Slashdot Mirror
Columnist Threatens to Sue Blogger
floppy ears writes "Pseudonymous blogger Atrios has been threatened with a subpoena and lawsuit for defamation. Apparently Atrios used a headline 'Diary of a Stalker' in reference to Donald Luskin. In response to the posting, several anonymous commentators made some allegedly libelous statements about Luskin, and now Luskin has hired an attorney and started making threats and demands. The funniest thing is that Luskin has previously referred to himself as a stalker in his own headline: 'We Stalked. He Balked.'."
Blogging is dying....
do() || do_not();
oh wait...
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Whereas perhaps 20 people would have read that blog before, now thousands will.
My goodness, now if anyone says anything that makes you look bad, you're gonna sue them.
It reminds me of the Scientology approach: if anyone says anything bad about you, use the courts to silence them. Lovely.
...tizzyd
fascinating that people others want to know their daily rants and raves, what even fascinates me more is the people who read them. Are most bloggers some famed person who has achieved greatness and is willing to give insight into how they do what they do? No, it's bob the mechanic down the hill that repaired a faulty transmission on a '62 Buick the other day who just so happens to have a really cool website with his own personal blog section.
- wash, rinse, repeat.
Is it a sign of the times that those who dissent seem to be attacked by those in power, or has that always been the case?
This guy should thank him... he gave a link to Donald's site!
If I read the blog and the article correctly, this is a case where two guys are throwing mud at each other.Finally one of them couldnt take it anymore and called a lawyer. The only thing that is probably interesting to slashdot is that somebody is not willing to treat blogging equivalent to free speech.
Next article please....
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
hundreds will see it before the server is fried. /.
if you don't want people to read something- get it posted on
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Just hope he is getting sued for blogging, period. That would be justice. Cat pictures alone should get you 3-5 years hard labor.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
This "free speech" thing you yanks mumble on about is more trouble than it's worth. You can see why most governments in the world repress it. Opinions are irrelevent as they never change anything anyway.
Um, what the hell are you talking about? As far as political bloggers go, right or left, Atrios is one of the most prolific and well read. But way to go, in typical Slashdot fashion, commenting on something you really know nothing about.
My other computer is your Windows box
Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan walk by a large black man.
Tucker: What's up my nigga...
Man nods as he walks by. Then Chan does the same.
Chan (in stereotypical heavy asian accent, even for him): What's up... my nig-ga.
Man: What the hell did you say?!?
(Posting anonymously for fear of misunderstanding... I'm not racist or anything, just trying to make a point.)
Luskin's attacks on Krugman for National Review Online are often rather despicable. I am a conservative, but I can't stand reading Luskin. Besides, Krugman does have some good points. He has been saying that our record deficit (as high a percentage of the GDP as in the Reagan years) is leading to one of three options in the next decade: A) A steep tax hike soon B) A drastic cut in Government programs C) a financial crisis when the market decides that the government is not going to pay them back.
Bush is aiming at B, but he has made no political preparation for it. Nobody is ready to accept drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Without that preparation, we are most likely headed towards C.
Luskin is not a stalker in the legal sense, which is what Krugman implied on national TV. Luskin went to ONE lecture by Krugman.
The controversy of Luskin calling himself a stalker stems from literal and non-literal uses of the word. I find the whole thing nonsense, but any third party who is going to step in and start parroting something like "so and so is a stalker" is only going to get what they are asking for.
Stalking is a serious crime. To accuse someone of it, in the literal sense, is akin to me accusing someone of being a child molester - I'd better have some evidence to back that claim up. I would not expect to NOT be called on it. It's NOT like calling someone an idiot or a jerk.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I don't know why people do this... they have to realize by now that a libel suit (or any suit) against any kind of media or publishing organization is just free publicity for the defendant. The most unfortunate outcome of this is that babbling fools like Atrios get all the attention while better, more insightful bloggers get tarred with the same stigma of unprofessionalism without any of the benefit of publicity.
--
CPAN rules. - Guido van Rossum
First, a guy gets fired, now a guy gets sued...
Come on people, use your blogs to talk about yourself, or what you like, etc, but don't talk about anyone else, or this is what can happen.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Stalking is a felony in many (most) parts of America, so this accusation being made is a serious one. Paul Krugman recently made the charge on Hannity and Colmes, a television program, and Luskin had to go there to defend himself, too. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability, so I hope they find this guy and hold him accountable.
Paul Krugman is a public figure, being a prominent columnist for the most prominent news paper in the country. If people like Luskin can't challenge public figures without being subject to this kind of abuse, then free speech really is in trouble.
What ever happened to free speech?
What ever happened to trying to convince people that you were right with reasonable debate instead of resorting to lawsuits to impose your will on others?
Case in point would be the lawsuit to overturn McCain-Feingold. They couldn't win it in Congress with open and reasonable debate so they are going to try and use the Courts (and their high-priced lawyers) to overturn it.
Once again, the only ones that will really win are the lawyers.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Exactly. Why is this news? If you publish -- in any form -- you are beholden to laws (or in the firing case, beholden to the codes of conduct of your employer) -- and Luskin has the right to bring a course of action here. Whether he prevails or not is up to the courts.
Sure, the guy gets sued, now add more pain to his misery and slashdot him into oblivion.
Your daily slashdotting joke, i will be here all week.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
a conspiracy against poor, stupid Luskin.
I thought all this time opinions were like a**holes, everybody has one. Now people are suing over them? Jeez.. What has this country come too?
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
Bush will have pulled a Reagan : temporary short term growth and delay of dealing with persistent problems. Just make sure the economy is doing well the year before the elections. Loot the treasury to help your sponsors and hand the bill to next generation. Government by Ponzi scheme.
dave
Let's see...the victim is 'conservative'. The perpetrator is leftist. Therefore, Luskin is a total nutcase, and Atrios is a levelheaded First Amendment hero.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
There are death/violent threats against Luskin contained on the blog in question. It's one thing to call someone a bad name, its another to assist in the advocacy of violence against another. That crosses the line. It appears Luskin wants those removed. If that happens, it looks like the suit will be dropped. Not all to unreasonable. Defending threatning behavior is not defending the 1st Amendment.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Why are we wasting slashdot pixels with this rubbish??? You have no right to anonymity. Check your constitution. If someone wants to sue you for libel they can do it. The whole thing is just a bunch of children shouting at each other.
People seem to have high opinions of themselves and their precious egos. Try reading some court decisions about libel and the net - there's a darned high threshold that must be passed for it to be considered libel. Denbeste had a great comment about this - scan down to the entry labelled "Stardate 20031027.0423" to read it.
Oj, yes, the obligatory IANAL, just in case anybody was wondering.
Lemon curry?
...did anyone else notice the post in his blog about our beloved Georgy getting beat up by Arnold's thugs...
It seems as though most of the lawsuits regarding online publication, comments, and so on is the difference between "personal comments" and "news publication."
I may be wrong, but I believe that the fine line between "libel" and "opinion" lies in who's talking, and what they're talking about. If the Local Sunday Times states for a fact that one week ago I was spotted by 100 people dancing naked in a local fountain, and no such event occurred, then I could be sue for libel.
However, if some guy down the street told that to his neighbor - I don't believe I have a leg to stand on. Even if he was on TV and say "Yeah, he was out there doing that", and the news said "Well, that's what Mr. Jones has said", I'm still not sure I could sue either for libel (unless the news organization stated that for a fact - odds are, they'd use the statement "allegedly dancing naked in a fountain."
So what is a blog, or a newsgroup posting then? To most people here, they are "comments", "opinions", things that you take with a grain of salt. You don't take them as fact.
Of course, some online articles are meant to be fact - Salon, perhaps even a gaming site like Blues News could if they knowingly published false information.
But I think Mr. Luskin made a mistake in the difference between "some guy who's got an opinion who happens to write it down for others to read" and "a true news organization." My hope is that the courts rule that blogs, newsgroups, and other "commentary" style online posting are just that - some person expressing their viewpoints on something, perhaps in a sarcastic tone, but not held up to the same standards as a true "news" publication.
Now, if I can just figure out which Fox News is...
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Without this legal standard, the National Enquirer and it's ilk would have been sued into oblivion long ago.
Who cares about one journalist suing another for being a journalist. Both of these guys would be better served by actually finding some real news to report about. Ahhh forget it. People don't like real news it hurts too much.
-- $G
Anyone else read this as Communist Threatens to Sue Blogger?
Must-not-watch TV!
that as you are posting on Slashdot, the lawyers for the parent corporation are quaking, thinking about the fate of the lawyer in Jurassic Park...
"Provided by the management for your protection."
There is a three class system developing on the Internet. At the top we have the old timers who were there when NCP was swicthed off and personally oversaw the installation of their Honywell IMP. The middle classes are composed of those who got on early in the 90's commercialisation and know how the network works and the useful stuff such as Usenet. They know how to send email using Telnet.
At the bottom we have the Internet lower class. Those who think Instant Messaging is neat but have never heard of IRC. Those who refuse to properly learn how to use email and forward hoax virus warnings on to their entire address book. Those who thing "Blogs" are a great idea because it makes them feel like people care.
The lower classes are multiplying.
How dare you speak ill of madlibs!
I read through many stories in his blog and finally came to one at the bottom of the link he cites the Chewbacca Defense. It is so cool to see mainstream culture come from a cartoon!
Or something like that.
P.S. - Donald Luskin shakes it more than twice.
"Luskin and Krugman deserve each other. It's theatre of the absurd for the entertainment of the masses. It's sort of "World Wide Wrestling for Intellectuals"."
Pseudo-intellectuals.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
I'm amazed at the amount of support that Luskin is getting here. Just shocked, to be honest. Here's the equivilent.
Slashdot reports on an article on how Microsoft is neglecting security concerns, and how they are being negligent.
Microsoft, in turn threatens to sue Slashdot, and erase derogatory postings they might have.
People would be up in arms..wouldn't they?
This is a SLAPP suit...a lawyerpoint exposition..nothing more. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there are some other interests behind Luskin.
And to those people who say "Who cares..it's just bloggers", frankly, the ignorance astounds me. America has a long history of such grassroots information trading..a good portion of it, yes, anonymous.
The liberal "blogosphere", as it is called, is one of the most important things to happen to American politics in years. It's as influential now as talk radio was for the conservatives in the 80's and 90's.
In fact, it's even better. The decentralized nature of it, gives more people a voice. The open forum nature of it as well, facilitates actual discussion.
If you actually want to see what's going on, other than Atrios' site (which is a good one), try dailyKos.com or calpundit.com for a good start.
There's nothing funny about this that I can see. Some poor guy who hasn't hurt anybody will have to spend x number of hours out of his life to deal with this crap and to make the money to pay the lawyers to get Luskin off his back. It's about as funny as the side of your car getting spraypainted with swastikas.
The only reason I can see for this being on slashdot is the possibility that the NY Times (which is linked to all of the time) has some agreement with slashdot, this Luskin attacked one of their columnist and they are fighting back slashdot style? This stuff is silly, is there a tech site like slashdot that is not owned?
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
The point of this--which seems to escape most commenters--is that this is being used as a tactic to "out" Atrios.
He is an anonymous blogger on political issues--an especially sticky area considering our First Amendment.
Here is the expected sequence of events:
1. Luskin subpoenas blogspot.com, get's Atrios' real name.
2. Atrios served with complaint.
3. Atrios $$$$$$$$$hires lawyer$$$$$$$$$$$$
4. Lawyer writes response
5. Lawsuit dismissed because Luskin himself referred to himself as a "stalker" and the supposed slanderous comment is a mere repetition of that phrase with no added detail. There are First Amendment reasons the lawsuit should be dismissed but it's not necessary to detail them all.
Meanwhile, Atrios is no longer anonymous.
Given that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win, but to uncover a person's identity and chill their right to free speech, Luskin and his lawyer should be subject to sanctions.
This whole "calling him a stalker is libel 'cause that's a felony, blah blah blah" is bullshit. Luskin knows damn well that Krugman wasn't accusing him of having committed a felony. But he's desperately trying to score points and muzzle Krugman (and his defenders); Luskin is OBSESSED with the guy.
Further, Luskin is a conservative, right? And he knows pro-lifers, right? Do you suppose he's ever, EVER come across someone who refers to abortion as murder? Or who calls women who've had abortions, or doctors who perform abortions, murderers? If so, did Luskin demand the prosecution of said pro-lifers for slander/libel, since abortion isn't legally murder? Or did he recognize that they had a right to refer to murder in the colloquial sense, rather than legal sense, when making an argument?
Luskin is a hypocrite and a cretin. And yes, throw me on the pile of people begging for prosecution: he's a stalker.
Stalk
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.
