Slander from Google

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36stebF55q319U1@individual.net...
> If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the truth.
> This is about a principal.

Which school does he work for?

> All the world wars were over principals, people die defending them.

When I was in school, a lot of people didn't like the principal, so I don't
know why anyone would fight to the death to defend one.

> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to reassess
> your own principals.

My high school principal was actually a decent guy. He was fair.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

>If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
>truth. This is about a principal.

Well, then, your problem is solved! Just go to the school board and
get that principal fired!

>All the world wars were over principals, people die defending them.

Oh come now. Schools didn't even have principals until the Prussian
Method of school organization was introduced.

>If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
>reassess your own principals.

I am out of school, and thus have no principal to assess or reassess.
Is it OK if I reassess my CEO instead?

>If people don't trust your honesty and integrity, how are you going
>to run a business which relies on them doing that?

But what of the lawyers reading this? They run a business which
relies on their dishonesty and lack of integrity - as you will
discover for yourself if you sue a large corporation.


--
"Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will
just be a completely unintentional side effect."
-Linus Torvalds

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

>
> If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
> truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
> principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just

principle



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 22:38:00 +0000 (GMT), bhk@dsl.co.uk (Brian
{Hamilton Kelly}) wrote:

>On Tuesday, in article
> <c2nh011a863rc3i71e7nrlfhpqs0v685o1@4ax.com>
> nomail@hotmail.com "Owamanga" wrote:
>
>> Surely Google would need a physical presence in Australia for this to
>> work?
>>
>> ...eg, the US will sink any ships heading this way with Armed
>> Australian Bailiffs on board.
>>
>> Even if you do win, you can't get the money, so why bother filing?
>
>It seems to have escaped your notice that google.com.au exists, and
>certainly appears to be located Down-under. As such, it could be
>bankrupted; what would the SEC think about /that/ (they already seem to
>have a rather circumspect attitude towards Google)?
>
>Ditto for google.co.uk.

All of those domains, I believe, are simply aliases; Google has a
complicated algorithm for working out which server to actually connect
you to, but I don't think which domain name you use makes any
difference; it just determines which user interface you get. Whether
Google has actual hardware in Australis I don't know, but the
existence of google.com.au tells you nothing about that one way or the
other. Nor does it tell you whether there is a separate incorporated
entity in Australia; I don't see any reason why there should be.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
stated that:

>To my knowledge no internet company has been found liable for content posted via
>its services.

Incorrect:
<http/www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?00794>

In my opinion, Googles negligence in failing to take fairly simple
technical measures to kick the troll off their system leaves them wide
open to a similar action.

> OTOH, they usually will cooperate with the police or a court
>order to provide details about the offending poster. Your lawyer will probably
>need to get a court order in your home state/province and send that to Google
>(or better, the offenders ISP if that is clear from the Google header). They
>will provide what data they can.

The posts come via hijacked proxies.

>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>or reporter.

You're forgetting about the forgeries - they count too.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lionel wrote:

> Kibo informs me that Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca>
> stated that:
>
>
>>To my knowledge no internet company has been found liable for content posted via
>>its services.
>
>
> Incorrect:
> <http/www.sourceuk.net/indexf.html?00794>

No. Correct. They weren't found liable for the posting, they were found liable
for not removing the posting at Godfrey's request. Quotes from same source:

--"He requested that the posting be removed. Unfortunately, Demon failed to take
action and the posting continued to be available on its news server until it
expired in the usual way ten days later."

--"It <Demon> was successful in claiming that it was merely involved as an
operator or provider of access to a communications system through which the
statement was made available."

That 2nd quote is something Doug should pay attention to. Further, Doug should
be making efforts to have the slanderous/libelous info removed to show he is
making an effort outside the court to protect his integrity.

>
> In my opinion, Googles negligence in failing to take fairly simple
> technical measures to kick the troll off their system leaves them wide
> open to a similar action.
>
>
>> OTOH, they usually will cooperate with the police or a court
>>order to provide details about the offending poster. Your lawyer will probably
>>need to get a court order in your home state/province and send that to Google
>>(or better, the offenders ISP if that is clear from the Google header). They
>>will provide what data they can.
>
>
> The posts come via hijacked proxies.

That's what "...provide what data they can." means. You would be silly to take
to court evidence that is not clearly/cleanly linked to the originator.

>
>
>>Put it in this context, if a television reporter makes a libelous statement
>>about you on camera without anything to back it up, you can sue him and the
>>station; if the station shows tape of some person making a libelous statement
>>about you, then you can sue the person making the statement but not the station
>>or reporter.
>
>
> You're forgetting about the forgeries - they count too.

Forgeries can be shown to be such in most cases. The plaintiff would have to
show the headers in detail tracing the posting to the originator. You can forge
headers to some degree, but there will be something incorrect about the header
that will reveal it didn't come from where the (innocent in this case) defendant
typically posts on the NG's.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Pedro]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Could this thread be termed Off Topic. Slander refers only to spoken
statements, written statements of defamation are libel.

Just a thought . . . . .

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up to
> the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald
>
> --
> The Eulogy of Australia's last WW1 soldier...
> Passed away at age 106.
> "Love many, trust few, and always paddle your own canoe"
> Thank you Digger, may you Rest in Peace.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:

>Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You've missed it again. The word forward is the key.
>> Technically speaking HTTP is not NNTP and therefore to accept anonymous
>> posts in one protocol and on one port (http) and convert it to another
>> protocol then forward it to Usenet hosts on a different port is
>> (according to my $760 legal opinion) the modern day equivilant of
>> publishing and delivering a 'publication' for the purpose of
>> communicating information.
>
>Your $760 legal opinion is completely absurd, lacking any basis whatsoever
>in the technical reality of how the process works.
>
>Yes, I am an expert in the field.

Australian law? - I doubt it. As for American law, here's something the
American Bar Association has said about the implications of the British
Godfrey v Demon Internet case:
<http/www.abanet.org/forums/communication/comlawyer/fall99/stephens.html>

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lionel <nop@alt.net> wrote:

>>Yes, I am an expert in the field.
>
> Australian law? - I doubt it.

In the technical operation of Usenet, which, as I know you know, bears no
resemblance to the nonsense he's rambling about.

I fully agree that something should be done about the Google problem, but
this most definitely is not it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:

>Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you think you can put a price on integrity, you really need to
>> reassess your own principals.
>
>My principal in high school was a real bastard. Always gave me detention.
>
>If you're talking about principles, though, it escapes me why you would
>want to go after Google rather than the person who actually did something
>to you.

There are plenty of mentally-ill people out there who would do similar
things to our troll, given the opportunity. Google gives them that
opportunity, & doesn't provide any recourse for the victims of such
behaviour.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

In article <36stebF55q319U1@individual.net>, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

>
>If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
>truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
>principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just

What connection is there between your situation and a school official?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

"David Bostwick" <david.bostwick@chemistry.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:cud6f8$p4j$1@news-int2.gatech.edu...
> In article <36stebF55q319U1@individual.net>, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> >If you think this is about money, you couldn't be further from the
> >truth. This is about a principal. All the world wars were over
> >principals, people die defending them. Far more for me to lose than just
>
> What connection is there between your situation and a school official?

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Lionel wrote:

> Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
> American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website,
&
> the verdict held:

In the Gutnick case, Dow Jones was responsible for the content both
under U.S. and Australian law. That is not the case here.

Also in the Gutnick case, the plaintiff specifically limited his
case to Australian readers.

Feel free to try, though. It's your money, and I don't have any
connection to or financial interest in google.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-of...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

> I was referring to a question about the jurisdiction of Australian
> courts. Take a look at Godfrey v Demon Internet for the Usenet
> situation. Combining the two precedent-setting cases, & it's obvious
> that the present situation is covered.

Read the Godfrey case again. It strongly hints that a U.K. court
would honor the protections granted to U.S. ISP's, but that
Parliment did not grant the same protection to U.K. ISP's.
Furthermore, the settlement before jury trial limits the
precential value of the case.

Did you ask Google to remove the offending post? Or did you
try to get a court order against alias.net?

> >Also in the Gutnick case, the plaintiff specifically limited his
> >case to Australian readers.
> That applies to Usenet defamtion as well, as Usenet & Google are both
> available to a worldwide audience.

