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 ____________