Professional Web Applications Themes

Slander from Google - Photography

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" ...

  1. #1

    Default Slander from Google

    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.
    Ryadia Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    I don't blame you, there is too much sh!t being allowed to post via Google. However, it is
    not 100% anonymous as the headers do include the IP address of the poster.

    --
    Dave




    "Ryadia" <com> wrote in message news: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.


    David Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Ryadia <com> wrote:
     

    You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the publisher
    of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that if you
    are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that being
    the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally. Luckily, although
    UK law is a bit silly about this, I doubt you'll be successful under US
    law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.

    --
    Jeremy | com
    Jeremy Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <com> wrote:
     

    Scott,

    I thought you might be interested in the above referenced legal
    action, especially because it's being offered for free.

    Looks like you and Douglas might have something in common.

    -Astro

    AstroPax Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Slander from Google


    "Ryan Robbins" <net> wrote in message
    news:QWVNd.20317$.. [/ref]
    those [/ref]
    I'm 
    >
    > Google provides access to Usenet and it archives Usenet postings. It is[/ref]
    not 
    Google makes it too easy for people to post. If they (Google) made use of a
    verifiable e-mail header in the post headings there would be next to no
    abuse. The determined will find a way via anon remailers and mail2news
    gateways, but they would be using Google.




    Darrell Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Jeremy Nixon wrote: 
    >
    >
    > You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the publisher
    > of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that if you
    > are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that being
    > the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally. Luckily, although
    > UK law is a bit silly about this, I doubt you'll be successful under US
    > law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.
    >[/ref]
    As I understand the law of defamation in Australia, the one publishing
    the work is the one to sue. Google publish the posts made to their http
    forums to news groups as ASCI text. This is no different from me letting
    you write whatever you want in a magazine I publish.

    It may be true that headers contain an IP address but when it is a proxy
    server in Cario or Mexico, Google have the technology to forbid access
    on the basis of the source not being identifable.

    Total rubbish about ISPs refusing access. They too have the facilities
    to block IP addresses on proxy servers refusing to give up the real IP
    and most don't. It is these who will sufffer and have to finally be
    responsible for whom they let use their service.


    --
    EOS my GOD,
    Give me ISO for I have not yet seen the light.
    Take away my grain, give me colour and you
    shall have given me the edge!
    Deciple Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <com> wrote:
     

    Don't be an idiot, man.
    Henry Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Henry Law wrote: 
    >
    >
    > Don't be an idiot, man.[/ref]

    Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
    parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
    that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
    defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
    one did it to you. Do you?

    FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
    the identity of the person responsible... Cadillac's are not all that
    much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit and
    an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from the
    court as costs. It is going to happen.

    Doug
    Ryadia Guest

  9. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Removed by Administrator
    Ryan Guest
    Moderated Post

  10. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Removed by Administrator
    Owamanga Guest
    Moderated Post

  11. #11

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Ryadia wrote:
     

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

    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.

    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.
    Alan Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Slander from Google


    "Ryadia" <com> wrote in message
    news:net... 



    ------

    What was said, about whom?......any links?


    Fascinated Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    I glad he's is not my neighbor, he probley suies everybody for anything.


    "Fascinated Fed" <com> wrote in message
    news:net... 
    >
    >
    >
    > ------
    >
    > What was said, about whom?......any links?
    >[/ref]


    SteveJ Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Slander from Google


    "SteveJ" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 



    Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! - if he hears you saying that he might have you in court
    before you can say, "Cheque Book".....and don't forget, he's got a Queen's
    Counsel to act for him...bwaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaa!!


    Horace Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:24:37 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    If by "on camera" you mean "live", then I would have thought (though I)
    that the situation would be the exact opposite:

    Just as ISPs/telcos have no opportunity to "edit/review/control" what is
    posted to usenet/spoken down a phone, then a TV station would have no
    chance to intervene if a (previously reliable) reporter on live TV started
    spouting slander [it would be slander because it's spoken; libel is for the
    written word]. As such, I suspect that they could be held not responsible.

    If, however, the TV station *elected* to show a pre-recorded tape, then
    they _have_ made an "editorial decision" and would probably be included in
    an action for slander.

    Regards,
    Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world;
    those that understand binary and those that don't.
    Graham Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:25:06 +1000, Ryadia <com> wrote:
     
    >>
    >>
    >> Don't be an idiot, man.[/ref]
    >
    >Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
    >parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
    >that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
    >defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
    >one did it to you. Do you?[/ref]

    Yes, you have a legal right to sue, but you are trying to sue the
    wrong entity. You don't sue the power company for a flyer posted on
    the power pole. You have to find and sue the author of the flyer.
    Usenet is just a huge public place to post things, with the data
    copied to thousands of servers around the world, some archive the data
    for hours or days (most ISPs), others archive it for years (e.g.
    DejaNews/Google).
     

    Why? What is so important about an apparently-anonymous usenet post
    that you are going to these extremes?
     

    You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
    that is) either doesn't know about or doesn't understand usenet and is
    giving you poor advice.

    Instead of suing Google you should be suing John Doe and then
    subpoenaing Google for records and following the trace back (using
    subpoenas as needed) until it can't be followed anymore. When you
    reach the spot where the trace can't be followed anymore, claim THAT
    entity is your John Doe, asserting that unless they can prove an
    identifiable someone else posted it that they are responsible. Hold
    them responsible for the post that came from their server if they
    won't give up who sent it to THEM.

