simple, Brian. No matter what it's for, no fool pays more than they
possibly have to for anything. You wouldn't pay $15,000 for a $2,000
computer, would you?
If all that was required was rightfully an apology, you wouldn't expect to
be offered a whole lot more than that would you, in all honesty?
> >What do you think would've happened if the student had chosen to offer
> >nothing more than the apology, Brian?
>
> I do not know, Scrooge. I can guess, like you and everybody else can.
>
> Laurence Godfrey _may_ have elected to take the matter to law, if he
> so chose. That is the right of us all to use the law. It's the
> civilised manner of settling disputes, that beats lynch mob justice
> any day. If he did take the matter to the law, the outcome would
> have depended on the evidence placed before the court.
>
> Do you have any sort of problem with the law being used, Scrooge?
Of course not, it just depends on how it might be used. Meaning the actual
use of the law, compared to possibly using it as bargaining lever in an
effort to get what one wants.
So what you're saying is, that Dr G. took the law into his own hands when it
came to this situation? It certainly saved the court a lot of time and
trouble from deciding just what might have been the appropiate penalty, if
one was even needed depending on the wise judgement of the courts about it.
> >The student had put himself in a corner, agreed? However, he then wasn't
> >allowed to come out of the corner with just an apology. If that's not
> >right, then why was there any money involved?
>
> How do you know that he was not allowed to come out with only an
> apology? It is possible that he offered to make the payment. Another
> possibility is that the suggestion of making a payment was made, that
> he accepted.
All that is quite possible, especially if he faced with having to go to
court over it.
Lets not forget that a "threat" has already been made against me. That was
the word which you chose to describe the reply which was given to me, which
you had typed out with your very own hands in a post of your own about it.
> >> The student did the honorable thing and apologised. I do not
> >> understand why Scrooge should take it upon himself and undermine that
> >> apology.
> >
> >That's not entirely true is it, Brian?
> >You are right about the apology, but the student did quite a bit more
than
> >just apologise. You do the student a very big injustice by not
mentioning
> >that cash figure was also involved.
>
> That was part of the apology! Sheesh!
A very big and important part of the apology, Brian.
I can say sorry to you easy enough....
"Sorry, Brian"
Now was that apology just the same as giving one along with several hundred
dollars? It would be true to say that along with his apology the student
paid out a cash settlement as well. Would it not?
Credit where it's due, Brian, and the student deserves plenty of it.
> >> I have no further comment on the press clippings. Normally I'd snip
> >> here, but I think in this case people like Scrooge need to be given
> >> every opportunity to READ the contents. I'll leave intact. Thankyou
> >> Laurence for the information.
> >>
> >> Brian
> >
> >That was very nice of him.
> >Now perhaps you'd also expect him to be nice enough to apologise for the
> >"threat" that YOU seem to think that he had made towards me?
>
> <snip>
>
> Your comprehension skills are pitiful, Scrooge.
>
> There is NOTHING that Laurence Godfrey has said to you that deserves
> consideration of an apology to you. Quite the reverse.
>
> It's the posts of people such as yourself, that give me a clearer
> understanding of the hassles that Laurence Godfrey has experienced
> over the last few years.
>
> Brian
Having a simple mature discussion about what has taken place, is hardly a
hassle. Do try to keep up, Brian.
It's a true fact that not everyone is ever going to agree with everyone else
about things. I don't have a problem with that, but perhaps you do?
Just about anything can be freely talked about on usenet, get used to it,
Brian.
Try reading Oliver Twist for a change, you'd enjoy that classic, it might
help to bring you back down to earth about what is important in ones life.
Getting bitter and twisted about things, or just enjoying life for as long
as it might last?
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
EXCUSE ME, Brian.
But did you, or did you not just accuse the student of being a criminal?
And not just once, but twice?
That's for the courts to decide if someone is a criminal or not.
Tell me in all complete honesty, what do you think that Dr Godfrey would do,
if someone was stupid enough to accuse him of being a criminal?
I'm sure that Dr Godfrey would think that accusing someone of being a
criminal is a very serious accusation to make about anyone, if there isn't
one bit of truth to it?
This is a mature discussion, and here you are now accusing someone of being
a criminal.
If you don't think that it's any big deal. Then why don't you try accusing
Dr G. of being a criminal?
I wouldn't be too surprised if you were to rightfully be accused of
"defamation", in the eyes of Dr G. if you were to try that, Brian. So my
advice to you, is not to try it.
As for the student.
I believe that going by past events, that a quick agreement involving an
apology to him, and cash payouts to certain charities is the local going
rate for defamation these days as far as defamation of someone is concerned.
That's bad luck, Brian.
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
"Col" <jake.t...@the.marae.com> wrote in message
news:zqOBPIpQ2ERNQM...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 03:16:20 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>
> >He *may* have done anything. The fact is, you have no evidence for
> >suggesting so, apart from an overzealous desire to persist in treating
> >the student as the victim rather than the guilty party.
>
> YOu have no evidence that he didn't .
>
>
> >Some people have a warped view of justice. Apologising for the
> >criminal, excusing the criminal, blaming the victim. It's quite
> >amazing.
> >
> I wasn't apologising
> >
> >
> >>Godfrey does appear to have a domineering
> >>presense
> >
> >He appears to me as a person who values his reputation a great deal.
> >For that I say good on him. I understand.
> >It's not a crime to make a true defamatory statement though. I'm sure
> >Morgan Fahey in New Zealand lost a lot of fame through the publicity
> >of his crimes.
> >
> >
>
> One thing is for sure Brian and that is that if you met some of the people
you
> defend here all we would see is your shoe size ..
