[PLUG] Now THIS is funny.

[Jeremy Bowen]

Seems to me that first they would have to prove that the statements where
untrue. Which would give you the opportunity to subpoena their server logs
to see just how many times they spammed you. Not to mention that fact that
the defendants in the lawsuit could defend themselves pro-se (for free) and
the plaintiffs would have to spend thousands of dollars on attorney's : ) !!

Who says the law isn't fun!

- Jeremy



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Langis" <richard.langis at sun.com>
To: <plug at lists.pdxlinux.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: [PLUG] Now THIS is funny.


Ahh, but can people not have opinions anymore?  What it looks like to me
is that the're claiming slander.

slan·der   Pronunciation Key  (slndr)
n.

    1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a
person's reputation.
    2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

The problem is, Sandy did NOT slander them.  They spammed HIM, and he
posted his tribulations to the list.  How is what *anyone* did, at *any*
time, liable for legal action?

Perhaps if they want to keep their reputation squeaky clean, they
shouldn't harvest email addresses and spam people.

-R


Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Paul Heinlein wrote:
>
>
>>We aren't even a nonprofit. He/they would have to go after the
>>webmaster(s) personally.
>
>
>   I think they should server the server. After all, the archiving is done
> automatically. I can see The Oregonian's headline now: "Server Served in
> Suit by Suits". And, of course, they'll run the article twice on the same
> page.
>
> Rich
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug



_______________________________________________
PLUG mailing list
PLUG at lists.pdxlinux.org
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug