افترا و
سایتهای اینترنتی
برای يادآوری مسولان سایتهای ایرانی لازم است یادآئری
کنیم که برعکس تصورنویسده
کم اطلاع نشريه کار جناح توکل ، اينترنت
بی درو پيکر نيست، رسوم - ادب و اتيکت دارد و اتفاقا قانون هم دارد . اول
اينکه
تعيين منشا و آدرس کامپيوتری هر پست الکترونيکی ،توسط هرکس که سواد
کاميوتری فراتر
از نرم افزار های نظام سرمايه داری و سيستم مايکروسفت داشته باشد کار ساده
ای است.
در نتيجه متهم کردن افرادی چون علی فرمانده ازآدرسهای ظاهرا «جديد» به
دزدی يا هر
اتهام ديگری که اين چند هفته از طريق پست الکترونيکی ارسال شده همگی رد
روشنی دارد و ميشود مهيا
کننده تارنما يا پست
الکترونيکی را از محتوای نوشته ها مطلع کرد و جلو ادامه فعلايت آن آدرس را
گرفت.
علاوه بر اين تارنماهای سياسی ايرانی که عمدتا از «مهيا کنندگان» بين
المللی
اينترنتی استفاده ميکنند از اين قوانين مستثنی نيستند و اگر در امر افترا
زدن ها
به ديگران در رابطه با قتل . وابستگی به رژيم يا به دروغ متهم کردن افراد
به دزدی
. عضويت در اين يا آن جريان سياسی یا بینش نظری که به آن تعلقی
ندارند ... بيش از اين
جلو روند
ميشود «مهيا کننده » سایتهایشان را که در سسيتم يونيکس
"کشف: آنها ۲ ثانيه وقت ميخواهد نسبت به
روند کار مشتری شان آشنا کرد
و بدون دخالت دادن نظام سرمايه و قانون و دستگاه دولتی آن، تارنمای مقصر
را از
طريق «مهيا کننده» تعطيل کرد.
البته اگر ما
هم مثل برخی
سازمانهای ايرانی مدعی چپ ، هيچ پرنسيپ سياسی نداشتيم ميشد اين افترا ها
از طريق
قانونی هم دنبال کرد ولی ارزيابی نمونه های گذشته و تجربه نشان داده برای
جلوگيری
از انتشار و تکثير اين اتهامات افترا آميز لازم نيست به قانون دولتهای
سرمايه اتکا
کرد .سنت قوانين درونی و اتيکت اينترنتی در اين مورد به اندازه کافی کار
برد دارد.
پس لطف کنيد افترا و فحاشی کنار بگذاريد تا اقلا اين امکان تبليغی از شما
گرفته
نشود..
1.
در مورد اتهامات به علی
فرمانده. واضح است بايدکميسيون تحقيقی شکل گيرد
ولی حتی اگر اين امر ميسر نشود واجب است ايشان هر مدرکی در اين مورد دارد
را در
سطح علنی منتشر کند چرا که اکنون اتهام تخلص مالی از ايشان فراتر و گويا
تعداد
بيشماری از فعالین و حتی سازمانهای سياسی
، منفردين ... در «دزدی» اين
مبلغ نسبتا
ناچيز و بی ارزش شريک بوده اند, پس واجب است همه اسناد در مورد اين
اتهامات ،
موقعيت تشکيلاتی ، روند « استعفا يا اخراج» و تخلص مالی منتشر شود تا مهیا
کننده تارنما و پست الکیرونیکی را متوجه افترا کرد-
2.
. در مورد اتهامات
که یکی دوسایت متن مبتذل افترا های
آنرا منتشر کرده اند لازم است بدانید
انتشاراینترنتی این نوع مطالب
نمونه ای از افترا (دفاماسوين) است که در
سطح اينتنرت جلوگیری از پخش آن میسر است و به راحتی می توان
"پروایدر"
یا
«مهيا
کنندگان» تارنما را مخاطب قرار داد و جلو فعالیت سایت حامل افترا را بست-
سند زیردر مورد
«مهيا کنندگان»
تارنما در بریتانیا است (مشابه آن
کلیه کشورهای اروپایی و آمریکایی موجود
است) و برای اطلاع این دوستان منتشر میگردد-
Responsibility for publication Responsibility for
publication. 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.
(2) For this purpose
"author", "editor" and "publisher" have the
following meanings, which are further explained in subsection
(3)- "author" means the
originator of the statement, but does not include a person who did not
intend
that his statement be published at all;
"editor" means a
person
having editorial or equivalent responsibility for the content of the
statement
or the decision to publish it; and "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.
(4) A person shall not be
considered the author, editor or publisher of a statement if he is only
involved-
(a) in printing, producing,
distributing or selling printed material containing the statement;
(b) in processing, making copies
of, distributing, exhibiting or selling a film or sound recording (as
defined
in Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) containing
the
statement;
(c) in processing, making copies
of, distributing or selling any electronic medium in or on which the
statement
is recorded, or in operating or providing any equipment, system or
service by
means of which the statement is retrieved, copied, distributed or made
available in electronic form;
(d) as the broadcaster of a live
programme containing the statement in circumstances in which he has no
effective control over the maker of the statement;
(e) as the operator of or
provider of access to a communications system by means of which the
statement
is transmitted, or made available, by a person over whom he has no
effective
control.
In a case not within
paragraphs (a) to (e) the court may have regard to those provisions by
way of
analogy in deciding whether a person is to be considered the author,
editor or
publisher of a statement. (4) Employees
or
agents of an author, editor or publisher are in the same position as
their
employer or principal to the extent that they are responsible for the
content
of the statement or the decision to publish it.
(5) In determining for the
purposes of
this section whether a person took reasonable care, or had reason to
believe
that what he did caused or contributed to the publication of a
defamatory
statement, regard shall be had to-
(a) the extent of his
responsibility for the content of the statement or the decision to
publish it,
(b) the nature or circumstances
of the publication, and
(c) the previous conduct or
character of the author, editor or publisher.
(6) This section does not
apply to any cause of action which arose before the section came into
force.
Offer to make amends Offer to make
amends. 2. - (1) A person
who has published a statement alleged to be defamatory of another may
offer to
make amends under this section.
(2) The offer may be in relation
to the
statement generally or in relation to a specific defamatory meaning
which the
person making the offer accepts that the statement conveys ("a
qualified
offer").
(3) An offer to make amends-
(a) must be in writing,
(b) must be expressed to be an
offer to make amends under section 2 of the Defamation Act 1996, and
(c) must state whether it is a
qualified offer and, if so, set out the defamatory meaning in relation
to which
it is made.
(4) An offer to make amends
under this section is an offer-
(a) to make a suitable correction
of the statement complained of and a sufficient apology to the
aggrieved party,
(b) to publish the correction and
apology in a manner that is reasonable and practicable in the
circumstances,
and
(c) to pay to the aggrieved party
such compensation (if any), and such costs, as may be agreed or
determined to
be payable.
The fact that the offer is
accompanied by an offer to take specific steps does not affect the fact
that an
offer to make amends under this section is an offer to do all the
things
mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c). (5)
An offer
to make amends under this section may not be made by a person after
serving a
defence in defamation proceedings brought against him by the aggrieved
party in
respect of the publication in question.
(6) An offer to make amends under
this
section may be withdrawn before it is accepted; and a renewal of an
offer which
has been withdrawn shall be treated as a new offer.
Accepting an offer to make amends.
3. - (1) If an offer to make
amends under section 2 is accepted by the aggrieved party, the
following
provisions apply.
(2) The party accepting the offer
may not
bring or continue defamation proceedings in respect of the publication
concerned against the person making the offer, but he is entitled to
enforce
the offer to make amends, as follows.
(3) If the parties agree on the
steps to
be taken in fulfilment of the offer, the aggrieved party may apply to
the court
for an order that the other party fulfil his offer by taking the steps
agreed.
(4) If the parties do not agree
on the
steps to be taken by way of correction, apology and publication, the
party who
made the offer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate, and may in
particular-
(a) make the correction and
apology by a statement in open court in terms approved by the court,
and
(b) give an undertaking to the
court as to the manner of their publication.
(5) If the parties do not
agree on the amount to be paid by way of compensation, it shall be
determined
by the court on the same principles as damages in defamation
proceedings.
The court shall take account of
any steps
taken in fulfilment of the offer and (so far as not agreed between the
parties)
of the suitability of the correction, the sufficiency of the apology
and
whether the manner of their publication was reasonable in the
circumstances,
and may reduce or increase the amount of compensation accordingly.
(6) If the parties do not agree
on the
amount to be paid by way of costs, it shall be determined by the court
on the
same principles as costs awarded in court proceedings.
(7) The acceptance of an offer by
one
person to make amends does not affect any cause of action against
another
person in respect of the same publication, subject as follows.
(8) In England
and Wales or Northern Ireland,
for the purposes of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978-
(a) the amount of compensation
paid under the offer shall be treated as paid in bona fide settlement
or
compromise of the claim; and
(b) where another person is
liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly or otherwise),
the person
whose offer to make amends was accepted is not required to pay by
virtue of any
contribution under section 1 of that Act a greater amount than the
amount of
the compensation payable in pursuance of the offer.
(9) In Scotland-
(a) subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reform
(Miscellaneous
Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 (right of one joint wrongdoer as
respects
another to recover contribution towards damages) applies in relation to
compensation paid under an offer to make amends as it applies in
relation to
damages in an action to which that section applies; and
(b) where another person is
liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly or otherwise),
the person
whose offer to make amends was accepted is not required to pay by
virtue of any
contribution under section 3(2) of that Act a greater amount than the
amount of
compensation payable in pursuance of the offer.
(10) Proceedings under this
section shall be heard and determined without a jury.
Failure to accept offer to make amends.
4. - (1) If an offer to make
amends under section 2, duly made and not withdrawn, is not accepted by
the
aggrieved party, the following provisions apply.
(2) The fact that the offer was
made is a
defence (subject to subsection (3)) to defamation proceedings in
respect of the
publication in question by that party against the person making the
offer.
A qualified offer is only a
defence in
respect of the meaning to which the offer related.
(3) There is no such defence if
the
person by whom the offer was made knew or had reason to believe that
the
statement complained of-
(a)
referred to the aggrieved party or was
likely to be understood as referring to him, and
(b)
was both false and defamatory of that
party; but it shall be presumed until the
contrary is shown that he did not know and had no reason to believe
that was
the case.
(4) The person who made the offer
need
not rely on it by way of defence, but if he does he may not rely on any
other
defence.
If the offer was a qualified
offer, this
applies only in respect of the meaning to which the offer related.
(5) The offer may be relied on in
mitigation of damages whether or not it was relied on as a def