03/02/2020 Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited [1999] EWHC QB 244 (26th March, 1999) Newsgroups in which social issues are discussed for example the Newsgroups "soc.culture.thai" and "soc.culture.british". 10. Postings on Newsgroups can be read by the customers of a particular ISP by accessing that ISP's "news server". In reading a Usenet posting an Internet user requests the posting from the ISP's news server and a copy of the posting is then transmitted by the news server to the user's computer where it can be held in the user's computer for as long as he wishes. A posting may originate from anywhere in the world entering the Internet through the author's own ISP and follow a "path" through a succession of news servers before eventually reaching a particular reader. 11. The Defendant ISP carries the Newsgroup "soc culture thai" and stores postings within that hierarchy for about a fortnight during which time the posting is available to be read by its customers. 12. On the 13th January 1997 someone unknown made a posting in the U.S.A. in the Newsgroup "soc.culture.thai". The posting followed a path from its originating American ISP to the Defendants' news server in England. This posting was squalid, obscene and defamatory of the Plaintiff. It is set out in Tab 1 page 1 of the Court Bundle. It purports to come from the Plaintiff although "Lawrence" is misspelt with a "W". It invites replies by giving the Plaintiff's Email address. It was a forgery. 13. On the 17th January 1997 the Plaintiff sent a letter by "fax" to Mr Stanford, the Defendant's Managing Director, informing him that the posting was a forgery, and that he was not responsible for it and requesting that the Defendants remove the posting from its Usenet news server. 14. Although denying that Mr Stanford personally received the fax, the Defendants admit its receipt and that the posting was not removed as requested but remained available on its news-server until its expiry on about the 27th January 1997. There is no dispute that the Defendants could have obliterated the posting from its news-server after receiving the Plaintiff's request. 15. As is clear from the prayer for relief in the Statement of Claim the Plaintiff only claims damages for libel in respect of the posting after the 17th January 1997 when the Defendants had knowledge it was defamatory. THE LAW. 16. The governing statute is the Defamation Act 1996. Section 1 is headed "Responsibility for Publication". 17. The relevant words are as follows:"1(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of, (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement." 18. It should be noted that for the defence to succeed (a) and (b) and (c) have to be established by the Defendant. "1(2) For this purpose......."publisher" have the following meanings, which are further explained in sub-section (3) "........."publisher" means a commercial publisher, that is, a person whose business is issuing material to the public, or a section of the public, who issues material containing the statement in the course of that business." www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html 3/9