Colloquial
1. Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal. Relating to conversation; conversational.
... just maybe, he's writing deathless prose about automatic gearboxes (though it would be hard, I'll grant you). This chap, guddling about among oily bits in his garage, might well have been the next Great American Writer, with a narrative style that makes Ernest Hemingway read like a Clymer manual.
A great explanation of the full story is here, which should make it much easier to follow for people who don't read these particular blogs regularly.
If he's upset about the anonymous comments to the blog, I don't possibly see how this could hold up in court.
First, it's possible that the site has a disclaimer like "we are not responsible for comments made to this site by the readers". If it doesn't, it probably should.
Second, and most important, is that it's an anonymous comment. You can't really prove who wrote it. Luskin may have put those comments there with intent to then sue the site. Or, someone else with an agenda against either the site or Luskin put the comments there so the blog site would take the fall for them.
To put it in a real world context, which often clears things up: A lot of organizations have open bulletin boards. If someone posts something offensive on their board, are they accountable for it? Should they remove it?
no comment
Something about that name was tickling my brain for a while before it settled in for me. It was the planet that the Doctor and Romana visited while looking for the 6th segment of the key to time. A propaganda-soaked, war-torn ruin of a world run by an insane military dictator.
Funny, that.
And now that I'm completely unvieled as a goober, I'll go away. Damn, I have having an itch like that in my head.
I wanted to start a BLOG so I had to think... I shouldn't write anything that I wouldn't want my KIDS to read. I shouldn't write anything that I wouldn't want my WIFE to read. I shouldn't write anything that I wouldn't want my EMPLOYER to read. I shouldn't write anything that I wouldn't want the BUSINESS COMMUNITY to read. I shouldn't write anything that I wouldn't used against me in the future. I decided... I SHOULDN'T WRITE ANYTHING. Why do people feel the need to do these BLOGS?
www.thejulingtoncreekplantaion.com
sensible opinions are not tolerated
Q.E.D.
reading that guy's home page (the poor, stupid one), it seems objectively obvious that the guy is a stalker, at least in the colloquial sense.
On meeting Paul Krugman : "I have looked evil in the face. I've been in the same room with it. I don't know how else to describe my feelings now except to say that I feel unclean, and I'm having to fight being afraid." -Donald Luskin
Fight this one, but of course.
+&x
IANALBIRMCLC
(I am not a lawyer but I remember my civil liberties courses)
From what I remember, Libel/Slander is a multilayered affair with various exceptions controlling how much you can squeeze out of someone in a lawsuit.
Specifically, there's 'actual damages' and 'punitive damages'.
Actual damage is a calculated amount of what you've directly lost due to the false statements made about you. This is usually a reasonable amount. For example, you slander Victim, saying that Victim a dishonest businessman and all out scumbag. As a result, if Victim can prove that he lost a business transaction specifically from your slander, you're liable for that amount of money.
Moreover, you need to be in a position where your commentary is taken seriously as truth by those hearing your slander. If Joe Schmoe says that Victim is a scumbag, and no one takes him seriously, then Joe is not liable. On the other hand, if a credible source like the Washington Post says that Victim is a scumbag, then they're liable if it ain't true.
Punitive damages kick in when the Victim can prove that the slander was made with malice. Malice in libel/slander suits is either 'a malicious intent to harm' or 'careless and reckless disregard for the truth (*)'. Simply put, if your Victim can prove that you lied specifically to harm him, or knew it was untrue, then you are Fucked. Whereas actual damages are limited to what damage can be proven, punitive damages are orders of magnitude larger and are based on assumed losses in the future.
*: This came up in suits against tabloids. An example would be if the Washington Post called Victim a dishonest scumbag and didn't do their factchecking homework, they're possibly liable for punitive.
Then there's another distinction:
Private Citizen vs Public Official.
The rules of libel/slander are relaxed when the person in question is a celebrity ('A person that thrusts themselves into the limelight') or a political figure. Historically, this arose from the frequent abuse of libel/slander law by British politicians to muzzle their opponents.
Now I'm a little fuzzy on this part, so I'll check my books and get back to you if need be..
Essentially, to get any money whatsoever, a public official suing for slander/libel needs to prove malice. Since malice is significantly more difficult to prove, suits by public officials are much harder to win. That, and talking shit about politicians is an ol' american tradition, so you're free to say quite alot about them.
