View Full Version : IMPORTANT NOTICE to Bazz & CASSA

21-04-2004, 09:50 AM
<font size="+1">IMPORTANT NOTICE to Bazz and CASSA</font>

It has been brought to our attention a thread posted by user Bazz titled: <a href="http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4695">CASSA please refund the money you collect from us!!</a> who logged in via IP: at 08:40 AM, 21-04-2004.

This is the URL:

We were informed that the posting has triggered off a potential police case (Read this <a href="http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?threadid=4712">thread"</a>) , which may indirectly implicate this community website.

To protect our interest in such circumstances, we want the disputing parties - namely CASSA and Bazz - to make themselves available to meet us - administrators Jeff Ooi and KW Chang - at the following date, time and place to substantiate their claims.

DATE: 22 April, 2004 (Thursday)
TIME: 9.00pm sharp
PLACE: For privacy, please call Jeff Ooi at 012-2956356 for the meeting place

A similar message carrying this notice has been PM-ed to the relevant parties.

Should either party fail to turn up and enlighten us with their evidence, we shall file our own police report by giving all the digital trails to the relevant authorities.

USJ.com.my Administrator

21-04-2004, 10:15 AM
A similar message has been cross-posted to this thread in the "Abandoned Housing Projects" channel. URL:

21-04-2004, 10:30 AM
We herewith confirm out attendence and will provide you a copy of our Police Report made against 'Bazz' and the said defamatory posting at the Subang Jaya police Station on Wednesday April 21st for your action.

Thank you.

Mr. Kalaithason Vadivelu
Secretary General

21-04-2004, 03:21 PM
I am trying to make some accommodations if Bazz is inconvenient.

Now that CASSA has confirmed attendance, I have yet to hear from Bazz.

If Bazz requires a private meeting in confidence - with only meself and KW Chang around - we could arrange the meeting in such a way that we get to meet the two disputing parties separately at separate time, separate location, but same night.

Please bring any evidence to substantiate your claims - both parties.

We just want to get over this ASAP and move on with more important things in life.

Please call me at 012-2956356 anytime.


21-04-2004, 06:07 PM
i just want to know the news.. sorry. i didnt expect it bring so much impact. Can a forum issue solve in a forum itself?

Dr. J George
21-04-2004, 06:20 PM
The allegations you have made and posted on a public domain are very serious in nature. This is not a joke.

I trust you will now furnish the proof of the allegations.

If you do not have the proof and the comments made were indeed false allegations - you need to make a public apology to those whom you defamed.

I think that is only fair.

Dr. J George
21-04-2004, 06:24 PM
I have just spoken to the CASSA SECRETARIAT and I believe that a public apology and admission from you that the posting was indeed untrue and that in future you would not do so would suffice.

I trust you would do the right thing.

22-04-2004, 12:49 AM
thank you Dr JG. I had sense your understanding and forgiveness in this matter. And also secretriat.

i would like to thank JG for furnish us with all the useful info and of coz the info that gave had explained all the question asked.

the posting was indeed untrue. in the future, postings will be backed with detailed research.

Dr. J George
22-04-2004, 08:32 AM
Thank you very much for the timely apology and retraction, which we accept in the spirit of goodwill and fellowship.

The Secretariat has been notified.

This matter is settled.

22-04-2004, 01:32 PM
My wish: All is well that ends well.

22-04-2004, 01:43 PM
I'll drink to that... at the next TT session! :D

23-04-2004, 12:56 AM
In Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. 776 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), a New York court held that CompuServe had, by contract, divested itself of control over postings by users. The court classified CompuServe as a distributor, not a publisher, finding that CompuServe was the functional equivalent of a lending library.

A second New York case, Stratton Oakmount v. Prodigy 23 Med. L.R. 1794 (S.C., Nassau County 1995), involving a libel action by Stratton Oakmount, arose out of an allegedly defamatory posting on a finance oriented bulletin board on the Prodigy Online Service. The originator of the defamation was falsely identified and remains unknown.

On a motion for summary judgment brought by the plaintiff, the court found that Prodigy was a "publisher" for the following reasons:
i) In the past, Prodigy had held itself out as being a "family oriented" computer network and exercised editorial control over the content of its editorial boards in order to make itself more appealing to certain segments of the market.
ii) Prodigy had posted "content guidelines" to its users regarding what Prodigy regarded as proper and appropriate for posting on Prodigy's bulletin boards.
iii) Prodigy used a software screening program to screen postings for offensive language.
iv) Prodigy retained "board leaders" to enforce the guidelines.
v) Prodigy employed technological means to delete postings that violated the guidelines.

On October 24, 1995, Stratton Oakmount announced that it was dropping its $200 million libel lawsuit against Prodigy Online Service. Prodigy had assembled new evidence to show that, since 1992, it had used a computerized keyword search solely to weed out messages containing obscene language, but had not scanned messages for defamatory speech. This evidence, coupled with an apology from Prodigy, was enough to convince Stratton Oakmount to drop the case.

IN United Kingdom:

A bill, presently before the House of Lords, would seek to amend the law relating to innocent dissemination as it applies to cyberlibel. This bill states in part:


1. -(1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that -

(a) he was not the author, editor or publisher,

(b) he took reasonable care in relation to the publication of the statement complained of, 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."

Implications of these Developments:

These developments place owners and/or operators of bulletin boards, whether they are online services or service providers, or companies or organizations hosting a bulletin board on their home page, in a difficult position.

By exercising responsibility and attempting to regulate the nature of the content, the online service provider may then become a publisher and can be sued for libel. On the other hand, if they do absolutely nothing, they could be sued for negligence for failing to maintain security procedures, or for negligent misstatement.

Additionally, the advantage of being characterized as a distributor may be illusory. As soon as a complaint is posted, which can be moments, seconds or days after the offensive message occurs, the plaintiff would be obliged to remove the offensive message. If they do not do so, they will lose the protection of their status as a distributor.

Whereas newspapers and television broadcasters are obliged to edit simply for space reasons, the infinite storage capacity on the Internet places no such restraints on online service providers. Unlike most articles and television broadcasts, Internet-posted materials are often the result of a spontaneous and unresearched reaction and are not edited. There is little opportunity for editing and review because of the quantity and the speed at which information appears on the Internet.

In India, the owner of a Journal (sic) in order to be liable under the Penal Code (same as ours) for criminal defamation has to have DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY for the publication of the alleged defamatory statement and he must also have the INTENTION to harm the reputation of the person concerned. The owner of that 'journal' qua-owner has no responsibilty as such (Bhagat Singh v Lachman Singh (1978) Cr. LJ 759.

In a US Supreme court case, the question is whether a "Telecommunication" provider cum ISP is also liable for illicit 'adult' online chat that tends to currupt schoolchildren. The Judge asked "how does it differ from a simple phone conversation with that child?" Case thrown out.

For the purists, the question is not simply that such and such technological advancement could have prevented this or that, or such software could be used by webmasters to suppress such offensive material, or simply (the IT-handicapped would say), "you could have edited that". When zillions of digital data came through your server or better, when 9 Tons of 'paper equivalent" reached Yahoo! EACH DAY, time to consult a true cyber lawyer, unless you want to beaten hands down.