From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: b2ec61eae952dca404aa49dd230321be8a1206453e23e55c37c569f64e236d5f
Message ID: <2.2.32.19960807101317.00928848@panix.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-08-07 13:48:40 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 21:48:40 +0800
From: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 21:48:40 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Stop the presses -- Anti-terrorism bill not that bad
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960807101317.00928848@panix.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
At 07:38 PM 8/6/96 -0400, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
>which such a claim was made. As for the UK laws, there is
>practically no defense against a libel claim that one can
>file in court. There is absolutely no basis on which to
>justify them. This is why the Singapore government uses them
>as a form of censorship.
There was a recent US appeals court decision in which an attempt to enforce
a UK libel judgment was rejected on First Amendment grounds. The court
refused to allow the application of UK law here.
DCF
Return to August 1996
Return to “Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>”
1996-08-07 (Wed, 7 Aug 1996 21:48:40 +0800) - Re: Stop the presses – Anti-terrorism bill not that bad - Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>