Slander from Google

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Ryadia

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 3:47:14 PM2/6/05
to
Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
publisher of slander and defamation.

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

Douglas MacDonald

--
The Eulogy of Australia's last WW1 soldier...
Passed away at age 106.
"Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe"
Thank you Digger, may you Rest in Peace.

David H. Lipman

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:09:35 PM2/6/05
to
I don't blame you, there is too much sh!t being allowed to post via Google. However, it is
not 100% anonymous as the headers do include the IP address of the poster.

--
Dave


"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:36ne4aF...@individual.net...

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 4:50:02 PM2/6/05
to
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Message has been deleted

Deciple of EOS

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:36:24 AM2/7/05
to
As I understand the law of defamation in Australia, the one publishing
the work is the one to sue. Google publish the posts made to their http
forums to news groups as ASCI text. This is no different from me letting
you write whatever you want in a magazine I publish.

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

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


--
EOS my GOD,
Give me ISO for I have not yet seen the light.
Take away my grain, give me colour and you
shall have given me the edge!

Henry Law

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 4:23:44 AM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

Don't be an idiot, man.

Ryadia

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 5:25:06 AM2/7/05
to

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

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

Doug

Ryan Robbins

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 6:22:23 AM2/7/05
to

"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF...@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.

You won't win.

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

For an orgy?

Owamanga

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 8:27:38 AM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 15:36:24 +1000, Deciple of EOS
<decipl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

That's not quite how it works.

The defamation and obscenity laws are set out to protect companies
like google. For example, Telcos in any country (which most ISP's are
now in the UK) are not responsible for the words that their customers
speak over their phone lines. They carry it, that's all.

Likewise, ISP's are not responsible for the content of the data that
travels across their networks.

Reason: They offer no editorial control.

Goolge isn't publishing anything until it gets an editor. As soon as
they edit or censor one post, they become a publisher. It's for that
reason, they won't edit anything.

Neither is Google or any other open search engine responsible for the
RESULTS of their search. Again: no editor, so it's not a publication.

What google ARE doing wrong is not taking action to prevent these
twits from posting their crap. Usenet has it's own rules and if enough
people complain, google could lose their ability to post (ie, the core
of usenet actively refuse to carry their posts, so they effectively
don't exist any more). This is called a UDP (usenet death penalty),
and if enough people are involved, the top admins (guys from
supernews, easynews, giganews etc) will configure their servers to
reject those posts originating from google, and stop feeding google
with posts from their networks.

A problem however, is that Google's archives of usenet ARE worth
something, so I guess these guys don't want to rock-the-boat.

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

It makes no difference where the source is. Assholes live in the US
too.

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

A real IP is meaningless as a form of identification. Due to the
limitations of the internet, not everyone has a unique IP address.
The best it can do is (for a short period of time in the case of cable
and some dial-up providers who rotate IPs routinely [read: Dynamic IP
address]) is take you to the company, household, hotel or wireless
accesspoint involved - in legal terms, it's fucking useless.

--
Owamanga!

Alan Browne

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 9:24:37 AM2/7/05
to
Ryadia wrote:

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

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

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

Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Fascinated Fed

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 9:33:30 AM2/7/05
to

"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF...@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up to
> the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald

------

What was said, about whom?......any links?


SteveJ

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 10:03:18 AM2/7/05
to
I glad he's is not my neighbor, he probley suies everybody for anything.


"Fascinated Fed" <se...@thefrontrow.com> wrote in message
news:36pcibF...@individual.net...

Horace

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 10:08:23 AM2/7/05
to

"SteveJ" <S...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:DIidnexZdp-...@comcast.com...

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

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! - if he hears you saying that he might have you in court
before you can say, "Cheque Book".....and don't forget, he's got a Queen's
Counsel to act for him...bwaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!


Graham Holden

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 10:37:55 AM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:24:37 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan....@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

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

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

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

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

Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

JC Dill

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:01:30 PM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:25:06 +1000, Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

jc

Frank ess

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:20:44 PM2/7/05
to
Ryadia wrote:
> Henry Law wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as
>>> the publisher of slander and defamation.
>>

<snip Mr Law's helpful but tardy advice>

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

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

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

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

Resp'y,


--
Frank ess
"There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
thinking, plain or fancy."


Owamanga

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:29:51 PM2/7/05
to

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

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

--
Owamanga!

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:41:04 PM2/7/05
to
Deciple of EOS <decipl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> As I understand the law of defamation in Australia, the one publishing
> the work is the one to sue. Google publish the posts made to their http
> forums to news groups as ASCI text. This is no different from me letting
> you write whatever you want in a magazine I publish.

I have no idea what the law is in Australia. But I do know that if what
you say above is truly the law there, then the law is an ass.

The two are *very* different. When I let you write whatever you want in
my magazine, it has no resemblance to letting you post through my Usenet
server. Making the two legally the same would be completely stupid.

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

What in the world do you think proxy servers have to do with anything?

Let's say I run a popular Usenet service used by people all over the world
to make some tens of thousands of posts every day, around the clock. Now,
let's say the government comes along and tells me that I'm now responsible
as a "publisher" of those posts. How is it that you think I'm supposed to
evaluate all of those posts before they go out, to ensure that no one is
posting something defamatory? Do you really think it is *possible* to look
at several posts per second and make that determination, even though I don't
actually speak all of the languages that may be in use?

Do you think there is *any* way I could protect myself, other than to shut
down posting entirely?

Google ignores abuse from its users; there is no question about that. It's
been going on for far too long; there is no question there, either. But
the course of action presented by this frothing loony is just plain stupid.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:50:08 PM2/7/05
to
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Goolge isn't publishing anything until it gets an editor. As soon as
> they edit or censor one post, they become a publisher. It's for that
> reason, they won't edit anything.

This is an oft-repeated myth that is completely incorrect.

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

> What google ARE doing wrong is not taking action to prevent these
> twits from posting their crap.

Indeed.

> This is called a UDP (usenet death penalty), and if enough people are
> involved, the top admins (guys from supernews, easynews, giganews etc)
> will configure their servers to reject those posts originating from
> google, and stop feeding google with posts from their networks.

It's not quite that simple. Even if you could get all those admins to
agree, which is far from likely, there is a *lot* of legitimate traffic
coming from Google. You would be dropping a lot of peoples' posts on
the floor, and many of those admins would rather have the perceived
competitive advantage of not missing those posts and getting the
resulting complaints, and therefore an agreement like the one you
suggest would be very unlikely to occur in the current climate.

Which is unfortunate, but true.

> A problem however, is that Google's archives of usenet ARE worth
> something, so I guess these guys don't want to rock-the-boat.

It's not that. It's the value of Google's legitimate posting traffic
that would cause the problem. If no "normal" people used Google to
post, there would be essentially no issue, and you would see Google
traffic already blocked by many providers. The admins you refer to
above, in large part, already *want* to block Google, but can't do
it because of the legitimate posts.

> The best it can do is (for a short period of time in the case of cable
> and some dial-up providers who rotate IPs routinely [read: Dynamic IP
> address]) is take you to the company, household, hotel or wireless
> accesspoint involved - in legal terms, it's fucking useless.

In legal terms, it's not at all useless, because that can get you to
the person who knows the identity of the poster. Not always, but
often enough.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Alan Browne

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:49:26 PM2/7/05
to
Graham Holden wrote:

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

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

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

Horace

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 12:56:50 PM2/7/05
to

"JC Dill" <jcdi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:rm6f01petq9p9uehv...@4ax.com...

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

> that is).......<


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

In this case, one wonders whether all this nonsense isn't fuelled by an
excess of the latter.....


Owamanga

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 1:28:41 PM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:50:08 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
wrote:

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

I disagree.

To quote a legal site (link at the bottom)

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

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

Cite please.

Here's one assessment I found of that case:

<start of clip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<end clip>

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

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

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

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

--
Owamanga!

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 1:45:40 PM2/7/05
to
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

47 USC Section 230, enacted in 1996.

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

The Congressional Conference Report on section 230 states:

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

See also Zeran v. America Online.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Owamanga

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 1:55:31 PM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 18:45:40 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

He key part here I believe is:

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

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

So, OP, go ahead, sue them.

;-)

--
Owamanga!

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 2:04:02 PM2/7/05
to
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Owamanga

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 2:20:43 PM2/7/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:04:02 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

Cool.

--
Owamanga!

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 2:33:14 PM2/7/05
to
Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Ryadia

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 2:47:29 PM2/7/05
to
Frank ess wrote:

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

You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
those posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups.
This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

Doug

Ryadia

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 2:50:44 PM2/7/05
to
Alan Browne wrote:

>
> I was just making the example as simple as possible. Airing tapes is,
> as you say, an editorial decision and usually made with more than one
> source of information. (There was a similar case here where a newspaper
> quoted something said on air by a former Premier (provincial first
> minister). The Premier sued the radio station and the newspaper. He
> lost against the newspaper as it was just reporting what the radio
> station said (and attributed it to the radio station)).
>
> As to 'slander' v. 'libel', it could be argued that the broadcast of a
> recorded utterance is the broadcast of a 'document' and thus libel. (If
> "live" then it is slander.) But that's just my opinion ... I have no
> idea how civil courts interpret it.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
a newsgroup host.

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 3:17:17 PM2/7/05
to
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
> electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
> a newsgroup host.

That's idiotic.

The difference between Google and a Usenet provider is that Google provides
a web interface. They provide the newsreader as well as the service. That's
it.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Horace

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 3:24:52 PM2/7/05
to

"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pv0aF...@individual.net...

>
> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all those
> posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This, I'm
> told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.<

----


You would do well to consider the matter thoroughly before wasting the cost
of yet another motor car on this futile pursuit.

Google most certainly do *not* publish anything on newsgroups - all they do
is maintain a web presence that harvests and/or forwards the Usenet posts of
others.

In fact, if you're going to sue Google for anything, make it an action for
copyright infringement - since this post (like millions of others) is
destined to end up on their web server without my permission being sought or
obtained.

Usenet itself is a barely tangible thing - where does it exist?, on the
servers of your ISP?, or mine?, or in the downloaded posts contained on
millions of computers world-wide?

If Google allow you access to this ethereal network they cannot, by any sane
definition, be accused of publishing martial - any more than a bus company
could be accused of publishing pornography if you hopped on the number 22 to
pop into town in order to purchase a copy of 'Readers Wives -Hot, Hot
Hot!!!' (don't buy the February issue, btw - it's disgusting!)

FWIW, my own thoughts are that any man who lavishes the cost of new car on
pursuing a Usenet troll has [i] far too much spare cash, and [ii] far too
much spare time - and any lawyer with an ounce of integrity would point that
out to you.


Charles

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 5:11:36 PM2/7/05
to
In article <36pv0aF...@individual.net>, Ryadia
<rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
> those posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups.
> This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

I think that is an interesting theory. What the heck if you have the
money and a lawyer to test the theory I think it will be an interesting
test case, even if you lose it.

--
Charles

Horace

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 5:19:43 PM2/7/05
to

"Jeremy Nixon" <jer...@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:110fgjq...@corp.supernews.com...


National colloquialism's must surely play a part here?

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

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

Which of course, Mr Jackson isn't, wasn't, didn't and never could be.
Honestly.


Message has been deleted

Frank ess

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 5:26:53 PM2/7/05
to

You aren't by chance a "QC" are you?


Charles

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 5:40:14 PM2/7/05
to
In article <mLKdnfY_2YO...@giganews.com>, Frank ess
<fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> You aren't by chance a "QC" are you?

Nope. I think he is wasting his time and money on this suit. I don't
think he should do it, but since he seems intent on doing it, it will
be interesting to see how far it gets.

--
Charles

Ryan Robbins

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 10:00:00 PM2/7/05
to

"Owamanga" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcef015ndbjs7hfdk...@4ax.com...

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

How is Google not an interactive computer service?


Ryan Robbins

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 10:00:00 PM2/7/05
to

"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pv0aF...@individual.net...
> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all those
> posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This, I'm
> told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

Google provides access to Usenet and it archives Usenet postings. It is not
akin to a newspaper.


Darrell

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 10:32:55 PM2/6/05
to

"Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QWVNd.20317$t46.12837@trndny04...
Google makes it too easy for people to post. If they (Google) made use of a
verifiable e-mail header in the post headings there would be next to no
abuse. The determined will find a way via anon remailers and mail2news
gateways, but they would be using Google.


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Graham Holden

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:01:32 AM2/8/05
to
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:20:43 GMT, Owamanga <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

In the context of Google, yes. So you can't sue Google because _they_
didn't make the statement, it came from one of Google's 'information
content provider's (a Google user).

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

Not unless that user had some mechanism in place to perform "blind",
indiscriminate reposting of the information from that provider (i.e.
someone who has set up an automatic digest-posting to a newsgroup from a
mailing list). If a user _chooses_ to make a deliberate post, even if the
information came from another source, they have "published" that info. (As
a later respondent comments, posting "The XYZ Media Corp reported that
'...<some contentious comment>...'" _might_ be a different case).

The key concept (as I understand it) is _control_: if you/an organisation
has no control over the information, then you can't be held liable for its
content (though you might be held liable for not _having_ control, but
that's probably a different question).

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


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

Graham Holden

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:29:24 AM2/8/05
to
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:50:44 +1000, Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
>electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
>a newsgroup host.

I'm appreciative of the position you're in, and of your desire to "do
something about it", but, as others have said, I do think you're getting
possibly unreliable advice about "going for" Google.

What you see as a "Google forum" is really nothing more than a web-based
interface to the news groups of usenet. It isn't "something separate", the
contents of which are "republished" to usenet: it is just another way to
read from/post to usenet. They are no more "republishing" than is my copy
of Agent when it sends this post to my ISP's news server.

Almost certainly usenet would be a better place if Google placed tighter
controls over who can post, and you'd probably get more encouragement from
others if you took them to task over this (I don't know what, if any, law
you would base an action on, but I'm almost sure it wouldn't be for libel).

<covering-my-back-disclaimer>
I am not a lawyer, just a drifter through usenet. The above opinion is
based on the situation as I see it, but is offered "for information only".
</covering-my-back-disclaimer>

Owamanga

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:35:53 AM2/8/05
to

Google is, but the law states the information has to come to them
(google) via *another* interactive computer service. Apparently the
human poster meets that description. This prevents the guys at google
outright libeling anybody just because they are a interactive computer
service - the libel has to come from somewhere else first to be
protected.

--
Owamanga!

Rigo Muniz

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 8:12:15 AM2/8/05
to
Corporations like Google protect the criminal's own illegimate rights.
Ethical is absent when it comes to partake money and greed in this
world.
Society crumbles when it abandons universal cannons of ethics and moral
values.

For six years or so I have been stalked myself by an evil individual
from Asia by posting anonymous diffamatory messages and spreading lies
about me and posting my old personal home address along with it. Google
or Yahoo do not care at all!.. All they care is their profits and
corporate revenues. All they need to do is to ban the anon ids and have
filters that prohibit foul and offensive language.
You may think that law and justice are part of a so called civilized
world.But There is not much difference between the wild west and the
internet.

Lionel wrote:
> [Posted, & also emailed to Douglas McDonald]
>
> Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jer...@exit109.com> stated that:
> >Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google
as the
> >> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> Great work, Douglas. :)
> Maybe a court case will convince Google to start enforcing their
> terms-of-service, & to assign a technical staffer to secure their
> service from abuse by their users.
>
> I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would you please
> email me to tell me what I need to do?
>
> Given that you're already dipping into your wallet for a lawyer, one
> really useful thing you might consider doing would be to ask him/her
to
> draw up some form of legal notice that a victim could fax or
snail-mail
> (via registered post) to Google, each time one of us is forged or
> defamed by their user, asking them to cancel the posts concerned, &
to
> delete the originating account, per their terms of service. This
would
> either cause them to actually deal with the problem instead of
ignoring
> it, or would give us a huge pile of court evidence that Google have
been
> *knowingly* enabling defamation & forgeries by their users.
>
> >You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the
publisher
> >of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that
if you
> >are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that
being
> >the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally.
>
> I am not a lawyer, (nor do I play one on TV), but I imagine that
simply
> making a reasonable effort to enforce their TOS - rather than
ignoring
> it they way they currently do - would be sufficient to provide them,
(or
> any other news provider) with a 'good faith' defence against
defamation
> or libel suits.
>
> > Luckily, although
> >UK law is a bit silly about this,
>
> Actually, Douglas & I are both Australians, although it's true that
our
> legal system is very similar to the British system.
>
> > I doubt you'll be successful under US
> >law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.
>
> So far, both Australian & British courts have taken the attitude
that,
> for the purposes of libel / defamation law, website operators &
Usenet
> news services are considered to be worldwide 'publishers'. As I
> understand it, the argument is that (for example), if an Australian
is
> defamed or libelled via a website that's accessable to the general
> public in Australia, then an offence has, by definition, taken place
in
> Australia, & is consequently within the jurisdiction of Australian
> courts.
> As for enforcing any judgement we might obtain from an Australian
court,
> I suspect that the solution would be to track down any corporate
> presence that Google Ltd might have in Australia, & make the initial
> case against them, as representatives of the American parent company.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda
est
>
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Owamanga

