 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Oakland Trib: State high court to review online speech case |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ilena Rose |
 Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2087937,00.html
State high court to review online speech case
Judges will decide if re-posting defamatory words is illegal
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
The California Supreme Court will review an Alameda County case to
decide how much protection a 1996 federal law gives intermediaries who
are sued for re-posting someone else's words on the Internet -- a
major issue where free speech and technology collide.
The court voted 7-0 Wednesday to decide whether the state Court of
Appeal's narrow interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act is correct, and exactly to whom it applies. Ilena
Rosenthal of San Diego believes the law, which to some degree
immunizes from lawsuit those who post other people's words on the
Internet, applies to her.
Rosenthal is an anti-breast-implant activist who participates in two
online Usenet newsgroups focusing on alternative medicine. She and
others were sued by Dr. Stephen J. Barrett, a retired Pennsylvania
psychiatrist, and Dr. Terry Polevoy of Ontario, Canada, who have
authored books and operate Web sites claiming to expose instances of
health fraud and quackery; they claimed Rosenthal and others libeled
them in Internet postings.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Richman in 2001 granted
Rosenthal's motion to strike the complaint against her, finding only
one of her statements was arguably defamatory -- something someone
else wrote that Rosenthal then reposted online -- and the federal law
protected her from being sued for it.
But the state Court of Appeal overruled part of that dismissal in
January, finding Polevoy could still make a case against Rosenthal
that's barred neither by state nor federal law. The federal law, it
ruled, shouldn't be interpreted to block the common-law principle that
the user is liable if he or she knew or had reason to know the
statements were false.
The two doctors' lawyer, Christopher Grell of Oakland, said he
believes this was correct and hopes the Supreme Court will uphold it.
"It's an important decision -- from the get-go, we thought it was
something the Supreme Court would ultimately have to look at."
The trial court's ruling had "cast aside the libel laws of every state
and throws aside all these other supreme court cases, state and
federal," Grell said. "The foundation of any democratic society is
human decency, and the right to protect one's name and reputation lies
at the heart of that."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Oakland-based California
Anti-SLAPP Project have rallied to Rosenthal's defense, concerned that
the court's narrow interpretation of the federal law could leave ISPs
like America Online or Yahoo vulnerable to lawsuits for things posted
by people using their services.
"Overturning the Court of Appeal's ruling would greatly advance
freedom of speech on the Internet," Mark Goldowitz of Oakland,
Rosenthal's co-counsel and the California Anti-SLAPP Project's
director, said Wednes-day.
"Society must recognize that the diversity of Internet content does
not appear by magic or come only from traditional publishers or media
giants," said ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick.
"Rather, it flows largely from the Internet's openness to the
contributions of individuals who might otherwise never have the
resources or ability to speak to a national or global audience. That
openness will vanish if those who provide a forum for other speakers
are faced with the prospect of liability for what those other speakers
say."
Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/quacklibelsuit.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Coleah |
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Thank you for re-posting this once AGAIN and spamming it to several
newsgroups, Ilena.
Readers may be reminded to share their opinions and points of view
with Josh Richman, the Staff Writer of this piece:
jrichman@angnewspapers.com
Ilena does NOT post this information out of pure arrogant ego.
No, no.
It has something weirdly connected to silicone breast implants
and just HAS to be spammed near and far to the universe.
[Don't you just love freedom of speech?]
====================================
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rr7080hoiajcf32elg7pvv5fdeu92e3h33@4ax.com...
[quote:5c9277bcec]
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2087937,00.html
State high court to review online speech case
Judges will decide if re-posting defamatory words is illegal
By Josh Richman, STAFF WRITER
The California Supreme Court will review an Alameda County case to
decide how much protection a 1996 federal law gives intermediaries who
are sued for re-posting someone else's words on the Internet -- a
major issue where free speech and technology collide.
