On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 10:56:32AM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > [Andrew Suffield] > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:28:26PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > >> Fortunately nobody needs to justify their decision to killfile > >> you to anyone but themselves. Or even a decision for a group to > >> collectively killfile you. > > > > So what you're saying is that mob rule is acceptable to you. > > > > I think that's pretty sickening really. You'll probably get exactly > > what you want. > > No, that is not what he is saying. I am sure you understand it too. > He said that each individual reader can choose to ignore your > postings, and there is nothing anyone else can do to force people to > read messages they do not care to read. That does not extend to permit a group to go around making accusations and advocating that other people do something based on those accusations. In the real world, this is a tort, specifically defamation of character. And benefit of the doubt does apply in the manner I have indicated, even though it's not normally a criminal offense, in order to prevent *exactly* the situation we're seeing here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Apparent_reversal_of_benefit_of_the_doubt -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature