

Your comment here is meant as a put down. It fails for several reasons :

1) You have edited out the context of the action under discussion. 
2) I never brought the legal definition up. I use the English language
and not the legal dialect. The legal definition of fraud changes from
one country to another in any case. The context of the discussion is morality
of censorship.




You are extrapolating from the statement I made concerning a circumstance
in which such an act of censorship would be permissable to the Teel case.
If you had bothered to read the post instead of trying to prove how stupid you
thought me you would have done rather better. The mode of argument I was using
was a form of rhetoric. Argument by example, I describe a wide set of
circumstances in which an action is permisable and demonstrate that they
do not apply, thus the action is not permisable.

Obviously a company posting from a University adress would be squashed,  it
would be contrary to the internet comercial use.


Now you are clutching at straws. In the context of the discussion it was
the fact of association between the company and the post that was important.
The typeface etc is inconsequential.



If you are implying that I am lying I suggest you read Mark Holohan and Ulick
Staffords posts into soc.culture.british. If you are suggesting that 
advocating murder is a trivial matter I would prefer that you state it
directly. 

Certainly I oppose the right of Dr Sidiqui and the Ayatolah Khomenhi to
call for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Incitement to murder is not part
of what I consider legitimate freedom of speech.



That is irrelevant, the case is not the incremental cost but the facility
cost. If I decide that a company I am associated with should subscribe
to USEnet that usenet connection is the property of the company. It is
quite legitimate for a company to have a political or other agenda and
regulate the use of its property in accordance with its policy. For example
if a Microsoft employee were to post "Windows NT is crap don't buy it"
from a Microsoft machine I would consider it reasonable for Microsoft to
sack that employee. In the same way if a company decides that it has 
political objectives it might wish to regulate postings in a political
manner. This is no worse than Rupert Murdoch using his papers as a political
platform for his views.



ah yes you did not quote them, merely refered to them.



Your article consisted of a reference to the first ammendment, your signature
and pretty well damn all else. 



Are you refering to the initial hearings on an injunction or the judgments
on the substantive case?

The initial hearings that the government won were judged on the not unresonable
judgment that assertion by the government that the national interest might be
harmed would be grounds for prior restraint. The second set of hearings on the
substance judged that the government had no case and that the official secrets
act could not be used to suppress information in thwe public domain already.
The part that they won was over the copyright issue which is rather separate.

Here again the issue of censorship is rather different in the case that
information is divulged on the understanding that it will not be communicated
to third parties. The first ammendment certainly does not apply in this
case as the numerous prosecutions of spies in the US proves. 

The crux of the Spycatcher affair was extrateritoriality of British law.
The censorship aspect of it arose as a result of the government's
ludicrous attempts to prevent summary of the case in the book. 



Funny I saw that as a rejection of an assertion that you had made. Of course in
rejecting an assertion I have to make a contrary assertion, since this assertion
is unprovable I left it at that. 

So far I have not seen you demonstrate a command of the contrary opinion to your
own. You are attacking my anti-censorship view because I dare to accept the
validity of some pro-censorship arguments while rejecting their conclusions. 
Plus I am not an absolutist. I have this funny idea that the solution to this
problem was not decided in 1789 by a group of white male gentry in secret
session and sumarized in a single line. Furthermore I don't think that the
issues are half as simple as you imply.


I don't think that you have geered your discourse to any audience save that
of proving that you are the only person wearing a white hat.