The court voted 7-0 Wednesday to decide whether the state Court of
Appeal's narrow interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications
Decency Act is correct, and exactly to whom it applies. Ilena
Rosenthal of San Diego believes the law, which to some degree
immunizes from lawsuit those who post other people's words on the
Internet, applies to her.
Rosenthal is an anti-breast-implant activist who participates in two
online Usenet newsgroups focusing on alternative medicine. She and
others were sued by Dr. Stephen J. Barrett, a retired Pennsylvania
psychiatrist, and Dr. Terry Polevoy of Ontario, Canada, who have
authored books and operate Web sites claiming to expose instances of
health fraud and quackery; they claimed Rosenthal and others libeled
them in Internet postings.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge James Richman in 2001 granted
Rosenthal's motion to strike the complaint against her, finding only
one of her statements was arguably defamatory -- something someone
else wrote that Rosenthal then reposted online -- and the federal law
protected her from being sued for it.
But the state Court of Appeal overruled part of that dismissal in
January, finding Polevoy could still make a case against Rosenthal
that's barred neither by state nor federal law. The federal law, it
ruled, shouldn't be interpreted to block the common-law principle that
the user is liable if he or she knew or had reason to know the
statements were false.
The two doctors' lawyer, Christopher Grell of Oakland, said he
believes this was correct and hopes the Supreme Court will uphold it.
"It's an important decision -- from the get-go, we thought it was
something the Supreme Court would ultimately have to look at."
The trial court's ruling had "cast aside the libel laws of every state
and throws aside all these other supreme court cases, state and
federal," Grell said. "The foundation of any democratic society is
human decency, and the right to protect one's name and reputation lies
at the heart of that."
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the
Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Oakland-based California
Anti-SLAPP Project have rallied to Rosenthal's defense, concerned that
the court's narrow interpretation of the federal law could leave ISPs
like America Online or Yahoo vulnerable to lawsuits for things posted
by people using their services.
"Overturning the Court of Appeal's ruling would greatly advance
freedom of speech on the Internet," Mark Goldowitz of Oakland,
Rosenthal's co-counsel and the California Anti-SLAPP Project's
director, said Wednes-day.
"Society must recognize that the diversity of Internet content does
not appear by magic or come only from traditional publishers or media
giants," said ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick.
"Rather, it flows largely from the Internet's openness to the
contributions of individuals who might otherwise never have the
resources or ability to speak to a national or global audience. That
openness will vanish if those who provide a forum for other speakers
are faced with the prospect of liability for what those other speakers
say."
Contact Josh Richman at jrichman@angnewspapers.com .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/quacklibelsuit.htm
[/quote:5c9277bcec] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rr7080hoiajcf32elg7pvv5fdeu92e3h33@4ax.com...
[quote:97fbf17ce9]
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2087937,00.html
State high court to review online speech case
Judges will decide if re-posting defamatory words is illegal
[/quote:97fbf17ce9]
Off topic and trolling is sci.environment. Please get a life Ilena. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 2:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:57:30 -0400, "Ian St. John"
<istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote:
[quote:946b7973e6]
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rr7080hoiajcf32elg7pvv5fdeu92e3h33@4ax.com...
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2087937,00.html
State high court to review online speech case
Judges will decide if re-posting defamatory words is illegal
Off topic and trolling is sci.environment. Please get a life Ilena.
[/quote:946b7973e6]
Again, I disagree Ian, and am quite surprised for your comments.
Online speech is certainly, in my ever so humble opinion, relevant to
the sci.environment newsgroup.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2004 6:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c0g080liloecu94ku4evct9c2i20h3ljoh@4ax.com...
[quote:4b4900d5c0]On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:57:30 -0400, "Ian St. John"
istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote:
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rr7080hoiajcf32elg7pvv5fdeu92e3h33@4ax.com...
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2087937,00.html
State high court to review online speech case
Judges will decide if re-posting defamatory words is illegal
Off topic and trolling is sci.environment. Please get a life Ilena.
Again, I disagree Ian,
[/quote:4b4900d5c0]
Yes. You are disagreeable. You disagree with everybody. It is how you stir
up the flames. But you are still off topic and trolling. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Orac |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <c0g080liloecu94ku4evct9c2i20h3ljoh@4ax.com>,
Ilena Rose <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote:
[quote:5561155b50]On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 15:57:30 -0400, "Ian St. John"
istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote:
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rr7080hoiajcf32elg7pvv5fdeu92e3h33@4ax.com...
http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1726~2087937,00.html
State high court to review online speech case
Judges will decide if re-posting defamatory words is illegal
Off topic and trolling is sci.environment. Please get a life Ilena.
Again, I disagree Ian, and am quite surprised for your comments.
Online speech is certainly, in my ever so humble opinion, relevant to
the sci.environment newsgroup.
[/quote:5561155b50]
Now that's a lame one. By that rationale, you could claim that posting
that article was on-topic to any newsgroup, and that just ain't the case.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:42:26 GMT, Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote:
[quote:15e7def18f]Online speech is certainly, in my ever so humble opinion, relevant to
the sci.environment newsgroup.
[/quote:15e7def18f]
[quote:15e7def18f]
Now that's a lame one. By that rationale, you could claim that posting
that article was on-topic to any newsgroup, and that just ain't the case.
[/quote:15e7def18f]
On line speech is a topic for any newsgroup ... regardless of your
lame attempts at logic ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qlk280hvcubgdlra5h0tg7dallkjrvtqi8@4ax.com...
[quote:4b8627051f]On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:42:26 GMT, Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote:
Online speech is certainly, in my ever so humble opinion, relevant to
the sci.environment newsgroup.
Now that's a lame one. By that rationale, you could claim that posting
that article was on-topic to any newsgroup, and that just ain't the case.
On line speech is a topic for any newsgroup ... regardless of your
lame attempts at logic ...
[/quote:4b8627051f]
No. Specific newsgroups have specific topics. Online speech, per se, is not
one of them. The topics are science and environment. Stop trolling Ilena and
give up the pathetic excuses. You just lose credibility as each one snaps
back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 13:39:22 -0400, "Ian St. John"
<istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote:
[quote:327aa0dce1]No. Specific newsgroups have specific topics. Online speech, per se, is not
one of them.
[/quote:327aa0dce1]
Ian ... in all your years of being a Trolls Troll ... never have I
seen you resort to Net Nanny using Junk Science Logic ... I always had
greater beliefs in YOUR mission.
I've seen you flipper flopper on various issues ... love someone one
day and attack them another ... but never to this level. Admittedly, I
only read a small portion of your posts ... so this could be typical.
However ... I disagree totally with your opinion on this matter in
general ... online speech is what Usenet is all about.
Even more specifically regarding sci.environment ... steeped with
Industry Voices pretending not to be.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/langervsilena.html
Further, Langer, a regular poster of this group ... has made in the
past and continues to threaten people regarding their online speech.
So honey ... fuss and fume all you want ... you'll find lots and lots
of co fussers and fumers here ... on Andy's Posse.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Coleah |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qlk280hvcubgdlra5h0tg7dallkjrvtqi8@4ax.com...
[quote:95a3457ab1]On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:42:26 GMT, Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote:
Online speech is certainly, in my ever so humble opinion, relevant to
the sci.environment newsgroup.
Now that's a lame one. By that rationale, you could claim that posting
that article was on-topic to any newsgroup, and that just ain't the case.
On line speech is a topic for any newsgroup ... regardless of your
lame attempts at logic ...
[/quote:95a3457ab1]
Ah.....not quite so, Ilena.
In .alt groups people can yap about anything.
Anything goes there.
In any other newsgroup there is a clear topic and an abiding charter.
Those newsgroups are more complicated getting established through
a panel of newsgroup advisors.
People in other than .alt newsgroups are expected to be ladies and gentlemen
and abide by the criteria setforth in the charter. Smart-assed bully trolls
who
attempt to weasel their own agenda in and disrupt the established topic
are suspendable issues for ISP's and everyone has the right to complain
loudly about such behavior.
