Comments on: Landmark UK online libel ruling

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:28:12 +0000

Newton elected a jury trial. I thought he got served with papers and was an unwilling participant, especially when you add up the countless versions of defences he has been test dringin on his private version of free speech for money

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:02:34 +0000

? what spam post ?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:46:38 +0000

everytime that troll show up and gets shown up for the fool he is
a spam post mysteriously appears. temper tantrum ?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:40:39 +0000

He believes that the general readership here is too soft-headed
to recognize his multiple posts pretending to be ‘different’
people.

Too bad.
No one here has been fooled but such lame troll work.

Hemming is wasting her money.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:36:39 +0000

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:07:45 +0000

“proves the point lots of us have been making”

I do not kow where you get “lots of us” from. You post this kind of garbage but as a long time reader of P2PNet, I have not seen anyone else with your view and I have long suspected that you are in the pay of Hemming.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:22:55 +0000

… get tired pretending to be different people ??

The article ‘Jon’ ( hi gachnar ) published is not libel.
If it was, The Asspociated Press, and several other
large wealthy news outlets would also have been guilty,
and they weren’t sued.

if you read the facts in the file at this link

http://s22.quicksharing.com/v/3421267/P2Pnetsuit.zip.html

You will see that Jon is being sued for the comments of
an anonymous poster. Sued for another persons opinion.
A person that he does not know, can’t locate, or control.

That would be like someone standing in ‘Gachnars’ yard,
calling me a wanker, and then me suing ‘gachnar’ because
after all, it WAS his yard, even though no one knows who
was calling me names.

Libel has simply become a way for the wealthy and powerful
to stifle any statement that they don’t like.

Economic Censorship.

“if the a post like that is lible then what John published about Hemming is clearly libel ”

By your constant reminders, this statement would also be
libelous by your own definitions.

Silly isn’t it, and a little sad.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:16:42 +0000

the second ‘person’ to post, probably someone’s libel lawyer, proves the point lots of us have been making, if the a post like that is lible then what John published about Hemming is clearly libel and in keeping with your admissions, John’s allowing it, guilty….or maybe its only free speech if you are doing the libelling?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:32:44 +0000

It goes to a quicksharing download page.
Click on Download file.
You’ll get a zip file which contains the publicly available
pdf file of the lawsuit document, and a text file with the
complete unedited text of the referred line items.

all of them.

There is no commentary or opinion.
just the raw facts.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:51:20 +0000

is that the right link ?- i don’t get anything out of it

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:19:11 +0000

Isn’t the case, as you well know.

As everyone can see, he still allows anonymous liars like you
to libel him

http://s22.quicksharing.com/v/3421267/P2Pnetsuit.zip.html

All of the suit info, all the truth, none of the bull.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:28:07 +0000

As opposed to a publisher mischievously mixing an anonymous flame with his own diatribe and reprinting it as a ‘news’ story, good luck with the new (latest in a long line of…) defence/s