Nuxx:Bfed2554pu6je37nhl4os4o3ho4rh6d91a@4ax.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!cyclone01.ams2.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe03.ams2.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: for_chappers@null.null Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: fighting hate speech on uk.rec.cycling Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:07:58 +0100 References: <4d6ba0ecbdd1cb777851c510b05fb3b4@dizum.com> <31a3c1ac-de90-4be9-be3a-321115bb5adc@d31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> <8h1d255att4r7ljgqjssnqo3vq24bnftkg@4ax.com> <3be13049-95b1-4ece-be3a-43199da5e0e8@q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> Lines: 36 X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.12.82.202 X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com X-Trace: newsfe03.ams2 1244052482 86.12.82.202 (Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:08:02 UTC) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:08:02 UTC Organization: virginmedia.com Bytes: 3117 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:707065

On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 09:29:14 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:

>On Jun 3, 3:19 pm, for_chapp...@null.null wrote: > >> >I'm still waiting for that plaint. He said he was going to sue, and I >> >am looking forward to it. > >> Yeah, right. Shall we translate that to "I was initially in a bit of >> panic and checked back laboriously over ALL my posts where I'd >> referenced him, and decided that on the balance  of probabilities I >> should be fairly safe"? > >No, nully, we should not. We should translate it as "how likely is it >that the anonymous coward will blow his cover in order to try to claim >that his reputation is damaged by my publicising his crank calls". >Since his reputation was in the sewer anyway I doubt he'd have much >luck, but I am perfectly willing to stand up in court and defend the >allegation with the evidence I have. Let the best man win.

So, he has to reveal his name of John Smith in order to start - is that really such a handicap? Can't see how, personally. Of course the fact that he posts using a pseudonym does initally hamper his argument, but as I suggested to him before, all he needs is a couple of colleagues who know the link between his posting name and his real one. Suggesting that he's made crank phone calls during the night would probably lessen his reputation no matter WHAT they may have previously believed, so that requirement is pretty much already fulfilled. And I'd expect you to already know that, should an action actually occur, it would fall to you to demonstrate that it was actually him making the calls (something I presume you cannot do?), or at best that you didn't put him up for blame 'recklessly'. ALL libel actions (especially those in the UK) are a lottery - if nuxx turned out to be entirely skint, you'd have a no-win gamble on your hands. Unless you really COULD show that the calls definitely came from him, of course.