From: Winfield Hill
Subject: Re: Human Experimentation : Civil, Criminal, Constitutional ? : It is still going on.
Date: 26 Nov 2002 06:28:26 -0800
Organization: Rowland Institute
X-Newsreader: Direct Read News 4.11
> 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,
Usenet posts last only a short while on an ISP's server anyway: they
are transitory. One place one might reasonably pursue is Google's
groups archive, and they have an established rule to deal the issue.
* Messages posted by other people
By its very nature, Usenet consists of information posted by many people.
Google does not monitor or control the content of this information. Instead,
we simply provide access to the public forum in which people post their
Accordingly, if you are concerned about a message that someone has posted,
you need to resolve that problem directly with the person who posted it.
Except in extreme circumstances, Google will not act upon an individual's
request to remove another person's messages. We firmly believe it is not
Google's role to resolve disputes among the users who have posted millions
of messages on Usenet, nor would it be possible to fulfill that role if we
chose to undertake it.