Before you type a vitriolic response to some fool's post, check this out...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/internet-slanging-match-ends-up-in-high-court/2006/03/23/1143083906475.html

The gist is that a British judge awarded 10,000 pounds plus legal fees to a man who was evidently the subject of name calling on a yahoo message board. The man, a Michael Keith-Smith, was running for parliament.

There were only 100 members on the message board, according to the article, which I find interesting given the sum that was awarded.

I wonder if verdicts like this will have a greater effect in keeping things clean, or if they mean that in th future heated debate on the Internet will be primarily for those who have no money to lose.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

That's why we here in the states don't have british judges, but we do have liberal weenies that are just as bad.

of course it was a British conservative wienie that brought the case

Here in America we have used the fact that Internet information travels through our country to prosecute individuals in other countries who posted information that was not meant for anyone in America.

Who's to say the same thing couldn't happen to we Americans for information travelling through Britain? It could cause quite the international row, as they might say.

As far as 'liberal' judges, libel law is pretty well-defnied, so I doubt many rulings could be found where the political leanings of a judge ultimately led to a financial award for a party that wasn't deserving (I'm talking about libel cases here).

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

thats not that same as conservative here