Dear Adv Viegas, Thank you for your note. My responses are below.
Kindly also let me know which precise posting you are referring to, and which lines of the posting you believe to be defamatory. In the meanwhile, I will look into the facts of the case, to ensure that no injustice is done and yet, at the same time, to do my duty in maintaining the right of the media to express itself without being unnecessarily restricted. The cases for which you are now issuing legal notices to organisations and individuals through cyberspace, have been reported widely in the print media in Goa. GoaJourno is a mailing list meant to discuss media issues and concerns in Goa. It is in this context that we carry media-related discussions. You are welcome to visit the archives online. (Kindly note however that a mailing list is different from a website, and to call Goajourno a website would be factually and technically inaccurate. Mailing-list archives are seldom if ever "updated" in the sense of posts being deleted; only new posts are added as and when these come up.) In addition, I would also be thankful if you could send me a copy of the judgement under which you client was found not guilty of the charges filed against him, to help us journalists understand the issues involved, the response to the same, and how this affects the possibility of the case being discussed within the media. May I also request you to please send us your side of the story. We will carry it with equal prominence. Your clarification on which particular posting you are referring to would also help, as your client has been covered in a number of posts in connection with the child-sex-abuse case. [Including reports such as this, which throw up a conflicting picture: "German national Gunter Backman was set free as the witness turned hostile." http://www.indiadaily.org/entry/paedophilia-no-adequate-protection-for-the-indian-child-yet/ ] Let me state unequivocally that I do believe in the right to reply and fairness to all concerned. But at the same time, I am not in favour of needlessly censoring content posted on the Net which itself was started as a space for free expression. --FN PS: Your earlier post to Goajourno mailing list did not reach there, possibly because of technical reasons and the fact that you are not entitled to be subscribed to this closed for-journalists-only list (and hence cannot post to it). However I will share it with the list, as you intended, and also to keep the media fraternity aware of the issues involved. PPS: I remember my correspondent days while covering the 1989-90 elections, when the political party you were then associated with, had complained of booth capturing in one area of Curtorim assembly constituency. Four of us mediapersons rushed along with you and Adv Radharao to investigate and write about the same, against the powerful forces of the time. My hope is that you will likewise continue to encourage the functioning of the free (but responsible) press, both in the case of the traditional media and the (online) New Media. RESPONSE TO YOUR NOTE: 1. Please let us know which precise text you consider defamatory. As mentioned above, mailing lists archives are never "updated" (in the sense of deleting earlier posts), but only new posts are added to the same. Kindly also let us know if any of the facts mentioned in the said post are factually incorrect. 2. I would appreciate if you could send me a copy of the text of Judgment and Order dated 27/01/2006. 3. The "failure" to "report" the acquittal of your client was neither deliberate nor malafide, as Goajourno is neither a newspaper nor a newsagency operating with a budget to cover the news. We are a volunteer network that is operated on the basis of volunteers raising media-related issues. If your client supplies us with the relevant information, we would be more than happy to carry the details of the judgement in his case, with equal prominence. 4. Kindly let us know which statements and comments you consider defamatory. 5. I reiterate that Goajourno is not a newspaper, a mailing-list for journlists, meant to discuss media-related issues, and concerns arising thereof. As such, we are neither constrained nor mandated to only post only "news". 6. I will not comment on Jan Ugahi's merits or motives. If I recall right, the same organisation was being blamed by journalists for not doing enough on this case. 7. Please request your client to give his version of the case, and we offer to carry the same. 8. We await your comments on the issues above, before it is possible to take a suitable decision, in the interest of fairness in journalism and also the functioning of a free media. Frederick Noronha Independent Journalist --- On 6 Feb 2007 07:56:13 -0000, anacleto viegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sir/madam, For and on behalf of my client Mr. Gunter Backmann, residing at Elizabeth Street, 47, 402217, Dussel Dorf, Germany At present resident of Sernabatim, Colva, Goa, I have to address you as under:- 1.My client states that you have circulated defamatory material against my client in your website and retained it for last over 3 years within updating your website in Order to malign my client. 2.My client states that my client has been found not guilty of the offence of rape and has been acquitted by the Honourable Children's Court for the State of Goa, at Panaji-Goa in Special Case No. 5 of 2005, by its Judgment and Order dated 27/01/2006. 3. My client states that you have failed and neglected to publish the news regarding the acquittal of my client by the Honourable Children's Court for the State of Goa and neither have you updated the contents of your website regarding my client. 4. My client states that my client's reputation has been harmed due the defamatory contents regarding my client on your website. 5. My client states that what has been circulated by you on the website does not amount to news as the same is based on material furnished to you by Jan Ugahi who were instrumental in filing the false complaint against my client and is not correct as per facts on record. 6. Jan Ugahi has been sensationalizing an otherwise merit less Case. This is being done by Jan Ugahi for its own selfish reasons not with any altruistic motive and for getting funds from various foreign foundations. 7. My client states that the said news is per se defamatory in nature as the same is false, malicious and intended to defame my client. 8. My client hereby calls upon you to remove all the defamatory contents regarding my client from your website and update your website within 48 hours of receipt of this notice, failing which my client shall be constrained to take appropriate legal action against you in the competent court of law. Yours faithfully Anacleto Viegas Advocate _______________________________________________ Goajourno mailing list Goajourno@puggy.symonds.net http://puggy.symonds.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/goajourno
