Judges Wants Anonymous Blogger Outted

[Select]

It was a question to "there's no ... difference ..." Not suggesting new laws need to be in place. I'm fine with having a judge demand the information of the end user if the judge thinks it is a case that can be pursued.

[Ddrak]

It was a question to "there's no ... difference ..."

Right, which was why I specifically qualified it as "no fundamental difference (legally speaking)".



Dd

[Select]

I've had two all-nighters in less than seven days. Glad you're smiling and reminding me and not snarking to remind. My brain should turn back on once finals finish.

[Rexxfield.com]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that ISPs be liable for defamatory postings. After all, in most cases they are merely a conduit. However, I would like to see ISPs adopting the intent of the CPAs "Good Samaritan" clause (and the emphasis was added by Congress). Under that clause, the ISP has two options:

(a) Turning a blind eye to the plight of the victim of a libel or other offensive material

(b) Removing the offensive material with immunity from the author's legal retaliation.

(b) = Good Samaritan whereas (a) is the hypocritical Pharisee according to my Sunday school lessons.

Respectfully augmented, Michael Roberts
http://www.rexxfield.com

[Taxious]

Mr. Roberts is, indeed, legitimate. He also claims to be the victim of just such a smear attack as I asked about, although details are sketchy without further detail to Google or access to Lexis-Nexis. I'm still not certain you can really compare his ordeal as a private figure to that of a model who is without doubt a public figure.

EDIT - I see now, but I won't be posting it here. I retract my previous statements about hyperbole. Wow.

????

I wasn't able to come up with what personally happened to Michael Roberts, but your post makes me all the more curious about it. Roberts and I share the same favorite movie though.

[Rexxfield.com]

I wasn't able to come up with what personally happened to Michael Roberts, but your post makes me all the more curious about it. Roberts and I share the same favorite movie though.

Matrix! Nothing else comes close.

What happened to me? If I revealed it all you probably wouldn't believe me. I made a very poor life choice many years ago and the antagonism the ensued was unabated until the individual was jailed in May. The person is out on bail awaiting criminal trials in two states and seems to be distracted. I expect the campaign against me to resume once the trials are over. I expect neither conviction or jail time as I have almost no faith in worldly justice.

The person drugged and restrained me in 2004 and then attempted to suffocate me with a plastic bag (6-10 minutes). The Dept. of Justice Crime Victim's Compensation Fund approved my claim for injuries from attempted murder and paid for my medical bills. The individual was not charged. This is the tip of the iceberg, and as long as the antagonist leaves me alone, I am not going to name the person or post my experiences and the documents and criminal record references for the world to see. When dealing with a sociopath it is often best to play dead, just like a mouse being tormented by a cat.... the cat will get bored. Sociopaths are fueled by their victim's pain. Therefore, you can either pretend it doesn't hurt, or lean on someone that takes the hurt away which is what I've done.

[Taxious]

Matrix! Nothing else comes close.

Yes.

The person drugged and restrained me in 2004 and then attempted to suffocate me with a plastic bag (6-10 minutes).

That's pretty crazy, but is there another story with you involving an internet "smear attack"? From what I read, Partha didn't believe internet-based libel was a serious crime, then read about your personal experience with it and changed his mind. What did he read that I can't seem to find??

[Rexxfield.com]

Once again, it is just the tip of the iceberg:

http://www.rexxfield.com/internet_libel ... mpaign.php

[Taxious]

Once again, it is just the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.rexxfield.com/internet_libel ... mpaign.php

I actually browsed through that page earlier but didn't see much detailing what happened to you personally. I guess some clues are hidden on that page you posted, though.

This issue is close to my heart because I have had a very frustrating and bitter experiences therein which left a business in tatters, staff unemployed and vendors unpaid.
.....
Within 24 hours of the agreement the angels found my antagonist’s libelous web site and withdrew their offer immediately. In early April 2008, a $70 million enterprise was enthusiastically engaged in dialogue with me for a partnering venture in the USA… until they found "that web site" and withdrew

That doesn't look like enough material for Partha to change his mind over, which is why I'm curious if he found something I didn't.

[Rexxfield.com]

Maybe Partha saw my analogy somewhere:

A person who relies on his or her reputation to find gainful employment or to gain and retain contract customers is particularly susceptible to targeted internet smear campaigns. His or her livelihood can be as thoroughly destroyed by a malicious and relentless anonymous blogger as that of a farmer who has had his livestock destroyed and barns set aflame by a vandal. The difference being that judges can relate to a tangible loss of $200,000 worth of cows and corn, but may dismiss the libel victim's intangible losses as petty and not worthy of clogging up the legal system.

[Taxious]

1) You posted your analogy.
2) Partha posted that he didn't believe your analogy, stating that it was an exaggeration.
3) Partha dives further into things and then retracts his statement and agrees with your analogy.
4) I'm curious as to what Partha found that made him change his mind.
5) You post your analogy again.

Argh... ohfuckingwell.

[Rexxfield.com]

I am currently in Helsinki, it's 23:33 and I am too tired to think about it....zzzz

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I made a very poor life choice

This is the part I'm most curious about. How did your life choice relate to the situation? Did your internet attacker make information about this choice public? If so, how can you claim destruction of your character if the allegations were true? Further, why would a company choose to end negotiations with you over the allegations of some random asshat's website? Especially if its owner/operator was anonymous himself?

Beyond that I still don't swallow the e-libel pill. Granted, I'm no legal expert so take my opinion as you will. Regarding Liskula Cohen's case, my biggest question is "so fucking what?" How many people have called Paris Hilton a skank? How many people have called Tom Cruise a closeted gay whackjob? Ever been to Zipperfish? That guy's in for a world of hurt should any of the celebrities and politicians he's burned get a stick up their ass and decide to sue. Cohen got her feelings hurt and wanted to know who the big meanie was. Plain and simple.

The internet is a cesspool of opinions. If we try and regulate anything that's said about anyone with a "reputation," there isn't going to be a justice system left to handle the shit that actually matters. And anyone who takes an internet smear seriously is probably too stupid to be worth doing business with. Unless, of course, that smear has some actual facts behind it.

[Partha]

Jaro,

This involves a private matter between two people in a way that I'm not going to discuss. Period. I believe that government should stay out of personal relations, so I'm not going to be hypocritical about it and do what I don't want Big Brother doing.

Besides that, Cohen's full of it AFAIC. She sells herself as a commodity using her body, it seems fair to me that someone can criticize her for selling herself as a sex object. What happened to Mr. Richards is MILES beyond that. I still can't say it 'caused him to sell his business', but I can see how the defamation made it VERY hard for him to work in the field he was in. I also note that he was able to move beyond it and still be a successful businessman in a related field.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I wasn't asking you to share his story, Partha. I was asking him. If he wants to use his personal experiences as an example of why e-libel should be taken seriously, he should be willing to share with the class a little more or risk being dismissed. Given my opinion on that matter, I also wouldn't want him to share anything with anonymous strangers on the web if he's not comfortable doing so. I'm well aware that leaves us at a potential impass, in which case I'll probably just forget the whole affair.

I'm pleased to hear he was able to overcome the obstacles and still achieve success. That, to me, is the more important issue and speaks volumes about Mr. Richards' character.

[Select]

Regarding Liskula Cohen's case, my biggest question is "so fucking what?" How many people have called Paris Hilton a skank? How many people have called Tom Cruise a closeted gay whackjob

But it was more than that. She is being portrayed as offering sexual services when she claims not to be. I think that's what the judge was getting at, not just kindergarten name calling.

She sells herself as a commodity using her body, it seems fair to me that someone can criticize her for selling herself as a sex object.

That's really fucked up. She's selling her appearance, not offering sexual services. Whatever personal distaste you may have for models or the modeling business, there is a huge difference between modeling and sex work, and she is being portrayed in the wrong light. That can affect her reputation as a model.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Anyone who's ever been called a "whore" is being portrayed as offering sexual services for money. Anyone who takes offensively captioned online pictures of a celebrity model as factual is a fucking retard. And yes, it is equivalent to kindergarten name-calling. As such, it deserves just as much attention, which is significantly less than I've paid the subject in this thread already.

[Ddrak]

Sorry, I was not suggesting that ISPs be liable for defamatory postings. After all, in most cases they are merely a conduit. However, I would like to see ISPs adopting the intent of the CPAs "Good Samaritan" clause (and the emphasis was added by Congress). Under that clause, the ISP has two options:

(a) Turning a blind eye to the plight of the victim of a libel or other offensive material

(b) Removing the offensive material with immunity from the author's legal retaliation.

(b) = Good Samaritan whereas (a) is the hypocritical Pharisee according to my Sunday school lessons.

Don't most ISPs have Terms of Service which given them the ability to pull down pretty much anything they feel like pulling down anyway?

I'd guess most don't want to get into value judgments, but given the speed they react to DMCA requests, there's no good reason they shouldn't be able to react in a similar manner to libelous material - even if it's not proven in court yet. Chilling effects are something to be careful of though.

Dd

[Select]

Jaro, I only have what the article has written, but I think the judge feels that there is more than name calling going on and the site is really trying to give the impression that she will perform those services. As I copy/pasted earlier:

"The thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden wrote in her decision. That included references to Cohen as "whoring" and "ready to engage in oral sexual activity."

So now it's up to to her to prove that the above, which is more than name calling, has damaged her reputation.

[Rexxfield.com]

Jarochai, I am sorry, it is way too complicated to explain. I'd have to write a book (which many have suggested that I do). I "fought" for justice in my matter for 5 years. On May 10th 2009 I was on my knees in tearful prayer and told my Daddy that I give up. Within a week my antagonist was arrested twice (two different states) and spent 11 days in jail for unrelated criminal matters. The person is now awaiting two trials. At this time my discernment (which has been wrong before) tells me to leave justice to Ceasar and to make no attempt to expose this person beyond what authorities have and will do. Until I feel led to do otherwise I am hoping that my "limited" testimony (albeit very vague) will stated up to scrutiny and that my many faults will be tolerated by objective observers such as your good selves, as a undeserved concession in my favor.

That being said, if anyone is genuinely interested please visit with me in 6 months or so to see if my discernment (or impulses) lead me in a different direction. Anyone can feel free to drop me a line at "brellrants atthedomain rexxfield which is a dotcom" and I'll add you to the long list.

Partha, thank you for your discretion.

Sincerely, Michael Roberts (not "Richards"