<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fasthosts apparently edited didn&#8217;t edit Murrays site</title>
	<link>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/</link>
	<description>a space to think</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:16:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: The Fourth Place &#187; Learning about defamation</title>
		<link>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/#comment-58</link>
		<author>The Fourth Place &#187; Learning about defamation</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:24:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/#comment-58</guid>
		<description>[...] like I have been found to be talking nonsense about the Craig Murray censorship incident, however, I&#8217;ve been connected to the Law [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] like I have been found to be talking nonsense about the Craig Murray censorship incident, however, I&#8217;ve been connected to the Law [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: simon</title>
		<link>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/#comment-50</link>
		<author>simon</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:30:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Hi Clive, thanks for clearing that up. I don't have a high opinion of Fast Hosts and would put nothing that is bad beyond their capabilities, but I did leap to a conclusion.

Anyway, your actions as an apparent friend of Craig Murray seem perfectly well intentioned and certainly don't represent a hideous threat to our liberty!

As for Fast Hosts deciding for themselves that the site was defamatory and then proudly telling the papers, that simply shows up their respect for the wishes of their customers and for the needs of a healthy society.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Clive, thanks for clearing that up. I don&#8217;t have a high opinion of Fast Hosts and would put nothing that is bad beyond their capabilities, but I did leap to a conclusion.</p>
<p>Anyway, your actions as an apparent friend of Craig Murray seem perfectly well intentioned and certainly don&#8217;t represent a hideous threat to our liberty!</p>
<p>As for Fast Hosts deciding for themselves that the site was defamatory and then proudly telling the papers, that simply shows up their respect for the wishes of their customers and for the needs of a healthy society.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clive</title>
		<link>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/#comment-44</link>
		<author>Clive</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://thefourthplace.net/blog/2007/09/22/fasthosts-apparently-edited-murrays-site/#comment-44</guid>
		<description>No, Fasthosts didn't edit Craig's post. As the intermediary (Craig's site was hosted gratis on one of my dedicated servers at Fasthosts), I was trying to pre-empt a further issue, and made a misread correction. This was explained to Craig by email, and an apology given. Yes there are issues of censorship and restricted freedom of speech, but this instance is not one of them. In fact, if anyone had read the comments on the post in question, they would have seen my explanation/apology.

And believe me, selective editing is far too sophisticated for Fasthosts, they'd have just dropped the site. 

The confusion lies in the fact that I hosted Craig's site on my web-server, but I was more of a supporter, associate and webmaster. However, as I was hosting the site, direct webhost also accurate. Fasthosts were merely supplying dedicated servers to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No, Fasthosts didn&#8217;t edit Craig&#8217;s post. As the intermediary (Craig&#8217;s site was hosted gratis on one of my dedicated servers at Fasthosts), I was trying to pre-empt a further issue, and made a misread correction. This was explained to Craig by email, and an apology given. Yes there are issues of censorship and restricted freedom of speech, but this instance is not one of them. In fact, if anyone had read the comments on the post in question, they would have seen my explanation/apology.</p>
<p>And believe me, selective editing is far too sophisticated for Fasthosts, they&#8217;d have just dropped the site. </p>
<p>The confusion lies in the fact that I hosted Craig&#8217;s site on my web-server, but I was more of a supporter, associate and webmaster. However, as I was hosting the site, direct webhost also accurate. Fasthosts were merely supplying dedicated servers to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
