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.

Comments

So much for freedom of speech

[jnmontario]

Another great example of somebody with expensive lawyers telling (read: threatening) the average person what they can do or think. Yay America.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[karmaflux]

Listen closely: this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

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.

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.

You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[BronxBomber]

Unless you are either an attorney for CSUSA or a poster on the forum, neither you nor I are in position to determine just how "truthful" the accusations are.

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?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[karmaflux]

You sort of missed the point there. If you are getting ripped off, then you are legally entitled to tell anyone who'll listen about your woes.

However, if Bob's clerk is rude to you, and you begin parading around town claiming that Bob raped your family and set fire to an orphanage, you are breaking the law.

If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.

Now, if CSUSA doesn't have any evidence that the postings were libelous, then Reigelman will win the suit (and will also win her countersuit for legal fees, if her lawyers are worth a damn). They may even be found guilty of barratry.

The point is that this is not a frivolous lawsuit or a First Amendment violation. This is a company taking the matter before a judge, because they think they have been wronged. This is how things are supposed to work. This is due process.

As a side, note, because the site owner claims to monitor the site -- specifically because she claims that all the content is "fact-based" -- the ceases to be protected by the laws that protect, say, Slashdot from being held responsible for the idiocy of Anonymous Coward. She has taken responsibility for the content of her site, and so she is now going to have to prove that all those angry posts are based entirely in fact.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Entrope]

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.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[mejesster]

Why does this have nothing to do with freedom of speech? Yes, libel is against the law, but this wouldn't be the first time we, as a society, have questioned what exactly the Constitution means in its language, nor would it be the first time that we have reconsidered such things. Most importantly, despite the potential merits of the case, I think both I and many others here are particularly concerned about the idea of a discussion-based internet community (like say, slashdot) being sued out of existence by some company trying to make a couple extra cents or cover its ass.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[DavidTC]

And is recounting a rumor if it puts someone in a negative light libel?

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.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Charter schools aren't just any corporation. They receive taxpayer money to do a job usually performed by government bodies (public schools) and are therefore acting as an arm of government. So yeah, I'd say this is a First Amendment issue.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[An Onerous Coward]

No, this isn't "a company taking the matter before a judge." It's a company threatening to take matters before a judge unless an entire forum is nuked.

The fact is, the C&D claim there are unlawful, defamatory, and libelous statements being published, but aren't willing to cite specific instances of unlawful, defamatory, or libelous statements. That indicates--at least to my twisted, paranoid mind--that the lawyers know they don't actually have a case, and are hoping to shut the site down with pure, unadulterated braggadacio.

Also, you admit the possibility that the lawyers might end up being found guilty of barratry, and then claim with absolute certainty that "this is not a frivolous lawsuit". These cannot both be true.

Finally, your analysis of the website owner's legal liabilities is probably misguided. It may be that all she is required to do is to talk to the people who wrote the "defamatory" posts, and have them give their assurance that everything happened as the poster said. Otherwise, reporters wouldn't be protected from lawsuits if it turns out their sources were fraudulent.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[m_evanchik]

IANAL, but this is not such an open and shut case. These ignoramuses at CSUSA don't know what real criticism is, so I am going to show them.

These are CHARTER schools, which means that they perform an essential public service, education, with a special dispensation from the government. Their role is not strictly private. They are taking over a service that would normally be publically administered, and therefore open to the same type of broad criticism that public figures and institutions may be subject to. As such their openness to criticism is much greater than your average private business.

The public has an essential and compelling interest in promoting good education. This forum promotes that interest by fostering said discussion, a compelling and essential service. The interest of the corporation in protecting its image is far outweighed by the overwhelming interest of the public to have an open forum to discuss the public service the school provides. This charter school, it should also be noted is publically funded. Their CEO is a political pal of Jeb Bush. The President of the United States uses this organisation as a stage for his attacks on the public school system. CSUSA stinks of sacrificing childrens' futures in the name of political expediency. Like a diseased, filth-ridden sexual deviant, CSUSA sacrifices children in its perverse worship of Mammon. The Chairman and CEO, Jonathan K. Hage, is worse than John Wayne Gacy. (That last remark may be over the top, not in its accuracy, but merely in rhetorical appropriateness.)

The bottom line is that they are using strong-arm tactics to quell legitimate criticism and dissent. It stinks to high heaven and underscores an essential misunderstanding by their management to their public mission. They should have their charter pulled for this kind of legal thuggery.

It is my considered opinion that CSUSA is a rotten organisation with no business educating children. Their operation and their thuggish legal tactics are an affront to all civic-minded people.

This is pretty strong criticism and I stand by it. I find it hard that there was anything worse on the board in question. I can't stand bullies.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[dougmc]

it would indicate libel as libel relies on accusing a person of something that would be considered illegal in a court of law.

You seem to be confused about what libel means.

Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)

If I accuse you of having lots of one night stands with random women, that might damage your reputation, especially if you're a priest or married. But having that sex is not against the law, but my claim may still be libel -- as long as it's not true.

Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander claims, though our legal system can make it very expensive to even defend yourself against a claim of libel, even if you have that proof.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[killjoe]

if that was true then cable tv would have no news channels.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Dolda2000]

See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?

IANAL, but I do not understand why lying would not be protected as free speech.

Free speech, as far as I know, is that one is allowed to utter anything, anywhere. I do not understand why lies would not be protected under the same law as truths. Neither do I understand why defaming someone would undermine the protectedness of the statements made.

Otherwise, who is to draw the line between lies and uninformed statements, and the line between defaming and not defaming? And not least, why should lying or defaming be outlawed to begin with? Is not the point with free speech to be able to say anything, anywhere without worrying about legal consequences. After all, it is up to the listener to decide whether to believe the speaker.

Care to explain to me?

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[tom's a-cold]

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.

This argument might make some degree of sense in those cases where there is no connection between the government and corporations. The reality is that "charter school" firms exist solely due to government fiat.

The whole reason there is freedom of speech is to make it possible to criticize government policy. If my local school board and teachers are not doing their job to my satisfaction, I have the right to criticize them. I'm sure that even you will agree with this.

Now the governor decides to privatize the provision of my kids' education. That's what a "charter school" is in case you didn't realize. So suddenly that same criticism of the same public service is no longer criticism of the government, it's defaming a company? The rule should be that speech regarding the performance of companies funded by the government is the same as speech regarding the government itself. Otherwise your fundamental right is being abridged solely because some bureaucrat decided to contract out. That's nothing but a slimy way for them to duck accountability.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[DaveHowe]

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.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[E_elven]

Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)

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.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[Zeinfeld]

As a side, note, because the site owner claims to monitor the site -- specifically because she claims that all the content is "fact-based" -- the ceases to be protected by the laws that protect, say, Slashdot from being held responsible for the idiocy of Anonymous Coward. She has taken responsibility for the content of her site, and so she is now going to have to prove that all those angry posts are based entirely in fact.

Actually not.

IANAL. There are two standards for libel in the US depending on who the plaintif is. Public figures and most corporations are subject to a very strict standard of proof, the plaintif has to prove that the defendant knew the claims were false or was reckless or careless as to whether they were true.

In this case the company is performing a public service and ALL discussion of the company is protected political speech. It is a comment on the state provision of education services, not just the corporation.

It is very difficult to see how the defendant could now the claims made were false in this particular instance. The refusal to specify the claims found objectionable and the demand to take down the entire forum point to supression of debate as the clear objective of the corporation.

If the US actually have a press corps that questioned the activities of Republicans or their cronies this would be front page news. As it is it will be either unreported or burried on the inside pages along with reports of DeLay's numerous corruptions.

Bad move

[A beautiful mind]

Honestly, i couldn't have found a worse course of action to take by that organization, to dig their own grave. First they only had to deal with 65 parents, now its in the press. Talk about bad PR.

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll get invited on morning shows, they'll hire a professional public speaker, and they'll stay on message, which will include God/Jesus. Now is the time to buy stock, not short it.

Call me crazy

[cat_jesus]

But don't you have to identify what specifically you consider libelous and defamatory if you are going to take legal action? I Guess Darl McBride has some alumni running Charter Schools USA.

I would write a letter back saying I have complied and to please let me know if I missed anything.

Money to blow...

[Hexzero]

Sometimes media attention and a little /.ing is all it takes for a travesty to come to the mainstream. A charter school that wastes its time and financial resources on a lawsuite that can be considered frivoulous at best, should not be recieving state and gov't funds. Just another crap use for the joke the gov't calls no child left behind. Yeah, I am sure the funds are not connected. ERate is that perfect.... How much is a retainer for a medium-sized firm? Lets deduct that from the per head dollar amount the school gets from the state. Could that money have been used more efficiently? Probably... Perhaps we can get the government involved next. Senate hearings on closing the website down... Sounds like a viable option in todays government...

difficult to deal with

[Inigo Montoya]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

Re:difficult to deal with

[notque]

This will be their downfall. In the end, people will remember Charter Schools USA as "difficult to deal with" and not as a good place to send their child to.

Sad.

It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.

I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.

Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.

Seems pretty difficult to deal with to me.

Hurting Their Own Business

[John_Booty]

Now, whenever somebody Googles for "Charter Schools USA", at least 9 of the top 10 search results will surely reference this questionable conduct. That's got to hurt their business in the long run.

I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.

Fox News Generation!

[Adult film producer]

is there such thing as libel and slander anymore ? Seriously, fox news has perfected this type of character assassination by qualifying all their statements with "Rumour has it John Doe has been killing fetuses".. or "It's been said that jack frost hates the military and is a liberal!" or "Word around Capital Hill indicates democrats want to kill god" ... Easy as pie..

Nothing is slander anymore, it's just "Your opinion" Watch fox news sometime, they get away with saying crazy stuff all the time by using that legal technique.

Re:Fox News Generation!

[Adult film producer]

Ya, I agree with ya on that one, when I need a laugh I skip the comedy channel and flip to Fox.

Re:true tort reform.

[Hexzero]

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.

That's the great thing about privatization

[smchris]

Accountability!

Oh? Never mind.

Re:First Amendment?

[Bloater]

If anything stops the nonsense I hear about in America it will be parents. Mothers are a force to be reckoned with.

Re:true tort reform.

[dirk]

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.

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

"Real" cease and desist letters place a potential defendant on notice that a potential plaintiff considers the actions of the potential defendant to be illegal or more specifically, a violation of the rights of the potential plaintiff and/or causing the potential plaintill harm. This has the legal effect of supplying notice to a potential defendant.

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.

Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[AndroidCat]

No link to them, so I went and had a look. They're definitely in the education business, that's for sure. Their site starts cheerful enough with the reaching kid graphic and Putting Children First sm slogan. Strangely, their mission and who we are pages don't mention much about kids after that. The Starting a Charter School makes my eyes glaze over.

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.

Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement

[kfg]

No, if you read the mission statement you'll find the school itself is the product, so the poor kids don't even have that going for them.

The kids are the natural resource. Have you seen how they handle natural resources?

KFG

Re:who gives a fuck

[Spy der Mann]

But let's remember... that the tobacco companies sued Jeffrey Wigand for disclosing something they were doing wrong. Was it illegal what he did? Yes. Was it morally incorrect? NO WAY.

My words for the CSUSA: If someone so powerful like the tobacco companies couldn't keep a shameful secret hidden, what thinks you can? So sue them. Dig your own grave.

Gosh guys this is important.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Right...

[Rev.LoveJoy]

CNN clearly never does this.

-- RLJ

Re:Right...

[Alsee]

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.

-

If they're anonymous, are they really parents?

[Brian Stretch]

Seriously. The anoynmous posters could be teachers union employees assigned to slander CSUSA for all we know, and if that's what CSUSA suspects their lawsuit threat suddenly make a lot more sense. (In Michigan, the MEA union is nicknamed the "Michigan Mafia". They have a curiosuly low regard for free speech too.)

since it is not seen as legitimate as the press

[crovira]

lawyers all feel safe in attacking it.

What needs to be done is to put up and then attack a site which the 'regime' does not atack as it is clearly a shill. You are not the subject of attack, but some one who suposedly is is getting clobbered.

As long as all the allegetions can be 'arguably' backed up, the proxy fight can continue unabated.

This gets the debate out of the 'close in' arena and gets into first ammendment rights.

Then you get press without involving the lawyers.