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 9:07:29 AM2/8/05
to
On 8 Feb 2005 05:12:15 -0800, "Rigo Muniz" <bengal...@juno.com>
wrote:

>Corporations like Google protect the criminal's own illegimate rights.
>Ethical is absent when it comes to partake money and greed in this
>world.
>Society crumbles when it abandons universal cannons of ethics and moral
>values.
>
>For six years or so I have been stalked myself by an evil individual
>from Asia by posting anonymous diffamatory messages and spreading lies
>about me and posting my old personal home address along with it. Google
>or Yahoo do not care at all!.. All they care is their profits and
>corporate revenues. All they need to do is to ban the anon ids and have
>filters that prohibit foul and offensive language.
>You may think that law and justice are part of a so called civilized
>world.But There is not much difference between the wild west and the
>internet.

Well I don't care if they only go after you. It's when they start
screwing up the NG for *everyone* that I have a problem.

<hides under desk>

--
Owamanga!

Michael Benveniste

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 9:21:22 AM2/8/05
to
"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF...@individual.net...

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

Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
Australia, you might want to look at 47 USC 230 before spending your
money.

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.


Message has been deleted

Alan Browne

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 10:32:39 AM2/8/05
to
Ryadia wrote:

> Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
> electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
> a newsgroup host.

"Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts to usenet
and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval. There is nobody
involved. The material is originated by someone not associated with Google.
Those are the people you need to track down. Your lawyer should get a court
order to get Google (or better, the offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.

I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue the
originator. Google is just the messenger.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Owamanga

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 10:32:37 AM2/8/05
to
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 02:04:05 +1100, Lionel <n...@alt.net> wrote:

>Kibo informs me that "Michael Benveniste" <mhb-...@clearether.com>
>stated that:


>
>>"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

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

>Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
>American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website, &
>the verdict held:
>
>[Defamation on the Internet: Joseph Gutnick v Dow Jones]
><http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v11n3/beyer113_text.html>
>
>Coincidentally, Mr Gutnick lauched, & won, his case against Dow Jones
>right here in my home city. Maybe I should give him a call & get the
>name of his laywer...

Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
work?

...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
Australian Bailiffs on board.

Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?

--
Owamanga!

Ryadia

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 5:28:50 PM2/8/05
to
Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
> "Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts to
> usenet and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval. There is
> nobody involved. The material is originated by someone not associated
> with Google. Those are the people you need to track down. Your lawyer
> should get a court order to get Google (or better, the offenders ISP) to
> reveal who they are.
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue
> the originator. Google is just the messenger.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>
You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
(according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
communicating information.

Most of the posters who offer their opinions on such diverse topics as
my mental health and the hungry starving children of the world needing
my money more than lawyers, have never actually put up the bucks to find
out if their opinion is valid or not. I have.

I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or
later turn up some identity of who actually controls Google. So far it's
a garden path waltz through many countries, local corporations and
holding companies. You can't just sue "Google".

They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
expensive to stop this little Aussie.

I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.

Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
the bastard, it'll happen.

Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.

Doug

David H. Lipman

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 5:36:41 PM2/8/05
to
Good Luck Doug.

--
Dave


"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:36ssqsF...@individual.net...

Ryadia

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 5:39:13 PM2/8/05
to
Owamanga wrote:
>
>
> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
> work?
>
> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>
> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?
>
> --
> Owamanga!

