Slashdot Mirror
Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism
Lane writes "News-Press.com reports that 'Charter Schools USA
is
threatening legal action against parents who use an Internet discussion
board to air grievances about Gateway Charter.'" This despite comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.
Cease and desist letters can be considered a letter of intet. A warning if you will... The calm before the storm... Push him a little before we start flexing our financial litigation muscles.
Cease and desist letters are basically a warning. You send them to the person saying you believe what they are doing is illegal and you would like them to stop, and if they don't stop you may take legal action. They are basically a way to settle things without suing. Of course oftentimes they are used more as a threat than a warning ("Do what we want or we will sue you for millions of dollars") in the hopes the people would rather stop doing whatever it is they are doing than go through a court case they may or may not win (but will cost money either way).
In short, there is nothing wrong with C&D letters. They should be the first step someone takes when they find someone infringing their copyright, trademark or the like. But they shouldn't be used as a way to scare people away from legal activities, which they often are.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I have no idea of how good they are as schools, do they have a political leaning, or anything like that. If I was a parent, I'd probably ask some questions too. Definitely an Edu-Corp.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?
Given the fact that truths tend to be overblown and exaggerated as they are circulated among groups, damaging the business is precisely the point of criticism.If you go to Bobs Store and Bob rips you off by falsely advertising a product that you bought, you would want to tell everyone you knew that Bob was a scam artist. The result - either people would believe you and not go to Bobs store anymore (hurting his business), or they would not believe you and choose to go. Your goal is to make sure Bob gets "his" because he broke the implicit trust you had in him when you bought something from him.
That having been said, the people who decide to believe you dont know you from Adam. But they tend to side with you because after all youre just the average joe, like they are.
So should Bob be allowed to sue you?...both interiorlly, and exteriorlly.
Where does due process come into the picture? (Answer: it doesn't, since due process is about a person being able to protect himself against one-sided legal action.) The Constitution provides no penalties for libel, and corporations generally have as little ground as public figures do when it comes to making defamation claims. The joke has a nugget of truth in that in America, everything that is not prohibited is permitted.
You also confuse the company's claim that the posts are defamatory with that actually being the case. Since the company refused to identify -- even as an example -- any post on the site that was defamatory, I doubt even they believe they have a case that would stand up in court. They just want to scare people into compliance.
You think public schools are failing the kids.
My guess is that most of you are in your teen's and 20's with no kids that you know of. Right now there is a effort to Privatizating everything! Schools seems to be the best example of why not to privatize.
1) The tax payers almost never get a tax break from the new private charter schools. It's hard to see. but charter schools cost about the same per student as a regular school.
2) Charter schools with open enrollment like to pack the students in. for get 25 students per teacher. some Texas charter schools are 45 students per teacher.
3) Loss of control. This seems to be the point these parents are hung up on. Charter schools are companys. Private companys for profit. But like the privitization of other government services. The tax payer is being removed from the decision making process.
4) Not so high quality of education. Some charter schools are using teaching methods that have never really been evaluated against public or traditional private school standards.
Privatization in america means some rich guys get guranteed tax payer money while services and responsive action suffers.
truth
Looking at some of the comments on that site, I can see why CSUSA thinks they have a case. Most of the worst posts have now been deleted, but the parents were in there accusing teachers of all kinds of horrible crimes, as well as CSUSA of condoning them.
I read through some of that website, the worst post I saw was something about stealing pizza. I didn't see anything approaching libel.
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
The proper approach would be to subpoena the forum owner for the names of the libelous parents. Then sue those parents for libel. The vast majority of the posts on this site are nowhere near libelous, so the school has no right to shut down the entire site.
This clearly sounds like it's just a threatening action designed to silence people rather than merely stopping libel. If it were about libel they'd being going after individuals, not trying to shut down the site.
AccountKiller
yes
Merely stating the existence of a rumor is not libel. The existence of a rumor is a fact, and as such cannot be a libel.
Suggesting it is true, however, can be libel.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Tripp Scott (law firm)
RE: CHARTER SCHOOLS USA
OUR FILE No. 980058.0001
Dear Mrs. Reigelman
Please be advised that the undersigned law firm represents Charter Schools USA, INC. (CSUSA) in regards to the defamatory and libelous web site you created and have publishedin disparagment of CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and Deborah Nauss. Since we are reprsenting CSUSA, we respectfully request that you direct any further communication through us.
CSUSA has reviewedthe web site and has determined that your and other parents' and other web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and DR.Nauss.
Accordingly, CSUSA hereby demands that you immediatly cease and desist your continues published libal and defamatory accusations, comments and statments about CSUSA, Gateway Charter Scool and Dr.Nauss through any means, including a web site. If you fail to heed this demand, you will leave CSUSA with no altermative but to proceed with all legal actions to protect CSUSA against your continues false, libelous and defamatory publications.
PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Very Truley Yours,
Lisa D MacCLUGAGE
For The Firm
Phone number is 954-760-4906
e-mail: ldm@trippscott.com
if that was true then cable tv would have no news channels.
evil is as evil does
"It actually doesn't say anything about what type of speech. So how is it illegal? "
Becasue free speech is defined within the bounds of our legal system. It's not, "you can say anything you want to say in any situation you want to say it."
Such things include words that cause a Clear and Present Danger, words that that are Likely to Breach the Peace, Libel and Slander, and Obscenity.
Our legal system is not based on the Bill of Rights alone. It is defined through 200+ years of legal definition as to what those (and other) words mean.
You can't justify shouting fire in a crowded building with free speech any more than you can female circumcision because it's part of your religion.
Someone like John Taylor Gatto would agree that a conformist
and obedient sort of person is exactly what mainstream schools were
designed to turn out. From:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/8e.htm
"The first exhibit for your perusal is the U.S. Bureau of Education's
Circular of Information for April 1872, which centers around what it
calls the "problem of educational schooling." With whose interests in
mind did the bureau view education as a problem? The amazing answer is:
from a big business perspective. By 1872, this still feeble arm of the
federal government is seen filled with concern for large industrial
employers at a time when those were still a modest fraction of the total
economy. According to this Circular of Information, "inculcating
knowledge" teaches workers to be able to "perceive and calculate their
grievances," thus making them "more redoubtable foes" in labor
struggles. Indeed, this was one important reason for Thomas Jefferson's
own tentative support of a system of universal schooling, but something
had been lost between Monticello and the Capital. "Such an enabling is
bound to retard the growth of industry," continues the Circular. There
is nothing ambiguous about that statement at all, and the writer is
correct, of course. Sixteen years later (1888), we can trace the growth
in this attitude from the much more candid language in the Report of the
Senate Committee on Education. Its gigantic bulk might be summarized in
this single sentence taken from page 1,382: "We believe that education
is one of the principal causes of discontent of late years manifesting
itself among the laboring classes." Once we acknowledge that planned
economies of nation or corporation are systems with their own operating
integrity, quite sensibly antagonistic to the risks educated minds pose,
much of formal schooling's role in the transformation that came is
predictable. If education is indeed "one of the principal causes of
discontent," it performs that subversive function innocently by
developing intellect and character in such a way as to resist absorption
into impersonal systems: Here is the crux of the difference between
education and schooling-- the former turns on independence, knowledge,
ability, comprehension, and integrity; the latter upon obedience."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Obviously, it doesn't - however, slander and libel are specific torts which are challengable (for substantial damages) in court. Its quite possible that the charter schools have a good case against one or more individuals posting for posting incorrect accusations (or ones incapable of proof either way) but this is apparently a takedown attempt (with SLAPP) against the board itself, to try and prevent any accusations (libellous or otherwise) from being heard. As charter schools are federally funded, this is of course enough to make it a first amendment issue - while of course actually suing individuals for posts they have made would not be.
-=DaveHowe=-
Even that is not enough for it to be libel, if one wants to be precise.
One has to knowingly write false information (I believe 'not in good faith' and 'without any evidence' are acceptable substitutes for 'knowingly') for it to fill the criteria.
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
Hit #1: "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem" addressing the problem of gossip in the workplace. Quite an ironic hit for your point.
Hit #2: A book review complaining about the book going from first person narrative to third person rumors. Again apparently critical of rumor.
Hit #3: "Rumor has it that Microsoft is considering giving away at least $10 billion of its massive $46 billion cash horde." Certainly not trying to cloak themselves against slander charges here, and as I recall this was in fact true.
Hit #4: Hollywood rumor on the future plotlines of a TV show. Ooooo, that naughty naughty CNN!
Hit #5: Story on skyscrapers in general, and a rumor that a certain new one will be particularly tall. Damn those scoundrels at CNN! Damn them to hell!
Hit #6: A joke about the sitcom industry. Just look at the depths those liberal elites will sink to at CNN to push their propaganda!
Hit #7: One of the most beautiful and luxurious homes in the world was purchased by "an unidentified head of state", and the story cites a rumor of the lucky buyer.
Hit #8: Rumor of industry economic strategy in - get this - the financial section. And what is the "big rumor"? Price cuts in console gaming prices! Ahaaaaa! And I hear there's a rumor that bears shit in the woods.
Hit #9: The approximate cost to produce a movie, and that it was "money well spent". My word! I didn't realize CNN spread such slander!
Hit #10: Cites "Start Me Up" as the advertizing song for the Windows 95 launch, and cites speculation that Jimi Hendrix's "Are you experienced" might just be the Windows XP advertizing song. Wow, talk about character assassination!
A scan of 11-20 turns up several more referrences to the "Rumor has it that gossip is a problem" piece and a couple of jokes.
If you were trying to claim that CNN engages in any sort of character assasination by spewing malicious anonymous hearsay, well you failed spectacularly.
It's funny how attempts to defend FOX News generally (explicitly or implicitly) admit thier slimy tactics and bad journalism, but instead try to defend it as ok because "everybody does it". I am not aware of any other news organisation firing good and responsible reporters and going into court to explicitly argue in defense of deliberately misleading the public. I am not aware of any other major media news that so heavily relies on spin and oppinion and implication and pusing an agenda at the expense of actual facts and content and reporting. And this fact-free or fact-lite style clearly shows on their audience. Just to cite the most egregious example, an absolutely appalling number of Fox viewers believed we actually FOUND the WMD's that we ransaked Iraq to find and destroy. I think it was close to 40%. Yes this is an old issue and it is merely one example of many, but I still find it absolutely mindboggling that any supposedly credible news agency could so extensively cover such an issue and manage to leave its viewers so throughly misinformed. It's just a running theme in their "reporting" style. They don't have any interest in actually informing their viewers. They often cover isses as drama in a content-free way and to support a deliberate agenda and bias and to discredit people based on character attacks.
But that's OK. They only engage in slimy tactics and bad journalism to counterbalance the pervasive liberal bias conspiracy controlling virtually all of the news in this country (and the liberal bias is even worse at those international propaganda pits like the BBC). Oh, and since Fox is "outnumbered" by everyone else "slanted the other way" they obviously have to engage in that much *more* intense slimy tactics and bad journalism to "balance the scales". Fox needs to be ten times as bad as anyone else to "balance" the ten times as many bad sources "on the other side". Yep, Fox news vs the world.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.