This is a job for 'offshore ISP'

[Simonetta]

This is a example of the need for offshore ISPs where discussions can be held without harassment. It's an example of how the 'loser' countries of the 20th century can become the winners of the 21st. By being so low on the totem pole (a Pacific Northwest North American Tribal Nation's religious icon that has come to mean in American idiom to be insignificant in a hierarchy) that no one gives you any money so you have nothing to lose by providing a forum for people to air grievances.

An enterprising person in a (relatively) stable nowheresville sets up an uncensored ISP. Then charges micropayments for access. In return the ISP ignores all threats and warnings of civil actions from countries with overdeveloped legal systems. This could be in a country like Nigeria that is super-corrupt and has its own resource base, or UAE in the Gulf where there is so much wealth that they immune to any bullying. Or a place like Botswana that has stability and no money. Or maybe a microstate like Litchenstein that has traditionally provided these various discrete services to their powerful neighbors.

And again, you could fight this in court of law. You do have democracy, freedom of speech, tradition, and all that jazz on your side. But American courts run on money. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run just to hold the discussions on an offshore site in neutral territory. And it would send a strong message to lawyers that in the information age there is a new limit to the extent that they can use legal means to harass and intimidate people just for money.

Re:Entirely consistent with a petty "dictator"

[abulafia]

The ultimate goal is simply to stay in power. To hell with the collateral damage to the kids and the organisation. At least they're consistent.

"CSUSA has reviewed the Web site and has determined that your and other slashdotizens' 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 immediately cease and desist your continuous published libel and defamatory accusations, comments and statements."

Re:true tort reform.

[Compulawyer]

What if you do not beileve the action is illegal...

Then you should not be sending cease and desist letters. At a minimun, you should have a good faith belief that all the elements of a legal wrong are present in your case. Ideally, you should have advice of counsel or a legal opinion in hand prior to sending a C&D letter.

...come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor

There is room in the law for true disputes and differences of opinion. That's why there are courts in the first place. However, you must have a good faith basis for bringing a claim.

Most courts in the US have adopted (in civil suits) rules that are based on the Rules of Civil Procedure from federal courts. Rule 11 requires litigants *and their lawyers* to have a good faith basis for bringing suit by performing a reasonable investigation into the facts *and* the law. A federal judge will not hesitate to sanction a lawyer for bringing a frivolous suit (frivolous = not well founded in facts or law / no good faith basis for making the claim). State court judges (especially those who are elected) often are not as strict.

Here's a civics lesson - want to screw up your judicial system? Elect your judges. Want judges who make good decisions based soundly on the law and are more impartial? Appoint them for life without possibility of salary reduction (can be fired for misconduct). If you don't believe me on that one, check out the many law review articles on the subject. We don't need tort reform in this country - we need JUDICIAL reform.

Since a cease and desist letter can be sent without an action being illegal, it should not be assumed that all cease and desist letters indicate an issue that is 100% illegal.

True - but it should have a good faith basis. If the recipient has a doubt about the legality of their acts, they should seek their own legal advice or reevaluate their conduct to see if it is worth risking legal action.

So how could you be willfully breaking the law?

Because although "ignorance of the law is no excuse" - that is, you can be held liable for beaking a law you did not know existed - once you have specific notice of the law in question, you have an obligation to ensure that your actions conform to the law's requirements.

...maybe the burden is then on the person who recieved the letter?

In many cases, exactly right.

Text of the legal threat:

[Pig Hogger]

(Posted in anticipation of slashdotting)

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

In my experience...

[delirium of disorder]

Schools do not tolerate dissent. The whole purpose of the US education system is to encrourage obedience, not to instil knowledge.

(What happened to me)
http://www.textfiles.com/uploads/incident.txt

Re:In my experience...

[Paul Fernhout]

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."

Re:So...

[donscarletti]

Are they going to sue slashdot?

No, but unless this post is modded to +5 I will.

Re:Answer: yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Having read the forum...

[Sfing_ter]

Having read the forum, these people think that their children are attending a "private" school. A charter school is a school that is not run by the public school structure but is bound by their rules... Many of the arguments and problems they have (claimed/state) are the same things that happen in "public"schools. They need to do some reality checking, if they go to the local school board they can get a lot more done than what they are doing now.

Also, these people are citizens of the Hangin-Chad state o' FlowRidda. It is now wonder they do not understand what is going on or how to go about getting things done.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion