North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9711/msg00129.html (fwd)
- From: Dean Robb
- Date: Mon Mar 01 02:21:04 1999
At 06:48 2/27/99 -0500, Special FX Communications wrote:
I do not choose to engage in private communciations with you on this matter.
As you mailed me without prior contact, I feel fully justified in
publicizing this email AND hope that others will take note of the relevant
law when the next jerk threatens them.
>The information on that page is inaccurate because the is no reason or
>proof why it is there. Any one can put out a list but with out anything to
>back the information the list is just garbage... There is no examples or
>proof that there was any e-mail bombing from our serers. Without proof
>that page is just hearsay, slander and libel. Show us the proof... If you
>people weren't so narrow minded you would see the point and remove or
>modify the page. If you can't show the proof then remove the page...
The page in question is an archive of a post. You cannot hold the
archivist responsible for the contents of the archive. This was explicitly
placed into law in 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1). The relevant portion of § 230
states: "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 section of the law was upheld by the 4th Circuit Court in ZERAN v
AMERICA ONLINE INC (Case No. 97-1523) November 12, 1997, affirming upon
appeal a decision of the US District Court for the Eastern District of
As long as the website owner merely posted what someone else had said, you
have no recourse against the website owner.
In short, go piss up a rope and learn the law before you start threatening
people with it.
>On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Dean Robb wrote:
>> At 07:12 2/24/99 -0800, Eric Germann wrote:
>> >Dear NANOG readers, should I edit the archives and the search engine?
>> >Should I become an "offensive material editor" for any and all parties
>> Uh, no. They're full of male bovine fecal matter. IF they could convince
>> some shyster to file a suit, it'd never make it...archivists are
>> well-protected under US law.
>> Ignore them. Nobody probably would have looked at the allegedly offensive
>> page if they weren't making a production number of it.
"Small minds can only contemplate small ideas".....Unknown
(757) 495-EASY 
On-site computer repair, upgrades and consultations
Read my game reviews/columns in SimOps on WWW.TheGamers.Net