Riverside Info » About Riverside

The problem with the "Court Orders Google..." topic

(12 posts)
1 2

  1. admin
    Administrator

    [For the record, I think I know who Catherine is, but I also know a lot of other people who post on this site. The fact that I know the people involved has very little to do with the reason I closed that topic.]

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/court-orders-google-to-name-anonymous-poster/

    I closed that topic because the discussion had gone completely off the rails.

    Catherine posted links to various discussions about a current news item, the fact that Google was ordered to release the identity of someone using their Blogger service, and the comments following her posts were:

    5. a comment from commonsense which was more or less on topic I think

    6. Fred claiming he was challenged or threatened by Catherine and it just went on from there. (I missed the part where Catherine did any of that; maybe it was in another thread. This day, Catherine posted 4 links with quotes from those articles, nothing more, that I could see.)

    7. JohnM comparing this to communist Russia, with a Riverside slant (more or less on topic as well.)

    8. rbgrad added 'SEIG HEIL!!!!!!!!" which is more or less along the lines of the communist Russia comments, not problematic I don't think although it didn't add greatly to the conversation either.

    9. newriversider commenting on "Trash talk" - but I am uncertain if they are talking about the linked articles or Riverside. The phrase "trash-talk" was used in the CBS article as quoted by Catherine, and I can't tell if what was posted at Blogger was fact or opinion or opinion based on fact since I didn't see the Blogger site online any more and I didn't search too hard for a cached copy.

    10. summer talking about catherine and not about the topic at hand, anonymity and posting on the internet, and possibly misunderstanding what was posted, quotes from the linked articles, as threats.

    So, I closed it. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, a current news item which could have wide-ranging consequences, some individuals chose instead to attack Catherine. We could be discussing what this means to us, here (i.e. if this site receives a request from law enforcement to disclose whatever information I have regarding a member, what would happen; how much anonymity do you actually have online; how about the fact that the model who sued Google to disclose the ID of the blogger actually found out who the blogger was, learned it was someone she knew, and received an apology; with your right to free speech, what responsibilities do you have; are the words written in blogs and on twitter considered libel (conversational) or slander (written - is this forum considered a publisher)?)

    I think with any free service (Google provides Blogger blogs free of charge) you're at the mercy of whoever provides the service.

    In another very recent news item, Flickr removed an image critical of Barack Obama, claiming copyright infringement, when it seems pretty clear they have looked the other way when works critical of George Bush might also appeared to have infringed upon copyrights. So, why did Flickr remove this image? Did it infringe on the free speech rights of the individual who posted it? I'd say it did NOT, because again you are using their free service. They can do whatever they want, I think, within the terms of use they publish. You have a right to free speech but you don't have an inherent right to use their service to get your message out. (also, for the record, I think it's pretty stupid of a company to do something like this that LOOKS like censorship.)

    Here's some commentary and the image:
    http://thomashawk.com/2009/08/flickr-censors-political-image-critical-of-president-obama.html

    [edited the title 8/21/09 - I had it backwards]

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 00:12 #

  2. JohnM
    Member

    Please. The only reason that Catherine posted 4 separate links to that story was to issue a veiled threat to people who post on this site anonymously. I thought Fred's response was right on point, and I also thought Summer was justified in her posting.

    With respect to what this ruling means to this site, I'd say absolutely nothing. Nobody has been libelled or slandered. Opinion is just that, opinion. Just as Catherine consistently questioned the intelligence of Kelly Navarro during the campaign, I can question Mark Shevitz's competence. I can do this anonymously, psuedononymosly, or under my own name. I can also criticize other bloggers here, and they can do the same to me.

    One of the reasons the Court was able to compel disclosure o the bloggers identity in the case Catherine cited was because the blogger slandered the model--one of the traditional definitions of slander is the imputation of sexual promiscuity to a woman, and that was one of the main themes of the blog.I'd also note that this is slander regardless of whether the person who posts it is anonymous or not.

    Suggesting that bloggers on this site are somehow engaging in criminal conduct by exercising their rights is not only legally incorrect, it's a nasty thing to say. However, it is not legally actionable.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 07:24 #

  3. Catherine
    Member

    Wowee! Interesting to note who the folks are who were so offended!