Private citizens on the other hand, can smack you down for actual damages that they can prove, regardless of malice. So as long as they can prove that you said something untrue, other people believed you, and it caused damages, you're liable for those damages. Even if you didn't know it was untrue.
Anyway, that's all off the top of my head. I'll see where my books are if you have questions.
*hoofprint*
How many countries spend more $$$ per child than the US on education?
Number two - Blogging is a catch phrase that will be looked back at as nothing more than a fad similar to madlibs.
Well, fad or not, it's here to stay.
Right wing reactionary vs. left wing radical. The only real difference between the two is the the right winger (Donald Luskin) is angry that they called him a "stalker" which believe it or not has become a pretty nasty thing to call someone. So angry that he is willing to sue.
As an writer for the NY Times Paul Krugman obviously knows that he is a public figure who cannot expect the same amount of protection from public attacks as the average citizen, but I don't believe that Donald Luskin understand that "covering" a media representive and his "lies" on your public website and TV makes him every bit the public figure.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Some, if not all of the allegation made has been that by allowing 3d parties to post allegedly libelous statements on the site, the blogger is himself responsible.
This is incorrect. 47 USC 230 -- essentially the part of the infamous CDA that survived challenge -- has the result of protecting from libel suits people who provide a forum in which others post libelous comments.
If the blogger _personally_ libeled someone, this won't help him, but it does let us get rid of a large part of the crap that his opponent has thrown at him.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Fine. If Atrios is going to get taken to court, then it'll happen, but let him throw a PayPal button up and his defense fund'll get taken care of in short order. But if that's gonna happen, then fair's fair. Then, by the name of all that is good and holy, I hope someone yanks this bitch into court, too, for far worse. Getting a little bit tired of conservatives getting away with advocating the execution of those they disagree with ... :/
when will these clueless rightwing freakshow people quit making themselves look like idiots? it's so laughable when they tell the poor and indigent of this country to 'toughen up' or 'life is what YOU make of it' and then they threaten to sue over name calling!!!
HAHAHAHA!
Considering the previous story, this type of thing should be called "Blog-Illogical" warfare.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
There is a difference between "stalker" and "stalking". The noun has more of a sinister connotation. I hope the fellow wins his lawsuit.
And the funny thing is, the one guy is the other guy's biggest critic. And to shut him up, he started calling him a stalker. The critic got pissed because, well, he's not a stalker. So it's called libel. It's like if I were to call the newspaper and tell them you read kitty porn. It would be completely untrue (actually, that would be slander because I TOLD and didn't WRITE it) and against the law. And for people who ignorantly see this as a violation of free speech, slander and libel are certainly not protected by the constitution.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
All you ever wanted to know about Scientology: Operation Clambake
>Are most bloggers some famed person who has >achieved greatness and is willing to give >insight into how they do what they do?
Thats what happens when youre brought up believing that fame is somehow earned.
Just because youre on Entertainment Tonight or on ESPN doesnt mean you have anything interesting or that youre articulate enough to say.
"Look, Angelina Jolie is going to talk about the plight of children and sucking on her hillbilly's neck...quick, I HAVE to hear that.'
Id rather hear about Bob's transmission, especially if its helpful. To automatically dismiss something because it isnt 'famous' is like saying Linux doesnt matter since it doesnt buy Stones songs and spend billions in advertisement and is used by a very minute portion of personal computers.
zeke
Luskin just doesn't agree with Krugman and believes that the effort of attacking and debunking his arguments is worthwhile. Most people might just ignore Krugman I suppose, but it is still a valid choice either way.
If you want stalking in the literal sense of the word then read up on that Japanese guy who follows Britney Spears. Lately he just sued her for something random too. That guy is one jacked up, stalking fool.
Or tell you masters to kill me as they did.. They will meet with Jerichos.
./ makes me mad...)
(Sorry people that sort of morons on
You do seem pretty interested in the topic, seeing how you have 24+ comments in this thread alone.
Not taking part in our improving economy, I guess. Better luck next quarter.
Luskin went to a public event, recorded portions of that event, and then stood in a pre-arranged line for a signed copy of his book. He even identified himself to Krugman when he requested that signature.
