May 23rd, 2008, 07:13
Apparently there is a witch hunt on web sites going on to do with criticisms of the Monarchy posted online, I think we're out of this one, I hope.
http://www.thailandqa.com/forum/showthread.php?p=138404
I couldn't find any references to this current matter on what was posetd by whom. However, some search results reminded me of the mid-1990 "LG" days on soc.culture.thai USENET board. LG sued a UK internet provider who supposedly allowed an allegedly defamatory anonymous post appear on the USENET newsgroup soc.culture.thai. Although the particular post in question MAY have not had anything to do with the Thai government, LG was well known as a poster of 'critical' information of the monarchy and deemed offensive to Thailand in general/particular and wsa threatened by 'moderators' (then maintainers of the usenet feed) in Thailand that all his posts were archived in the NECTEC ftp archives and should he ever try to enter the country he would be charged with "Les Majeste".
Remnants of this news touching off a minor 'internet censorship is coming' scare of the mid-90s day remain.
Godfrey v Demon
The 1994 settlement achieved by Dr Godfrey is one of at least 5 defamation actions brought by him in jurisdictions around the world. From the point of view of UK defamation law the most significant of these is the action brought against ISP Demon Internet. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On the 13th January 1997 someone unknown made a posting in the U.S.A. in the Newsgroup "soc.culture.thai". The posting followed a path from its originating American ISP to Demon's news server in England. The posting was, according to the initial judgement in the case, 'squalid, obscene and defamatory of the Plaintiff'. It purported to come from Dr Godfrey although it was a forgery. It invited replies by giving Godfrey's e-mail address.
On the 17th January 1997 the Plaintiff sent a letter by fax to Demon, informing them that the posting was a forgery, that he was not responsible for it and requesting that Demon remove the posting from its Usenet news server.
Demon admit receiving the fax and admit that the posting was not removed as requested but remained available on its news-server until its expiry on about the 27th January 1997. There is no dispute that Demon could have obliterated the posting from its news-server after receiving the Plaintiff's request.
Dr Godfrey then took action claiming defamation and seeking damages. His claim made it clear that he sought damages only for the publication from 17th January - the date on which Demon became aware that the posting was defamatory.
There have been some preliminary hearings on the case during 1999 which have established that Demon is responsible for the defamatory material and therefore liable to pay damages should the case proceed to trial. The preliminary hearings have however also established that the damages to be recovered are likely to be small. This is a consequence of comments allegedly made by Dr Godfrey in postings he did actually make to the newsgroup. I have covered the case in detail in earlier columns which are now archived on my web site at www.hamiltons-solicitors.co.uk (http://www.hamiltons-solicitors.co.uk). <<<dead>
All the actions brought by Dr Godfrey appear to be examples of a victim of defamation pursuing the publisher of a libel rather than its original author. The author would still also be liable but in practice, particularly given the anonymity offered by e-mail, may be very difficult to trace.
The lack of UK court cases may be a result of our legal aid system not extending to defamation actions - preserving libel actions as the exclusive territory of the very wealthy - or it may be a reflection of the somewhat laissez faire attitude that prevails on the Net - or it may be a consequence of companies making e-mail libel, like other e-mail abuse, a disciplinary offence. Additionally, the very fact that the Internet, unlike print and broadcast media permits the victim of defamation to respond immediately may remove the desire to sue. The notoriously litigious US is a better source of Internet libel court cases and consequently how the law of defamation may be interpreted in respect of such matters.
and for instance, from slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/yro/00/04/17/0056200.shtml
UK Censorship: Demonic Consequences
Posted by jamie on Mon Apr 17, 2000 04:05 AM
from the knuckling-under-in-advance dept.
"I got into the Internet because I believed in the promise of freedom for all; I never imagined it would be the most easily censored medium there is."
These are the words of a director of the Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet in Britain - which has now been moved to the good old U.S.A. because its British ISP is too afraid of libel suits to continue hosting it. Why? Because Demon Internet settled the libel suit brought by Laurence Godfrey. British ISPs are now (rightly) terrified, and are (unfortunately) censoring Web sites like Outcast merely because of the possibility of future libels that might be published. (more)
The problem is with the British legal system, which makes defending against libel suits difficult. Essentially, the defendant has to prove his or her innocence, typically by proving the truth of every challenged statement (and there are other systemic flaws as well). In such a system, putting up a defense is such a hassle - and so expensive - that settling out of court is almost always easier.
The Laurence Godfrey case was settled out of court, setting not a precedent but a bad example. Most libel cases do settle. After Godfrey's victory, now even more will.