    The reason I posted it is because someone yesterday did commit defamation and libel by calling others (not me) liars. Another poster pointed out that accusation was false. That was not an opinion but an assertion purporting to be fact. I posted this same warning in the St Mary's thread about folks who were likely libelling the neighbors of St. Mary, and I don't even know them.

    It didn't have anything to do with anything said about me. I am regularly insulted but not libelled I think, except perhaps on this topic.

    Free speech does not extend to libel, slander, defamation, or yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. This legal development also should speak morally to people who say things in darkness they do not have the integrity to say in light. Actions are pending in many states, and England has passed a similar law.

    The reason I kept posting links was to bump it to the top of the discussion to direct it to the people for whom it is intended. Obvously I met my mark, although the lesson is not learned. It goes for people may post to the Landmark as well. I hear amazingly crude things are being said there.

    Chris, FYI, so far an interactive site itself is protected from liability, as I understand it, but the person writing is not.

    John, you are wrong. Slander is the spoken word of an untruth about another person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Libel is its written form. This is a tort, not a crime. Such statements have been made here, and there is a limit to rights when they infringe upon those of others. Criticism, questioning, and opining are not what I am talking about.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 10:48 #

  4. Catherine
    Member

    My window is open for apologies.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:11 #

  5. commonsense
    Member

    Catherine - Unless you are an attorney with malpractice insurance, I would refrain from dispensing legal advice.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:26 #

  6. Catherine
    Member

    If I were you, I too would refrain from "dispensing with" legal advice. As to dispensing legal advice, there is none. I am very pleased with this legal development and hope to see it put to more use, and not just in this town but in fora all over the world.

    Summer, lexcordis is the name assigned to me by Suburban Life. It was intended as my access code, not user name, but I cannot change it. And if I had zero tolerance for the views of others, I would not be here. There is no requirement that anyone agree with anyone else.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:33 #

  7. JohnM
    Member

    Catherine,

    I am aware of the distinction between libel and slander, and of the difference between a tort and a crime. I am also posting from a blackberry on vacation, so I apologize if My posts are not as clear as they could be.

    But here is something that is clear--calling someone a liar is not, under any interptetation you can give it, either libel or slander. You are making yourself look foolish by suggesting that legal action can, or should, be taken when someone posts something you disagree with. Still, keep it up I it passes the time.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:36 #

  8. Catherine
    Member

    http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html#2

    "Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.

    Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

    Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
    Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
    Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
    Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;"

    http://americandefenseleague.us/libperse.htm

    "Libelous per se. A publication is libelous per se when the words are of such a character that an action may be brought upon them without the necessity of showing any special damage, the imputation being such that the law will presume that any one so slandered must have suffered damage. Robinson v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 273 N.C. 391, 159 S.E.2d 896, 898. To render words "libelous per se," the words must be of such character that a presumption of law will arise therefrom that the plaintiff has been degraded in the estimation of his friends or of the public or has suffered some other loss either in his property, character, reputation, or business or in his domestic or social relations. When a publication is "libelous per se", that is, defamatory on its face, it is actionable per se; i.e. one need not prove that he received any injury as a result of the publication in order to recover damages, and in such a case general damages for loss of personal or business reputation are recoverable and no averments or proof of special damages are necessary. Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., D.C.Pa., 289 F.Supp. 737, 743."

    SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    LIAR is one such word, according to my reading.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:42 #

  9. commonsense
    Member

    Once again, there you go with half the facts. Keep reading Catherine, pull some Illinois cases and let us know when defamation and libel become actionable.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:46 #

  10. Catherine
    Member

    No knowledge is even more dangerous.

    http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel-slander-per-se.shtml

    See Illinois under states that do recognize defamation per se.

    It is unfortunate when the law, the very least of what we should expect from ourselves, has to step in where common decency ought to suffice.

    My point in responding to this post was to say that everyone who commented imputed to me the selfish and false motive of trying to prevent people from speaking their minds or, worse, from insulting me, when my intent was to point out there is such a thing as stepping over the line and that the law is moving in where morals have failed. I do not want to engage in the same discussion all over again when it was already terminated.

    Posted Friday Aug 21, 2009 11:53 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2

Reply »

You must log in to post.