Hi James

Good to hear from you.

I had not intended to make a further contribution to this particular
discussion but it seems that what I've written may be causing  some
confusing so here's a clarification.

My advice about not monitoring content was meant to apply to the stage
at which it is being added by users. If you do monitor at this time my
understanding of the law is that you increase the likelihood of being
considered to be exercising an editorial function over the material and
you therefore 'inherit'  responsibilities that might make you more
liable to prosecution! In essence, by not monitoring, you are trying to
obtain the benefit of defense (a) - as set out below. The specialist
'legal website' I referenced in my previous submission says the
following on this point:

"The case law which has developed in both the US and the UK has tended
to support the proposition that an ISP and/or web host will not be
liable for third party content, provided that they do not perform any
editorial function." For more information see:
http://www.out-law.com/php/page.php?page_id=liability4411&area=guides

Of course, I do suggest that providers monitor the feedback they get
about content. That is why I suggested the implementation of a means
for users to easily report abuse to a provider and that providers
establish management protocols to facilitate a quick response to such
complaints. Behaving in this way would seem to bring with it the
benefit of protection under defense (b) - as set out below.

OK, enough from me. I now feel the need to reiterate that I'm not a
lawyer and that I suggest people would be best served by looking at the
specialist 'legal' web sites that address these issues or gaining an
expert opinion. As James Johnson says "many areas of law are not yet
sufficiently tested with regards to the Internet, so it is not possible
to say with certainty where the law stands . . ."

Nick Tyson
The Regency Town House Heritage Centre and Adaptive Technologies Limited

- - -
On 19 Mar 2004, at 15:01, James Johnson wrote:

> Nick,
>
> this is indeed an interesting discussion.
>
> I think your point about sending an email which requires a click to
> confirm
> the e-card is a good, simple solution to confirming the email address,
> which doesn't put too much burden on the sender but greatly reduces the
> potential problem of someone pretending to be someone else.
>
> However, I am not a lawyer either, but from my understanding your
> advice
> "It is considered advisable for service providers to not monitor the
> content any systems they offer, as this minimizes their
> responsibilities
> for the content" is questionable.
>
> ------------------------
> Defamation Act 1996  "Responsibility for Publication".
>
> 1(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that
> -
> (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement
> complained of,
> (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and
> (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did
> caused
> or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement.
>
> ------------------------
>
> b) is very important -- if you do not monitor the content of your
> systems
> then you cannot say that you have taken reasonable care. There is
> precedent
> in UK law for this with regards to Internet services.
>
> A further point is that I believe many areas of law are not yet
> sufficiently tested with regards to the Internet, so it is not
> possible to
> say with certainty where the law stands on issues such as this.
>
> James Johnson
> Publitek New Media Ltd.