[Imc-uk-process] IMC UK Receives Legal Threats

[MrDemeanour]

This is a very brief summary of a discussion that has been under way for
the last 2-3 days on the imc-uk-legal list.

On 31 January a takedown notice was received initially by
email and then via snail-mail by WebArchitects,
threatening legal action if some posts about EDO MBM
Technology Limited [EDO] are not taken down by 2nd
February (that deadline has passed).  Note that the only
relationship between WebArchitects and Indymedia is that
WebArchitects holds the Nominet TAG for the
indymedia.org.uk domain name and provide DNS services for
UK Indymedia, WebArchitects have absolutely no
responsibility for the content of the web site. The letter
was from a firm of lawyers acting for EDO, called REYNOLDS
PORTER CHAMBERLAIN.

On 3rd February, a further takedown notice was received
via an email sent to the private UK Indymedia contact
email list, and was forwarded to the imc-uk-legal list.
This second notice was similar to the first, but specified
a new deadline of 7th February for the removal of the
content, and further demanded that Indymedia UK make a
formal, written, signed undertaking.

The text of the two notices is here [link to be inserted, once it's
posted to the wire] and here [link to be inserted].

There followed some fairly exhaustive discussion about our options,
which are (roughly):

* Total capitulation
* Partial compliance - a bit of editing or hiding, and perhaps an
   undertaking of some kind
* Defiance!

It isn't clear which target(s) EDO are contemplating sueing (and it's
best not to enumerate the possibilities here, as this list is archived,
and if we're going to fight them then they can do their own damn
homework :-)

For the sake of brevity, I won't summarise the discussion over the first
two options. Several people have declared that they objected strongly to
any kind of capitulation or compliance; so it would seem that there is
no consensus for editing or hiding the pages in any way, nor for making
any kind of undertaking to avoid similar posts in future.

The prevailing attitude on imc-uk-legal seems to be as follows:

1. These posts are entirely consistent with general Indy ideals,
    although (as usual) some individuals may disagree with aspects of the
    posts or of the actions that were being discussed in them. The posts
    are also in conformance with editorial guidelines.

2. There is no significant defamation; the remarks are either accurate,
    or they are fair comment, or they are trivial (different people have
    taken varying positions on different remarks). I think everyone
    agrees that this is what Indymedia is supposed to be for, even if
    some of the remarks might be considered stroppy, or dodgy or
    whatever.

3. If we don't fight this one, then it would be reasonable for people to
    assume that we can't be arsed to fight *any* takedown notice, and
    we'll be drowning in the things within a month or two.

It seems highly unlikely that we'll be complying with the demands of
EDO's lawyers; it's therefore fair to assume that they'll be looking
to sue someone. So it looks like we have a fight on our hands, folks...

-- 
Jack.