This seemed relevant from my earlier posting on listowner libaility. FYI,
this TBTF (Tasty Bits from the Technology Front) looks quite handy.

        Hugh

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 21:34:27 -0400
From: Keith Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: TBTF for 1999-04-21: Plantation and archive

(snip)
..British court rules ISPs must police content

  Chilling move reflects a European trend

    The decision could chill online speech in Europe by making ISPs
    liable for the content carried on their servers [14]. A 1996 law
    explicitly allowed British ISPs to invoke an "innocent dissem-
    ination" defense in cases of libel, but the recent ruling struck
    down this provision.

    The case at issue is bizarre; one commentator quoted by Wired calls
    it "almost frivolous." One man in England, Laurence Godfrey, has
    filed 10 lawsuits in a personal crusade to try to force the Internet
    to submit to national libel laws. In this suit, he objected to a
    forged posting on the newsgroup soc.culture.thai that he claimed was
    libelous; the poster has no relationship whatsoever with Demon In-
    ternet, the defendant.

    The decision may point to a broader trend across Europe. A draft
    European Commission directive on electronic commerce suggests that
    ISPs should be liable for similar kinds of content if they are aware
    of its presence.

    Here is Demon Internet's spin on the story [15]. Thanks to Jarrod
    Poynton <jpoynton at email dot com> for pointing out this devel-
    opment.

    [14] http://www.wired.com/news/print_version/politics/story/18764.html?wnpg=all
    [15] http://www.dispatches.demon.net/cgi-bin/framer.pl/pr/1999/pr1999-03-26a.html
    ____________