Krugman kicked this off by characterizing Lusking as "an internet stalker, he even stalked me in person once" which is a gross mischaracterization that was aimed to deflect the criticism that was being directed towards him. The fact that Krugman labelled it stalking is where the real issue begins. If someone else continued with that characterization and tried to carry it even further then they are definitely walking very close to those libel/slander lines. (I never remember which is speech and which is writing.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
God, are we really gonna go completely OFF-TOPIC into this? The site you present is a completely biased view by people who hate my religion. Not a very credible source. It's like asking Rush Limbaugh about Democrats or asking David Duke about Blacks. It's all twisted hatespeak. Check out my site LiveAndGrow for a more accurate portrayal, or stick with the haters - up to you. Note: I happen to BE a Scientologist, been one for 20 years. I do know a thing or two about the subject; I'm not just some curious web-surfer who found a hate link and thinks he's got the "inside scoop."
stalking someone on a book tour is "literal" stalking. ;)
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Er this is slashdot.. Get used to it.. Also while on net check people who were MURDERED by your religion...
Dude, that site lists all kinds of people who died of old age, and people who never even existed. Data as inaccurate as it is slanderous. And since we're on murders, how about the innocent Scientologists who were recently murdered in Portland by a hate-bigot fueled by hate-sites he read? Sticks and stones, dude. Sure.
Journalists (and all "media defendants") actually have LESS accountability for defamation liability than the general public.
If a newspaper story calls you a rapist, the newspaper is not liable unless you can show that they actually knew that you were not a rapist.
If a patron in a bar turns to the guy on the next bar stool and says, "I hear RobotRunAmok is a rapist," he could be liable for defamation.
So what is this about holding bloggers to the same degree of accountability? Don't you mean the same degree of non-accountability?
Where the hell do you get an idea like that?
He stood in a line to get a book autographed. He asked for it to be inscribed to him so he gave him his name for that.
There is no way you can stretch any of that into a physical threat or fear of a physical threat. Krugman voluntarily arranged for and participated in this event. Now if Luskin showed up outside Krugman's house with the book for a signature then maybe you'd have a point.
The point is that Krugman used stalker as a character assassination tool in order to attempt to avoid embarassing questions during an interview. Classic ad hominem.
(Thanks for the SS rule maybe it'll stick.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
See here and here.
Luskin himself on the responsibility of board moderators for content expressed therein:
5 8. html
http://www.thestreet.com/comment/openbook/10609
August 30, 2000 -
The worst solution to the problem of manipulation on discussion boards is to shift the responsibility for enforcement from the regulators to the board sponsors. The host of an online discussion board is no more in a position to monitor and assure the quality of every posted message than a "common carrier" such as AT&T is to monitor every utterance made over its telephone network.
anyone suing a booger?
Oh, a blogger! Well, same thing.
That's an easy one. How about a tax cut that reaches tens or hundreds of thousands, versus a check in the mail for a few hundred?
But all things considered, he's doing a great job.
That's sounds like the words of a Bush apologist to me. And you call the other side "lefties" while simultaneously decrying partisan politics. You, sir, doubletalk much better than the President does. I commend you for supporting one so much like yourself.
=============
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Except, instead of suing, they call them anti-semites. The Bush regime also took this ball and ran with it by calling everyone a terrorist who
doesn't support everything they do.
If Atrios and posters to his blog have stated that what they say is opinion they have nothing to fear. Unless you have facts you can prove in a court of law you better not make statements as fact in any public forum. It's called playing it safe and being smart. It's easy to state that it's your opinion just as I did in the prior paragraph to this one.
I went back and went over my Bill of Rights too. I can't find my right to be anonymous. Can some one help me out here? Where is this right found the Magan Carta? The Declaration of human rights? I can't find it. I can't find any right to publish as an anonymous person either. Where is this "right" enumerated?
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
You're dumb.
Ouch! That really hurt my feelings ;-)
Here's some stuff about Scientology, if anyone cares to look.
Live and let live, dude.
The real question is whether a blog is responsible for anonymous cowards - the article it's several AC comment that are considered libelous. The obvious analogy is, is VA Linux liable for Anonymous Coward's comments? I would hope not, because as Slashdot (and presumeably this guy's blog) doesn't censor, it ought to be a common carrier. Granted, both Slashdot and the guy could censor, but they ought to be allowed to choose not to. IOW, providing a forum for free speech shouldn't be risky, regardless of what people say.