    IMHO there should be no system to post anonymously to usenet, but it's
    going to take suing each entity that runs an anonymizer (or who
    otherwise refuses to disclose who transmitted the info to them) to get
    those services stopped. It's not Google's fault that anonymizers
    exist, and even if Google itself didn't archive those posts, anonymous
    posts would still go to thousands of other usenet servers around the
    world (including other servers with large archives) and as soon as
    someone posted a reply, THAT post would go to Google and be archived
    there. So getting Google to stop posting them to their archive would
    not really change the fact that the item was posted and widely
    distributed, to be easily seen by anyone with internet access.

    jc

    JC Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Ryadia wrote: 
    >>[/ref][/ref]

    <snip Mr Law's helpful but tardy advice>
     

    I'll bet yours is not the first such action taken against a major
    "carrier". I'll bet the QC is eager to make a name in an arena that
    influences him personally in the same way a video game influences a
    player: it can't hurt him, and it might be fun. In your case, someone
    else (you) is going to pay the price. So much easier to show enthusiasm
    in those cirstances, ne?

    Speaking of costs, does the contract with your attorneys specify at what
    point they advise you of the futility of your plan, and allow you to
    gracefully admit defeat? Mr Google's very existence is tied up in this
    kind of thing. Can you imagine the kind and amount of resources they
    will bring to bear? They will not likely offer to settle: then every
    _other_ kook with an eye on their net worth will jump in the game. Even
    if they _do_ make you an out-of-Court offer, wouldn't acceptance be
    deserting your principal (sic)?

    If you want to be known as "The Guy Who Sued Google© And Won", vain
    hope; if you don't mind being "Another Nice Guy Who Flirts With Reality
    But Not Very Seriously", carry on. More power to you, but mind your
    health. You're on the road to Ulcer, Stroke, and Heart Attack Country.

    Resp'y,


    --
    Frank ess
    "There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
    thinking, plain or fancy."


    Frank Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:01:30 GMT, JC Dill <net> wrote:
     
    >>
    >>Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
    >>parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
    >>that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
    >>defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
    >>one did it to you. Do you?[/ref]
    >
    >Yes, you have a legal right to sue, but you are trying to sue the
    >wrong entity. You don't sue the power company for a flyer posted on
    >the power pole. You have to find and sue the author of the flyer.
    >Usenet is just a huge public place to post things, with the data
    >copied to thousands of servers around the world, some archive the data
    >for hours or days (most ISPs), others archive it for years (e.g.
    >DejaNews/Google).

    >
    >Why? What is so important about an apparently-anonymous usenet post
    >that you are going to these extremes?

    >
    >You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
    >that is) either doesn't know about or doesn't understand usenet and is
    >giving you poor advice.
    >
    >Instead of suing Google you should be suing John Doe and then
    >subpoenaing Google for records and following the trace back (using
    >subpoenas as needed) until it can't be followed anymore. When you
    >reach the spot where the trace can't be followed anymore, claim THAT
    >entity is your John Doe, asserting that unless they can prove an
    >identifiable someone else posted it that they are responsible. Hold
    >them responsible for the post that came from their server if they
    >won't give up who sent it to THEM.
    >
    >IMHO there should be no system to post anonymously to usenet, but it's
    >going to take suing each entity that runs an anonymizer (or who
    >otherwise refuses to disclose who transmitted the info to them) to get
    >those services stopped. It's not Google's fault that anonymizers
    >exist, and even if Google itself didn't archive those posts, anonymous
    >posts would still go to thousands of other usenet servers around the
    >world (including other servers with large archives) and as soon as
    >someone posted a reply, THAT post would go to Google and be archived
    >there. So getting Google to stop posting them to their archive would
    >not really change the fact that the item was posted and widely
    >distributed, to be easily seen by anyone with internet access.[/ref]

    First, I agree with everything you've said. But I think the point you
    may have missed is that the 'slanderous' poster is using Google to
    generate the posts. Ryadia (hopefully) isn't targeting Google just
    because they happen to archive the posts.

    Usenet has a problem with Google. They allow any idiot to set up a
    Google account and then start posting to usenet. This needs to stop.
    If it takes a few lawsuits, then so be it.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga Guest

  19. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Removed by Administrator
    Jeremy Guest
    Moderated Post

  20. #20

    Default Re: Slander from Google

    Graham Holden wrote:
     
    > If by "on camera" you mean "live", then I would have thought (though I)
    > that the situation would be the exact opposite:
    >
    > Just as ISPs/telcos have no opportunity to "edit/review/control" what is
    > posted to usenet/spoken down a phone, then a TV station would have no
    > chance to intervene if a (previously reliable) reporter on live TV started
    > spouting slander [it would be slander because it's spoken; libel is for the
    > written word]. As such, I suspect that they could be held not responsible.
    >
    > If, however, the TV station *elected* to show a pre-recorded tape, then
    > they _have_ made an "editorial decision" and would probably be included in
    > an action for slander.[/ref]

    I was just making the example as simple as possible. Airing tapes is, as you
    say, an editorial decision and usually made with more than one source of
    information. (There was a similar case here where a newspaper quoted something
    said on air by a former Premier (provincial first minister). The Premier sued
    the radio station and the newspaper. He lost against the newspaper as it was
    just reporting what the radio station said (and attributed it to the radio
    station)).

    As to 'slander' v. 'libel', it could be argued that the broadcast of a recorded
    utterance is the broadcast of a 'doent' and thus libel. (If "live" then it
    is slander.) But that's just my opinion ... I have no idea how civil courts
    interpret it.

    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.
    Alan Guest

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Google API
    By FLEQUE in forum Dreamweaver AppDev
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 18th, 03:48 PM
  2. Google
    By Max in forum Web Design
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 13th, 02:15 PM
  3. PHP<->Google?
    By R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 18th, 08:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139