whats going on???????

[Antigen]

No, it's not Ken. It's WWASP and PURE and it's over some of the postings to the Teen Help forum.

More than likely, they don't have a legitimate cause of action. But they do have millions of dollars and very competent lawyers. So they could essentially squash me like a bug before I'd ever get a chance to defend myself on anything like the merit of the complaint or anything. In my opinion, if they actually had a legitimate beef that they wanted me to address, well they might just ask. Instead, they (PURE) has already sued me w/o giving me an opportunity to address their concerns voluntarily. That suggests (but doesn't prove) that this is yet another SLAPP suit.
Definition:
http://thestraights.com/articles/logans ... -encl4.htm

Step 1. We came to understand that the government is powerless over people's private use of drugs and that the War on Drugs was making the government's life unmanageable.

--Scott Tillinghast

[Anonymous]

If Ken dont sue ya hell I will how much ya worth? :lol:

[Anonymous]

Your lawyer would tell you to stop running off at the mouth Ginger. You are damaging your defense every time you talk about it. You are somewhat bright but your oppositions lawyers are quite bright also, I'm sure and the actually have some training and knowlege of the law. When you hire one that's what he will tell you. Ask him (or her), you'll see. That's what you should do. Don't talk unless it's to your lawyer.

What "freedom of speech" is about is your constitutional right to state your religious or political views in public if you want without fear of reprisal from the GOVERNMENT. Nobody, none of the framers or any supreme court justice has ever said that the first ammendment gives people the right to say whatever they want about whoever they want whenever they want to with obvious malice or not. People get sued and loose those lawsuits every day.

Some people here should really take a very basic constitutional law class. Know what your rights are, not what your rights aren't. They really aren't what you imagine they are.

[Antigen]

Yeah, starting with you! I've actually been down this road before and been an avid observer of other free speech issues. The First Amendment does not restrict the freedom of speech to just political and religious speech.

And there is absolutely NOthing in our law that requires me to control anyone else's speech, except for copyright and privacy laws.

Here's a good example of a fairly recent, precedent setting case roughly similar to this one:

http://www.aclufl.org/body_caseofthemonthseptember.html

The kids won.

Cops; you wake `em up you gotta dance with `em. They lead.
-- Jack McNulty

[Anonymous]

Well, you do seem to know everything. I hope you're right. Some people have gone to some pretty good law schools, Others haven't. I don't know how else to put it. I tried. I hope the lawyer you hire can get you to pay attention better. What I see is nightmare client.

I hope that you haven't violated any copyright laws? That would be yet another problem issue.

[Antigen]

Please read the terms of use located at the top of the FAQ.

For something that has spread with all the forethought of kudzu, the Internet isn't half bad."
-- Newsweek, 2/27/95

[Anonymous]

It wouldn't matter what your "terms of use" said. Usually disclaimers won't get past even a first motion for dismissal. If there is copyright material here and you know it's here or if someone else posted it and you know that it is copyright material you'll have a problem.
If yoe knew it was copyright material and allowed it to stay you'll probably have a problem.
Even worse would be if you posted it yourself or altered copyright material so that it didn't appear to be so. You need to HIRE a lawyer to defend you. You need to be defended. You are under attack and the legal perspectives you are spouting WILL cause problems for you.

You need a lawyer who actually went to law school and passed the bar exam. When you hire one you need to listen to, and follow every word they tell you.

You are under attack now and they will hang you on the tiniest detail. Make sure your yard is clean.

Stop talking so much (at all). You're your own worst enemy.

"The attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client"
Clarence Darrow

[E7haterJe]

anonymous needs to shut up about that shit...

"You need a lawyer who actually went to law school and passed the bar exam" you cant practice as a lawyer unless u took the bar exam...and one cant defend you in court anyways..


FAQ says:
All of the responsibility for content, legal, moral or otherwise, rests with the respective authors of the words posted herein. Use of this forum (either by posting messages or just by reading them) implies your acceptance of this policy. etc etc...

i think shes done a pretty good job... its all there...the disclaimer to use this chat sight...
you can sue her...but it doesnt matter her ass has been protected..

who do u think u are? threatening and harrassing someone..? your posts here are just as good to use against someone like you.. as verbally harrasing her.

[Antigen]

Thanks, Jen. S'awright though. A lot of people go around thinking that what this guy says is the truth. For all I know, he/she has the best of intentions in saying this stuff.

But I've actually watched a number of net free speech issues very closely. Nazi would be like a babe in the woods on Usenet. And that's where the precidents are set.

Here's some info on that:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi#QID315

I know that our bodies were made to thrive only in pure air, and the scenes in which pure air is found.
-- John Muir

_________________
Ginger Warbis ~ Antigen
American drug war P.O.W.
   10/80 - 10/82
Straight South (Sarasota, FL)
Anonymity Anonymous

[ This Message was edited by: Antigen on 2004-01-01 15:08 ]

[Deborah]

Why are you arguing Copyrighted information. That, to my knowledge is not an allegation or an issue in this situation.
And, how would you respond to this:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi#QID315
Question: Can my ISP or the host of a message board be held liable for defamatory statements I make on the grounds that they are a "publisher" or "republisher" of the information?

Answer: No. Federal law provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This has been interpreted to protect hosts of discussions between other people against defamation and libel claims as a "republisher" of the information. Note that this protection does not extend to claims under intellectual property laws.

Question: Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party?

Answer: 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.
****************

Rampant Talking. The fate of this site is unknown but if it goes down, Ginger and others will not sit silently while it happens.

[Anonymous]

Usenet IS the internet. I really do have quite good intentions for you. I also went to a pretty good law school and passed a pretty official state bar exam. You just got free advice that people pay money for. Take ot or leave it.

1. Accept what you don't know and that you aren't qualified to practice law, not even close. What you are is an "interested legal hobbiest"

2. Hire a REAL lawyer (Friday morning would be a good time to do this.

3. Listen to your lawyer and follow his/her advice to the letter  

4. Stop talking about issues that could affect your case in any way. Every word you say is likely to damage you in court so don't say any.


I am not telling you this to hurt you. This is what I would say to my own client. This isn't the Ginger Show. This is real life and right now it is getting uglier and uglier. CLOSE YOUR MOUTH. SAY NOTHING BESIDES HELLO.

You REALLY don't know what you're up against or what the law really is. Stop acting like an expert. Nobody pays you to be an expert.

Stop assuming that you know what you're talking about. People get paid lots of money because they do know the law. You don't get paid anything for what you know. Be quiet and be a client. I've said it over and over. I'm done now. I tried to help.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like Blah Blah

[Anonymous]

Might be, might not be.

[Anonymous]

On 2004-01-01 15:17:00, Deborah wrote:

"Why are you arguing Copyrighted information. That, to my knowledge is not an allegation or an issue in this situation.

And, how would you respond to this:



http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/faq.cgi#QID315

Question: Can my ISP or the host of a message board be held liable for defamatory statements I make on the grounds that they are a "publisher" or "republisher" of the information?



Answer: No. Federal law provides: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This has been interpreted to protect hosts of discussions between other people against defamation and libel claims as a "republisher" of the information. Note that this protection does not extend to claims under intellectual property laws.



Question: Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party?



Answer: 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.

****************



Rampant Talking. The fate of this site is unknown but if it goes down, Ginger and others will not sit silently while it happens.





"

I would reply by saying that "a little bit of knowlege is a very dangerous thing" and that you have a very little bit of knowledge. This is no cakewalk. Ginger has big problems and she needs a lawyer who actually went to law school and passed the bar exam to help her. You can't help her in this respect because you don't fit the bill.

Once she retains a real lawyer who handles a lot of litigation (your corner lawyer who does some real estate closings or your cousin bernie who went to law school and practices in a far off state won't be able to help much)she needs to listen to he or she to the letter. She also needs to say nothing at all to anyone unless she discusses it with her lawyer first.

What she doesn't need is well meaning expert advice from people who have read just enough case law to think that an "eb and flow" of court decisions is an absolute. you REALLY don't know. Her lawyer will. That is the only person she needs to listen to right now.

If you want to help her be friendly, be supportive and send her some substantial sums of money. At 120 to 600 dollars an hour this defense can cost a hundred thousand dollars before it even goes to court. I recently had a client who absolutely would have won in court pay a settlement ammount of two hundred thousand dollars on a seven-hundred-fifty- thousand claim because they had already paid two-hundred-thousand dollars in fees. The case never got to court where they would have been vindicated after it cost them another five-hundred-thousand dollars or so. The sad thing is that as upset as the client was about having to pay out when they were right they really did get out cheap.

The other side will find ways to make this very expensive for ginger very quickly. They can file motions all day. As many as they want. Each time they do Ginger will have to pay her lawyer to defend against them. What she really needs is a few hundred thousand dollars. She has a lot to worry about and the last thing she needs to do is talk about it. If you want to help her, let her be quiet and send her money.

[Deborah]

Get off your trip. I'm not pretending to be a lawyer, or to be able to "help". Nor am I enticing Ginger to talk. If you haven't noticed, she is quite capable of taking care of herself. Are you an attorney? Are you trying to sell your services? Why do you keep harping on "an attorney who has actually gone to law school and passed the bar"?

There is something very wrong with our system, when a person can be dragged into a lengthy and expensive legal battle on the whim of another. The plantiff should be required to prove there is merit to her accusations before filing suit. This would prevent many unnecessary suits.

And for the record. I despise attorneys, having been screwed by a couple. They, like everyone else, should get paid after they have provided services. Too many times they take the retainer, and do nothing. Unhappy? Well then you hire another attorney to sue the first one who screwed you. What a racket.