[1] Mr. Kang received fines totaling 30, 000 Singapore dollars.
[2] Singapore Debates, Parliament No. 8, session 1, v.61, sitting No.3, 1993-05-28.
[3] Singapore Debates, Parliament No. 9, session 1, v.69, sitting No.3, 1998-06-30 per Mr. Wong Kan Seng (Minister for Home Affairs).
[4] Sherras v. DeRutzen, [1895] 1 Q.B. 918, 921.
[5] Supra note 3.
[6] Supra note 3.
[7] Supra note 7.
[8] Compuserve, Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace, http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/cs-cp2.html (SD Ohio 1997) [hereinafter Compuserve] at para. 22.
[9] Ibid. at para. 24.
[10] Ibid. at para. 21.
[11] Ibid. at para. 28.
[12] Defendants were in the business of sending unsolicited advertisements; in sending voluminous e-mail messages to thousands of CompuServe subscribers, the defendants slowed the ISP's systems to a considerable extent, resulting in long delays for CompuServe subscribers who wanted to access their accounts.
[13] CompuServe, supra note 8 at para. 28.
[14] CompuServe, supra note 8 at para. 29. See also S. Macpherson, "Spam, Spamming and the Law" http://www.mcgrigors.com/publications/technology/pub_01.html.
[15] 2 All ER 426.
[16] See J. Clerk & W. Lindsell, Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 3rd Cumulative Supplement, 17th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998) at 107, 110.
[17] Ibid. at 110, quoting from Lord Goff of Chieveley.
[18] (1866), LR 1 Ex 265, LR HL 330.
[19] [1994] 1 All ER 53.
[20] See C. Gringras, The Laws of the Internet (London: Butterworths, 1997) at 81.
[21] 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) [hereinafter Zeran] http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/4th/971523P.html.
[22] Ibid. at para. 1.
[23] 47 U.S.C. § 230 [hereinafter CDA].
[24] Zeran, supra note 21 at para. 3, 4.
[25] Zeran, supra note 21 at para. 5.
[26] 99 NY Int. 0165 http://legal.web.aol.com/decisions/dldefam/lunneyappeal.html.
[27] Ibid. at para. 15.
[28] Ibid. at para. 16.
[29] See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F.Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) http://www.epic.org/free_speech/cubby_v_compuserve.html and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 805178 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/strat1.html.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Godfrey v. Demon Internet Ltd., [1999] EWJ No. 1226 (Q.B.) considering the English Defamation Act 1996 http://www.cyber-rights.org/documents/godfrey_decision.htm. Note that this position has been essentially adopted in Canada: Hill v. Church of Scientology, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130.
[32] See K. Epstein and B. Tancer, "Enforcement of Use Limitations by Internet Service Providers: 'How to Stop that Hacker, Cracker, Spammer, Spoofer, Lamer, Emailbomber,'" (1997) 19 COMM-ENT 661 at 673. Note that this is essentially the basis for ISP liability under the recently passed Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2887 (title IV amending §§108, §§112, §§114, chapter 7 and chapter 8, title 17, United States Code), enacted October 28, 1998.
[33] Ibid.
[34] (1997), 146 ALR 649 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/unrep338.html.
[35] See generally D. Asmus, "Service Provider Liability: Australian High Court Gives the World a First-Should the United States Follow Suit?" (1998) 17 Dickinson Journal of Int'l Law 189.