A greater sense of dignity and respect may escape you Ilena, but it's the
same theory as a bum sitting in a park who is free to discuss anything
with anyone who comes by (whether they respond or not, the bum
may 'bay at the moon').
However it is not appropriate for the same bum to show up at a
flower gardening club meeting and expect to blabber about his right
to go to the park and talk about anything with anyone....which hasn't
a thing to do with the general topic of 'flower gardening'.
The men in the white coats may be called. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:44:52 GMT, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
[quote:73e527fb2c]On line speech is a topic for any newsgroup ... regardless of your
lame attempts at logic ...
[/quote:73e527fb2c]
.. Smart-assed bully trolls
[quote:73e527fb2c]who
attempt to weasel their own agenda
[/quote:73e527fb2c]
You mean like you and the rest of Andy's Posse?
Getting rid of me and promoting NSIF?
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2mv280d41svlpfbl9nud4ds7hhksbl1tfi@4ax.com...
[quote:96f88cb05c]On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:44:52 GMT, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com
wrote:
[/quote:96f88cb05c]
More off topic trolling. The result of which MAY be a complaint to her ISP
as persistent spamming of newsgroups can be cause for being TOSsed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:55:01 GMT, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com>
wrote:
[quote:9a00af02c0]Other people
[/quote:9a00af02c0]
In the last few days you have been arrogant enough (maybe it's
contagious and you caught up from Andy) ...
To say you represented the "official breast implant community" ...
You claim to speak for "other people" ...
As well as claimed YOU KNOW whether or not the pharmaceutical
companies have consipired to withhold damaging drug complications
energy ...
Stated as a fact ... you claimed there was "no conspiracy."
Of course, the pharmaceutical companies have cleared all their plans
with YOU ... before making any decisions.
Enjoy your fantasies and delusions of grandeur ...
So glad to see you finally have lined up with the "other people" you
claim to represent.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm
I do believe, that the Black Helicopters you keep talking about have
blown away your reasoning abilities.
www.humanticsfoundation.com/coleah.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ilena Rose |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:10:30 -0400, "Ian St. John"
<istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote:
[quote:0a7e321442]
[/quote:0a7e321442]
[quote:0a7e321442]On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:44:52 GMT, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com
wrote:
More off topic trolling. The result of which MAY be a complaint to her ISP
as persistent spamming of newsgroups can be cause for being TOSsed.
[/quote:0a7e321442]
Nah ... disagree again ...If Coleah wants to post her opinions ...
that's her right ... USenet is the Wild West of the Internet ...
Everyone has the ability to ignore posts they don't want ... comment
on those they do want to read ... or not ...
play Net Nanny ... or not.
I continue to believe that online speech is on topic to any newsgroup
.... and your mutual disagreement has been so noted ...
There are those who would believe that it is only Trolling to tell
others what to post ... or not.
BTW ... saw your comment about "Trash Talk" Ian ... should be noted
that corporate flack Milloy's site, junkscience.com board that was
named that ... has been taken off the web.
The case the subject message refers to is here:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
~~~~~~~~
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ian St. John |
| Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ilena Rose" <ilena@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m06380ppuoqee2h2e01l8a0mmrut13q3oo@4ax.com...
[quote:af46cea8e6]On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 16:10:30 -0400, "Ian St. John"
istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 18:44:52 GMT, "Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com
wrote:
More off topic trolling. The result of which MAY be a complaint to her
ISP
as persistent spamming of newsgroups can be cause for being TOSsed.
Nah ... disagree again ..
[/quote:af46cea8e6]
You are very disagreeable, I admit, but that is just part and parcel of your
persistent trolling. The trolling is the issue.
[quote:af46cea8e6]If Coleah
[/quote:af46cea8e6]
Coleahs response is not the issue, and you may find out that there are rules
on the internet, even in newsgroups. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:16 am
|
|