A Google search on his name might lead you to some examples of his types of posts.
http://www.thailandqa.com/forum/showthread.php?p=138404
I couldn't find any references to this current matter on what was posetd by whom. However, some search results reminded me of the mid-1990 "LG" days on soc.culture.thai USENET board. LG sued a UK internet provider who supposedly allowed an allegedly defamatory anonymous post appear on the USENET newsgroup soc.culture.thai. Although the particular post in question MAY have not had anything to do with the Thai government, LG was well known as a poster of 'critical' information of the monarchy and deemed offensive to Thailand in general/particular and wsa threatened by 'moderators' (then maintainers of the usenet feed) in Thailand that all his posts were archived in the NECTEC ftp archives and should he ever try to enter the country he would be charged with "Les Majeste".
Remnants of this news touching off a minor 'internet censorship is coming' scare of the mid-90s day remain.
Godfrey v Demon
The 1994 settlement achieved by Dr Godfrey is one of at least 5 defamation actions brought by him in jurisdictions around the world. From the point of view of UK defamation law the most significant of these is the action brought against ISP Demon Internet. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
On the 13th January 1997 someone unknown made a posting in the U.S.A. in the Newsgroup "soc.culture.thai". The posting followed a path from its originating American ISP to Demon's news server in England. The posting was, according to the initial judgement in the case, 'squalid, obscene and defamatory of the Plaintiff'. It purported to come from Dr Godfrey although it was a forgery. It invited replies by giving Godfrey's e-mail address.
On the 17th January 1997 the Plaintiff sent a letter by fax to Demon, informing them that the posting was a forgery, that he was not responsible for it and requesting that Demon remove the posting from its Usenet news server.
Demon admit receiving the fax and admit that the posting was not removed as requested but remained available on its news-server until its expiry on about the 27th January 1997. There is no dispute that Demon could have obliterated the posting from its news-server after receiving the Plaintiff's request.
Dr Godfrey then took action claiming defamation and seeking damages. His claim made it clear that he sought damages only for the publication from 17th January - the date on which Demon became aware that the posting was defamatory.
There have been some preliminary hearings on the case during 1999 which have established that Demon is responsible for the defamatory material and therefore liable to pay damages should the case proceed to trial. The preliminary hearings have however also established that the damages to be recovered are likely to be small. This is a consequence of comments allegedly made by Dr Godfrey in postings he did actually make to the newsgroup. I have covered the case in detail in earlier columns which are now archived on my web site at www.hamiltons-solicitors.co.uk (http://www.hamiltons-solicitors.co.uk). <<<dead>
All the actions brought by Dr Godfrey appear to be examples of a victim of defamation pursuing the publisher of a libel rather than its original author. The author would still also be liable but in practice, particularly given the anonymity offered by e-mail, may be very difficult to trace.
The lack of UK court cases may be a result of our legal aid system not extending to defamation actions - preserving libel actions as the exclusive territory of the very wealthy - or it may be a reflection of the somewhat laissez faire attitude that prevails on the Net - or it may be a consequence of companies making e-mail libel, like other e-mail abuse, a disciplinary offence. Additionally, the very fact that the Internet, unlike print and broadcast media permits the victim of defamation to respond immediately may remove the desire to sue. The notoriously litigious US is a better source of Internet libel court cases and consequently how the law of defamation may be interpreted in respect of such matters.
and for instance, from slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/yro/00/04/17/0056200.shtml
UK Censorship: Demonic Consequences
Posted by jamie on Mon Apr 17, 2000 04:05 AM
from the knuckling-under-in-advance dept.
"I got into the Internet because I believed in the promise of freedom for all; I never imagined it would be the most easily censored medium there is."
These are the words of a director of the Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet in Britain - which has now been moved to the good old U.S.A. because its British ISP is too afraid of libel suits to continue hosting it. Why? Because Demon Internet settled the libel suit brought by Laurence Godfrey. British ISPs are now (rightly) terrified, and are (unfortunately) censoring Web sites like Outcast merely because of the possibility of future libels that might be published. (more)
The problem is with the British legal system, which makes defending against libel suits difficult. Essentially, the defendant has to prove his or her innocence, typically by proving the truth of every challenged statement (and there are other systemic flaws as well). In such a system, putting up a defense is such a hassle - and so expensive - that settling out of court is almost always easier.
The Laurence Godfrey case was settled out of court, setting not a precedent but a bad example. Most libel cases do settle. After Godfrey's victory, now even more will.
A Google search on his name might lead you to some examples of his types of posts.