If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just
money. My reputation, My wife's reputation and my family's standing in
the community. My daughter's business, my own business.

If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
reassess your own principals. If people don't trust your honesty and
integrity, how are you going to run a business which relies on them
doing that? As for sinking the ship? We have a Free Trade Agreement with
the USA which prevents that from happening!

Doug

McLeod

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 5:46:10 PM2/8/05
to
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:28:50 +1000, Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I really do appreciate all the cross chatter from everyone. What has
>prompted this quest for justice is the fact my on-line store was
>attacked by this cretin with allegations of fraud and theft of credit
>card numbers. My wife (A licensed gaming officer) lost her job when
>someone showed one of the post to her boss and I just downright don't
>agree with anyone doing this because I criticized their photography.

Maybe you should be suing her employers instead of living your life on
usenet. Unless there is some truth in it you would have a much better
case against them...innocent until proven guilty, etc.

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 6:08:24 PM2/8/05
to
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
> communicating information.

Your $760 legal opinion is completely absurd, lacking any basis whatsoever
in the technical reality of how the process works.

Yes, I am an expert in the field.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 6:11:33 PM2/8/05
to
Ryadia <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
> reassess your own principals.

My principal in high school was a real bastard. Always gave me detention.

If you're talking about principles, though, it escapes me why you would
want to go after Google rather than the person who actually did something
to you.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Frank ess

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 6:34:34 PM2/8/05
to

Ah. I see. _That_ kind of small car.

--
Frank ess


Message has been deleted

Ryan Robbins

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 6:58:06 PM2/8/05
to

"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ssqsF...@individual.net...
> I dare say the ongoing research my lawyers are doing will sooner or later
> turn up some identity of who actually controls Google.

If you really have lawyers, and if they are any good, then they would have
told you to keep your mouth shut about the case.


Ryan Robbins

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:00:32 PM2/8/05
to

"Ryadia" <rya...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36stebF...@individual.net...

> If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the truth.
> This is about a principal.

Which school does he work for?

> All the world wars were over principals, people die defending them.

When I was in school, a lot of people didn't like the principal, so I don't
know why anyone would fight to the death to defend one.

> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to reassess
> your own principals.

My high school principal was actually a decent guy. He was fair.

Message has been deleted

True211

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:06:05 PM2/8/05
to

"Ryan Robbins" <redbi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:imcOd.12047$ya6.2616@trndny01...

I agree. This guy is probably bluffing.

(DISCLAIMER: That is my personal opinion...lest I get sued for writing it)
;)


C Wright

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:09:39 PM2/8/05
to
On 2/8/05 4:28 PM, in article 36ssqsF...@individual.net, "Ryadia"
<rya...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> They (whoever the ultimate owners of Google are) have created a
> minefield of deception to make it very hard for anyone seeking to do
> this. The discovery process of who actually to server the documents on
> is what stops most people due to it's cost. It'll have to get might
> expensive to stop this little Aussie.
>

> Hell, enough of you lot have had your say about me and my opinions,
> methods and techniques. We're all fair game here but not when a person
> takes sniper shots at you from behind a corporation offering to conceal
> sources to all and sundry then refuses to even provide a process for
> complaint, much less listen to any. It has taken nearly 9 months to
> contact and interview everyone who ever bought from my store before I
> took it down. I really don't care if it takes another 9 years to find
> the bastard, it'll happen.
>
> Governments hell bent on decency instead of war should be doing what I
> am. Unfortunately no country except China seems to have moved fast
> enough to formulate laws to control this sort of thing. It is fortunate
> in this instance that in Australia at any rate, laws do exist which can
> be used by individuals to defend themselves and the Free Trade Agreement
> we have with the USA makes it easier to cross national legal boundaries.
>
> Doug

I am going to wade in on this one time only with just a few comments (I
don't wish to enter the full scale war)!
First, I would be every bit as upset and angry as you if something like this
happened to me and I hope you find the bastard. But -
Lawyers like to go after 'deep pockets' do you suppose, that just maybe,
that is why the name Google comes up more than the real culprit? Those deep
pockets also mean that they can hire more lawyers than perhaps you can!
Finally, if your suit or anyone else's similar suit were successful would
any of us like the new Internet that would exist afterward? I picture all
ISP's and all of the Google's of the world with teams of censors cleaning
the Internet of of any hint of any discouraging word. Half of the posts
currently on Usenet would never make it. And who would pay for all of that -
all of us would.
Why not spend your money on technical experts who can actually determine who
the bastard is so that you can sue the real villain?
Chuck

