Announcements & Tech Support > Web forum hosting

Protecting Free Speech is Just a Click Away!

<< < (3/3)

Anonymous:
Barrett v. Clark potentially has merit as a defense for an ISP or host's responsibility for third party posts.

On the other hand, are first-person statements covered by the federal law cited?  Seems to me like the actual speaker (i.e., writer or poster) still bears responsibility for his or her words.  That is,  the best (though not necessarily most economically viable) defense is still proving truthfulness of the statements.

If I were your $500 per hour attorney,  I would gently suggest that the readers of this forum are not the ones who shall decide the issue of damages. (For the most part,  the regulars are already convinced;  most of the rest are interested parties, looking to enhance their litigation posture or trolling for inflamatory   statements)  

    Ergo,  nothing much to be gained by debating legal strategy in public.  Such matters are, by right,  are and should remain confidential.

Antigen:

--- Quote ---On 2004-01-01 18:58:00, Anonymous wrote:

Ergo, nothing much to be gained by debating legal strategy in public. Such matters are, by right, are and should remain confidential.

--- End quote ---


Well, I suppose that might mean something if this were not a SLAPP suit. I honestly don't think PURE expects to get a favorable ruling. I think they expect to cost me a lot of money and grief and force me to settle out. I think they'll be surprised.

But this whole dog and pony show is not for the benefit of the courts. This is for your benefit, dear reader. I think they want you to be very afraid to tell what you know or to even associate with anyone who dares say anything PURE doesn't want you to say.

We must create an atmosphere where the crooked cop fears the honest cop, and not the other way around.
Frank Serpico
--- End quote ---

Antigen:
Man, come to think of it, this is really something!

First, someone (who shall remain nameless, please) posts a rather threatening message, insinuating that they have a bunch of info about Carey, including her SS#. I hadn't paid that much attention till then. Rather than poke the ISP in an attempt to coerce this person to not do that, or to punish them for it (whatever!), I just put out a little reminder that they're really not all that anonymous if they give someone adequate reason (like real fear) to find out who they are.

15 min later, this person AIMS at me and says they heard I'd gone over to the Pro WWASP side! "Is it true????..."

From there, I was accused publicly of some really horrible things based on some pretty wild speculation.

Now, I'm apparently being sued for aiding and abbetting Carey, who's alleged to be everything from a drunken, psychotic, vindictive whore to ... just about anything you can think of. Hell, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, the profane (in Utah) term "Clintonite!" has been bandied about in close company in reference to Carey.

Do you think these folks possibly believe their own fantasies? Or maybe they just really don't want people posting to this forum. After all, you might get sued.

More interesting still, do they think I have something they want and now they're expecting a solicitation for funds? Wouldn't THAT be a hoot!!


Given the choice between dancing pigs and security, people will choose dancing pigs every time.
-- Ed Felton (quoted in www-security about Active-X)

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page