Yep. The Gutnick case says you can sue Google in Australia for
all of the people who read the offending post via Google in
Australia, assuming the court follows Godfrey for some reason
and decides that Google is responsible for the content provided
by an anonymous poster. As I said, it's your money, and I'm
sure some attorney will be happy to take it.

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Lionel wrote in X-NO-ARCHIVE Message-ID:
<20ng01tced6k2js4top5f0f484h8p3g8lr@4ax.com>

> >Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action
> >> against Google as the publisher of slander and
> >> defamation. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a
> >> post from Google to join with me in a law suite. I will
> >> cover your legal costs up to the court date.
>
> Great work, Douglas.
> I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would
> you please email me to tell me what I need to do?

Have fun, guys !
))

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

C Wright wrote:

>

> Why not spend your money on technical experts who can actually determine who
> the bastard is so that you can sue the real villain?
> Chuck
>
>
I did and they can't.
It seems the Arabic and Mexican legal system is different to ours.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hamilton Davidson wrote:
> Mr. MacDonald,
>
> I'm not sure how to respond to such a poorly-worded message.
>
Why respond at all?
Moreover, why top post when the thread has established bottom posting?
Shouldn't your name have a hyphen between the names?
That'd make you what Paul Keating called a "scum bag". Claiming in an
earlier speach it was "revenge of the hyphenated names" happening.

Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "Michael Benveniste" <mhb@clearether.com> stated
that:

>
>Lionel wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but no. Australian courts have /already/ ruled against an
>> American company for defaming an Australian citizen on their website,
>&
>> the verdict held:
>
>In the Gutnick case, Dow Jones was responsible for the content both
>under U.S. and Australian law. That is not the case here.

I was referring to a question about the jurisdiction of Australian
courts. Take a look at Godfrey v Demon Internet for the Usenet
situation. Combining the two precedent-setting cases, & it's obvious
that the present situation is covered.

>Also in the Gutnick case, the plaintiff specifically limited his
>case to Australian readers.

That applies to Usenet defamtion as well, as Usenet & Google are both
available to a worldwide audience.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Kibo informs me that "mike.benveniste@gmail.com"
<mike.benveniste@gmail.com> stated that:

>Read the Godfrey case again. It strongly hints that a U.K. court
>would honor the protections granted to U.S. ISP's, but that
>Parliment did not grant the same protection to U.K. ISP's.

I don't think it hints anythign of the sort.

>Furthermore, the settlement before jury trial limits the
>precential value of the case.

Yes, that's a fair point.

>Did you ask Google to remove the offending post?

'Posts', not 'post', & yes, of course I did. I also asked them to
prevent their user from forging my name to their posts defaming other
people, etc.

> Or did you
>try to get a court order against alias.net?

I haven't, as yet, tried to get a court order against anyone - not that
I understand why you think that alias.net has anything to do with this
particular issue.

>> >Also in the Gutnick case, the plaintiff specifically limited his
>> >case to Australian readers.
>> That applies to Usenet defamtion as well, as Usenet & Google are both
>> available to a worldwide audience.
>
>Yep. The Gutnick case says you can sue Google in Australia for
>all of the people who read the offending post via Google in
>Australia,

Indeed - that being a group of people that includes many potential
clients for my business, & that of Mr Macdonald.

> assuming the court follows Godfrey for some reason
>and decides that Google is responsible for the content provided
>by an anonymous poster.

Actually, it's *their* anonymous poster, who they claim is bound by
their TOS, which they seem to be unwilling to enforce against him.

> As I said, it's your money, and I'm
>sure some attorney will be happy to take it.

If you follow the thread back, you'll discover that it isn't /my/ money.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.skunks,misc.writing (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net>...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.
>
> Douglas MacDonald

You are the type that decent parents warn their children about, and
you also happen to be a Down Under dweller like Dr. Zen, one of those
ethnic groups who are known for their sniveling and parasitically
socialist ways. You have blasphemed the sanctity of wisdom and
justice, therefore you will forever suffer in darkness. Only you can
change that destiny. The messenger is not culpable of the message for
which he is only a conduit. What part of stupid don't you unnerstand,
idjit? I wager that you deserve the flames; now I will go and see.

-Gaiawar, Echosyn of Jachin618, Guardian of the East Pillar