>
> --
> Col
Did you notice that Brian has just accused the student of being a
"criminal", Col?
Looks like a classic example of defamation to me.
There's been no information from the courts to suggest that the student is a
criminal. For Brian to suggest that he is, was just plain foolish.
E. Scrooge
Col
replaces x)> wrote:
>Did you notice that Brian has just accused the student of being a
>"criminal", Col?
>Looks like a classic example of defamation to me.
>There's been no information from the courts to suggest that the student is a
>criminal. For Brian to suggest that he is, was just plain foolish.
I was sort of hoping the student might have noticed that. Accusing a person of
being a criminal is a serious thing. Perhaps Brian might like to apologise to
the student and make some gesture towards him . I hope it will be nothing like
the gesture i have just made to Brian .. LOL
White Rabbit
> On Sat, 02 Mar 2002 17:26:04 -0600, White Rabbit
> You really should learn something about law before you comment upon
> legal judgments. The judge allowed the defendant's new amendments.
...which is exactly what the original article stated. However, your
statement that "The judge did nothing of the sort. These are words which
have been taken from a misleading press release put out by Demon at the
time and since withdrawn from Demon's press release site on the web." is
demonstrably untrue: Mr. Justice Morland did exactly that, and the words
were taken not from a misleading press release, but from the Court Record.
However, I can see little point in continuing this jolly repartee. I have
merely provided some background information on this case which, I suspect,
you would (perhaps understandably) have been unwilling to provide
yourself.
--
White Rabbit
E. Scrooge
"DH" <djh...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3c8194f3...@news.nzl.ihugultra.co.nz...
Thank you for that, DH.
I guess when it comes to usenet it depends on the newsgroup involved and the
standard of the conversations that's being discussed in them.
It's a bit like comparing the standard of conversation in a rugby changing
room, to that of a private lounge bar in a top golf club (which believe me,
isn't a whole lot different at times.
Even at most sports games the standard of conversation isn't that great, and
the level of the conversations in some newsgroups isn't a lot better. Which
doesn't mean to say that their shouldn't be any limits at all, especially if
someone gets "extremely" abusive to someone else.
If people find what goes on in some groups doesn't suit them, then they
should keep well away from those groups.
A lot of these groups aren't the places for young kids. Like anywhere else,
it's up to people to see if the standard of level within the groups suits
them or not.
When it comes to someone in this thread, it looks like they may possibly
have double standards when it comes to whatever happens to suit them. They
can give it, but they can't take it, for example.
Dr G. would enjoy the Bertie The Bunyip, along with JR, plus a few others.
LOL
He may well enjoy nz.queer. That would at least be his choice to make.
Cheers,
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
I saw that. <grin>
LMAOOO
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
"Kookaburra" <ga...@subdimension.com> wrote in message
news:kd538us587ra15js5...@4ax.com...
> >understanding of the hassles that Laurence Godfrey has experienced
> >over the last few years.
> >
> >Brian
> >
> of what Laurence Godfrey has experienced over these last few years?
>
> Damn I was starting to think because you are so vocal in your support
> of the man that perhaps you were in fact Brian Ross who apologised to
> him back in June 1993.
>
> Kooky
It looks like this Brian Ross guy might have enough motives to now support
Dr G. to possibly pay back any past debts perhaps.
E. Scrooge
Peter
Godfrey) wrote:
>I expect better reasoning than that from you, judging by your postings
>to sci.physics.
>
This whole thread is being cross-posted to nz.general and aus.legal
, hence it is collecting many comments from people who do not normally
follow sci.physics .
Dan Bloomquist
Laurence Godfrey wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 16:52:57 +1300, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>As a matter of interest. Did you make those comments about Thai women, Canadians
>>and Germans?
>>
>
> Please see my last 2 postings in which I go in to considerable detail
> about statements misattributed to me.
>
> Laurence
According to goggle archive, you say it is not possible to slander a
nation. Does that mean the persons of the nation don't have the rights
of the individual?
From what I saw, you took a long winded crack at Canada. If it were an
individual, it would have been highly defamatory. Was this post only a
fraud by someone else? If not, why do that?
Best, Dan.
Brian
<ga...@subdimension.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Mar 2002 04:29:03 GMT, bri...@wave.co.nz (Brian) wrote:
>>
>>Lastly: Nobody extorted money. He agreed to make some donations to
>>CHARITY.
>
>Brian I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this
>point. Looking at all these posts it appears you are a cheering
>committee of one in favour of Dr. G's actions.
I just call it as I see it.
>The way I read this apology it also seems that copies of the receipts
>are to be in DR. G's possession within a 7 day period before he
>actually waivers his rights to damages. Therefore this apology
>doesn't mean a damn without the receipts arriving in time. So it
>could have all been for nothing yet.
He has no rights to damages. That right would have to be determined
by a court.
>
>Dr. G has set himself up as judge and jury and used his past
>reputation to put fear into this student. Tell me this isn't
>threatening with menace.
Using the law can never be threatening with menace.
The law protects the innocent (well it tries to, with certain obvious
exceptions that I often write about :-( )
>I still say that this student in agreeing to apologise with that
>wording suggesting there were other physicists including Dr. G has
>left himself open to further retribution. I only hope for his sake
>the other physicists feel that the 3 charities which Dr. G has exacted
>the money for is enough.
He left himself open when he first defamed. His actions in
apologising are not the cause of his problems.
Brian
Brian
wrote:
> caterwhauling pignut
> go fart peas at the moon
> to a snipe like you
Something upsetting you, Col?
Brian
Col
Of course not . You'd know it if there was :)