Rob Kelk

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:18:39 PM2/8/05
to
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:27:47 +1100, Lionel <n...@alt.net> wrote to
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and news.groups:

>[Xposted to news.groups, where this is more on-topic. Followups set
>there as well, as I don't wish to contribute to the current swamp of
>sewerage.]

<snip>

Actually, this is off-topic for news.groups. It's on-topic over on
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet or news.admin.net-abuse.misc. If you have a
policy change to suggest, then news.admin.net-abuse.policy would be
better than either of those groups.

Followups left set to news.groups; I'll let the earlier poster re-set
them more appropriately.

--
Rob Kelk
Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz
Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's.
ott.* newsgroup charters: <http://onag.pinetree.org>

Message has been deleted

Guy Macon

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 7:30:22 PM2/8/05
to

Ryadia wrote:

>If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
>truth. This is about a principal.

Well, then, your problem is solved! Just go to the school board and
get that principal fired!

>All the world wars were over principals, people die defending them.

Oh come now. Schools didn't even have principals until the Prussian
Method of school organization was introduced.

>If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
>reassess your own principals.

I am out of school, and thus have no principal to assess or reassess.
Is it OK if I reassess my CEO instead?

>If people don't trust your honesty and integrity, how are you going
>to run a business which relies on them doing that?

But what of the lawyers reading this? They run a business which
relies on their dishonesty and lack of integrity - as you will
discover for yourself if you sue a large corporation.


--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will
just be a completely unintentional side effect."
-Linus Torvalds

jfitz

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 8:14:27 PM2/8/05
to
"Horace" <hor...@sendmespam.com> wrote in message
news:36pofkF...@individual.net...
> Ah, in the UK, 'QC' can either mean a Queen's Counsel (a Lawyer with
> considerably higher qualifications than a mundane 'Solicitor') or a brand
> of cheap sherry.

And, based on its merits, this legal action, if it exists other than in the
mind of the OP, will wind up in the WC.


Charles

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 8:27:19 PM2/8/05
to
In article <BE2EB0AA.192DA%wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com>, C Wright
<wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:

> But - Lawyers like to go after 'deep pockets' do you suppose, that
> just maybe, that is why the name Google comes up more than the real
> culprit? Those deep pockets also mean that they can hire more
> lawyers than perhaps you can!

Possibly the lawyers are hoping Google will go for an out of court
settlement.

--
Charles

Jeremy Nixon

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 9:15:31 PM2/8/05
to
Lionel <n...@alt.net> wrote:

>>Yes, I am an expert in the field.
>

> Australian law? - I doubt it.

In the technical operation of Usenet, which, as I know you know, bears no
resemblance to the nonsense he's rambling about.

I fully agree that something should be done about the Google problem, but
this most definitely is not it.

--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com

Hamilton Davidson

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 11:56:06 PM2/8/05
to
Mr. MacDonald,

I'm not sure how to respond to such a poorly-worded message.

Your charge that Google has "sought to ignore common courtesy" is a
bit defamatory in itself, since I really don't think you'll ever be
able to prove that their board of directors sat around a table and
said "Okay, we need to find a way to ignore common courtesy, so let's
come up with something."

Also, it is called a "lawsuit," not a "law suite." (By the way, "news
groups" are usually referred to as "newsgroups" these days.)

And it seems spurious that you are motivated by the notion that
they've been doing this "for too long now." Shouldn't you be more
bothered by the idea that they are doing it AT ALL, or perhaps the
fact (which you would have to prove) that they've been given fair
warning and a reasonable time period to take their own corrective
steps? You should be more specific.

Lastly, to give any credibility to this whatsoever, you should publish
the name of the law firm that is assisting you -- not your personal
Hotmail address. Otherwise, it's just another empty rant.

HD

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

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

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

>Douglas MacDonald

Brian {Hamilton Kelly}

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 5:38:00 PM2/8/05