From: John Woodgate
Subject: Re: Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still going on.
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 07:13:09 +0000
Organization: JMWA Electronics Consultancy
Reply-To: John Woodgate
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:27:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 <5Z8C9wtxbnpWyFnyfFzqmVF739>
I read in sci.electronics.design that Sir Charles W. Shults III
wrote (in ) about 'Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional
? : It is still going on.', on Mon, 25 Nov 2002:
> When a post or series of posts has content that creates an environment of
>disbelief or the ridiculous, then are we supposed to not post anything at all?
>Even when the whole concept of the newsgroup is to provide help, support,
> How about when quoting the original poster simply underlines how ridiculous
>the posting is?
There is no issue in this thread, AFAIK, about what a poster can
actually post. The point is whether a poster can *attempt* to influence
responses by invoking copyright law to prevent being brought into public
ridicule or contempt. I and at least one other say that such a legal
right exists but any damages awarded would *normally* be derisory. This
might NOT be so (and there is English case law to support this) if
untrue defamatory material were posted and the **ISP** concerned, having
been offered proof of the falsehood, declined to remove the offending
material. The complainant did not pursue the poster but only the ISP,
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Interested in professional sound reinforcement and distribution? Then go to
PLEASE do NOT copy news posts to me by E-MAIL!