Fornits
Announcements & Tech Support => Web forum hosting => Topic started by: Anonymous on January 01, 2004, 04:55:00 AM
-
Go to this website and read up on the Great American "chilling effect". Personally, I think this organization may be quite interested in what's going on here. Ditto the EFF (Electronic Freedom Frontier). 2 powerful orgs whose expertise in this area is second to none.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/ (http://www.chillingeffects.org/)
:wave:
-
Thanks
How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate, they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to.
George Orwell, 1984
-
Anybody know the status of this anti-SLAPP legislative bill (Pennyslvania)?
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/d ... entID=3196 (http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3196)
-
http://www.casp.net/statepa.html (http://www.casp.net/statepa.html)
Don't hate the media. Become the media
--Jello Biafra
-
Ginger, Carey -- Have either of your considered creating a REBUTTAL webpage? Seems to me this would be a legitimate way to broaden awareness about issues of great interest to the public.
:smile:
-
At the very least, I would think it deserves its own forum so one doesn't have to bounce around between forums (Web Forum Hosting and THI) to keep up with this issue as it unfolds.
Unless I have misunderstood, the Chilling Effects site states that Ginger is not responsible for what Carey posted. Based on that, seems Ginger could ask to be removed or severed from the lawsuit, if that is Sue's only allegation against her.
-
The reference to www.casp (http://www.casp) leads to certain amendments to Pennsylvania's environmental laws.
Wouldn't rely on this specific statute to immunize free speech.
-
Ginger, Carey:
Strongly suggest that the invitation to create a "rebuttal webpage" is a sucker's game. Don't bite.
At best, it is an opportunity to get you to tip your hand, strategy-wise. At worst, its an opportunity to induce you to come up with additional statements which will then be argued to be additional instances of defamation ocurring after receiving notice of the pending case.
-
Brrr... I feel a chill in the room.
Ginger and Carey: Click on the link below. I believe you will find the information quite useful to you. For further info and links to case law, see the EFF website or email their attorneys for assistance.
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Def ... ng_pr.html (http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP/Defamation_abuse/Barrett_v_Clark/20010730_eff_ruling_pr.html)
:idea:
-
On 2004-01-01 15:21:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger, Carey:
Strongly suggest that the invitation to create a "rebuttal webpage" is a sucker's game. Don't bite.
At best, it is an opportunity to get you to tip your hand, strategy-wise. At worst, its an opportunity to induce you to come up with additional statements which will then be argued to be additional instances of defamation ocurring after receiving notice of the pending case.
"
Hmmm. Not sure I agree but in the interests of avoiding a potential legal quagmire, a third party could create a website focused entirely on what's in the court record (public domain). No need to draw battle lines. This is an issue that has attracted the attention of the national and international media. The WWF is a usergroup, not a commercialized teen-help-business.
:wave:
-
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.
-
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.
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
-
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)