Litigious bastards
I'm not normally very tough on people for spelling/grammar errors, but I've got to ask for a correction on this one:
"...I could be sue for libel."
My brain first interpreted that as:
"...I could be sued for libel."
Which led me down a path of wondering how you could be sued for libel just because you failed to do what the paper said you did.. It sounded like some kind of future prediction craziness. My next thought was that you were going to change your name to "Sue" and start dating someone named "Libel" but I quickly discarded that stray thought.
Only after reading it carefully did I realize you really meant:
"...I could sue for libel."
In the online wedding of the year, "Sue Blogger" marries "Joe Random"...
I never realized how much of a cunt Coulter is. I'm not much of a liberal or conservative, but I don't care much for anyone who says we should ". . .invade another country, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." She's like one part bitch and one part conquistador. Way to think ahead, Pizzaro.
"You want to be careful not to become just a blowhard."---Washington Post 10/16/98
If she's speaking in sexual terms here, she'd at least have something going for her.
Defamation law is one of them. You can argue whether or not calling someone "a stalker," a felony in most states, constitutes defamation (since the definition of what is defamatory varies in each state), but defamatory speech is not protected speech.
As far as "attacks" go, well, that isn't legally relevant. As far as whether you agree with Luskin's politics or not, that is not legally relevant.
If Luskin points out factual errors (or not) is legally relevant. Truth is a defense to defamation.
If Krugman printed a false and defamatory statement that harmed the reputation of Luskin, with malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth), then Luskin might have a case. He'd likely still have to prove actual damages.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
even if you win, you're still retarded.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
In the last few days Gator has tried to litigate to protect it's software from being called "spyware" by websites, prefering the term "adware". :=)
They have also decided to change name to Claria.
I think this comment is a rather clever jab at this whole reactionary attitude to public electronic discourse of notorious parties -- parties who are trying to stake a claim, to promote a contrary image on the Internet themselves.
And for all you analogisticphiles out there:
Luskin is to Stalker, as Gator is to Spyware.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
No, there are state and federal crimes. Both state and federal crimes can be either misdemeanors or felonies.
Generally speaking, a misdemeanor is a crime punishable by less than a year in jail.
Generally speaking, a felony is a crime which is punishable by over a year in prison, or death.
States do have something called in infraction, a quasi-criminal wrong, like a traffic ticket.
In order for a crime to be federal, it must involve interstate commerce (or federal taxes, or some other federal-only power). Interstate commerce is sometimes triggered by crossing state lines, but can be done by violating any federal criminal statute (drugs, carjacking, civil rights) where intersate commerce jurisdiction has previously been asserted by congress (or a federal agency, a delagatee of congress).
Many crimes (like those mentioned above) involve concurrent jurisdiction, wherein both state and federal law may overlap (although federal law is always supreme in the event of conflict).
Notice: The above message does not constitute legal advice, not practical, theoretical, or hypothetical. The author is not recommending a course of action or inaction. The author is not your lawyer. If he were your lawyer, you would have signed a "retainer agreement," which you did not, and you would have paid the author a large retainer, which you did not. The above message was merely a layman's discussion of general legal concepts, for the sole purpose of conversation and commentary on current events, real or fictional.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
quality lockpicking book for sale at http://cafeshops.com/hackingtexts
You've been reading all these blogs because I had a pistol pointed at your head, and all this time I didn't even realize I was even holding it in my hand (let alone sticking it against your cranium). I apologize!! It was never my intention to force you to read blogs, especially given how much you hate them.
I really, really don't like corn-fed beef. It just doesn't taste of anything. Here we feed cows on grass, it's what they've evolved to eat and they taste all the better for it.
What is a credible and unbiased source, then? People who love your religion?
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
I don't know of a single one of what you would call "hate-sites" -- not even the ones that clearly hate Scientology the most -- that advocates murder or even physical violence towards Scientologists.
On the other hand, I can look in the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and find the declaration that those "low on the tone scale" (translation: will never join Scientology) are worthless to humanity and a very clever solution for dealing with their existence would be to round them in concentration camps or simply just exterminate them.
I can study the court documents from "Operation Freakout" and view the plans that no reasonable person can deny were generated at high levels in the Church, plans to frame Paulette Cooper for crimes she had not committed in order to drive her to jail or a mental institution. Of course, Church dogma insists that anyone criticizing Scientology must be guilty of blood murder sex crime, but the point is, if Cooper was guilty of any such crime, why couldn't all the combined Clears of the entire Church find any? They had to go to huge lengths, committing crimes themselves that they then framed her for.
Please explain why people are not supposed to react negatively to a religion whose scriptures instruct its adherents to "manufacture evidence" to achieve their ends. Hubbard even invented terminology, "black PR", to describe the practice. Please explain why such a religion should be considered more credible than the "hate sites" that supposedly tell such lies about it.
See, you strike me as more honest than the typical Scientologist, because you at least openly admit that you are one. Most of the Scientologists who post to discussions like these try to pretend that they are third parties, not Scientologists but merely outside observers who, observing from the outside, just happen to be of the opinion that Scientology is right on every single count and Scientology's critics are clearly evil, lying people.
Know what? They always give themselves away. They're easy to spot, because they always offer the same defense of anything Scientology has done to its critics, no matter how dishonorable or inhumane: "It's nothing that those critics wouldn't do to Scientology, if they were competent enough to get away with it." And this goes to the heart of the matter, because that is just plain wrong. That's how Scientologists think everybody thinks, but it's not: other people believe that there are things that are wrong to do, even to your worst enemy. Scientology teaches that anything is right to do if it's done against an enemy of Scientology. Other people, when they talk about "ethics", they mean a single code of behavior which applies to everyone. Scientology talks about something they call "ethics", but that hides the fact that they're only describing the hardly-new, hardly-laudable double standard of "What's done for my country/race/religion is right; what's done against my country/race/religion is wrong, even if it's the very same thing I just did by the very people I did it to."
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
RE: Attacks on Scientologists
Actually, several of these people have rap sheets against them for exactly that behavior. Comments such as encouraging people to place a bomb in a Scientology Church are not uncommon in their newsgroups. A perfect example of this is Keith Henson
Religious Freedom Watch
I could write a laundry list of Scientologists who have been physically harmed as a direct result of the hate inspired by these sites. If you know any history, you surely remember the paranoid articles in 1033 Germany inciting hatred toward Jews. The parallels are there. (and no, I'm not comparing this to the Holocaust, but to early discrimination of Jews in 1933-1937 Germany. The point is we don't want it to come to worse.)
RE: Tone Scale
First of all, "those low in the tone scale" has nothing to do with whether or not they'll join Scientology. You sound fairly high on the Tone Scale, and yet I doubt you'll ever join, right? Mother Teresa was a high-toned individual, and so is Bono, but I doubt they've even heard of Scientology. The Tone Scale is simply a classification of individuals based on motivation, ethical level, affinity level, etc. Hitler was a low-toned individual.
Secondly, the writings you refer to are in the book "Science of Survival", published in 1952. Thirty years of research followed these writings. And if you knew Hubbard's style, you'd know that his books are full of irony, sarcasm, and extreme examples to make a point. His POLICIES, on the other hand, are much more conservative, and THAT is what the Church is based on. That bullshit about concentration camps is based on one comment made in one book in 1952 - and by the way, the non-Scientologist world does exactly that, rounds up people and places them in "prisons". The actual Hubbard quote says that youre only two choices are to round them up or to process them to improve their tone level. Incidentally, we ARE doing just that with criminals, in a program called Criminon
Criminon
Third, what you write about "if you never join Scientology you're worthless to humanity" is complete rubbish. No sane Scientologist believes that, Hubbard definitely did not. He encouraged Scientologists to work with all men and women of good will to make this a better place.
RE: Cooper:
You're talking about ancient history, and you're only looking at the anti side. Not fair research.
RE: Black PR
You got it all wrong. Hubbard describes this practice to make our officers aware that this practice was being used AGAINST us. He actively prohibited Scientology officials from using such a practice. He encourages a practice of "dead-agenting" such Black PR material, which means to prove it false and thus discredit the lying source.
I am a typical Scientologist, and I do not know of any that lie about who they are. Dude, you're getting all your info from haters. That's not balanced research. Check out
Another look at the Scientology controversy
Nah, how about scholars and professional researchers? I ain't got the time to look them up, but do a search for Gordon Melton, and do a Google search for "Bonafides of Scientology" as well. Also, check out this site: Bernie's site This guy does not love Scientology, in fact he's a critic. But he's fair and accurate, which is not what most of your sources are. 'later.