Slashdot Mirror
AOL Subscribers Can Be Sued in Virginia Courts
ITR writes "Another blow against the cyber-constitutional separation of 'Internet and Geography', a Virginia court rules that an AOL user in Texas can be forced to appear in a Virginia court to answer a defamation lawsuit. 'The upshot, said the judge, is that the defendant's use of the server to facilitate the alleged libel was sufficient to warrant jurisdiction under Virginia's long-arm statute -- the state law that gives courts power over out-of-state defendants.' "
All I have to do is be a virgina resident then sue them. Even if the claim is baseless, they have to show to defend themselfves.
Ouch.
You 'merkins seem to think that everyone on the 'net is fully within your jurisdiction.
. . was the same law enforced for similar "offenses" performed using the telephone?
You Canadians seem to forget America built most of the 'net.
VA long arm statute states that the state can haul a defedant into court w/in the fullest measure without violating due process. due process analysis says that a person must have purposefully availed himself to the benefits and protections of that state (minimum contact), or have be in the state, or have some type of business. from what few facts there are, it does not seem that minimum contacts have been met. it would be a violation of due process.
welcome to law in state trial courts. if a judge has constipation and they don't like your tie, they will rule against you for no other reason. but then you can appeal, if you can afford it. the ruling should be appealed. but state judges essentially get to decide whatever the hell they want and are counting on your to not being able to afford to appeal. sucks, don't it? this is what we are taught in law school today.
Rini
elee@student.law.du.edu
Perhaps we should designate the internet as an autonomous "country", and provide our own laws, courts, etc. That way, the internet will be out of everyone else's jurisdiction. Of course, this opens up a whole new can of worms...
What if a Texas resident phones a Virginia radio station and does the same thing the defendent did over the web? It should be irrelevent what medium you use to spread your defamation. If the medium is based in Virginia, the Virginia laws apply.
Melovisc has been committing organized governmantal atrocities for some time now. It wasn't until it started screwing up the affairs of other countries (hundreds of thousands of refugees) that other countries decided to act against Yugoslovia. Same with Iraq. No one bothered Hussein until he cross the border and invaded Kuwait. The moral is that if you keep your crime within your national borders, no one will bother you (Fidel Castro knows this, that's why he's still there in power and no one's bombing Cuba).
It was in California
The other difference, of course, is that Salman Rushdie didn't write pornography and then try to prevent local communities from protecting their children from it. He wrote a book with literary merit, and the Ayatollah tried to supress it based on religious beliefs. It's a really good book, incidentally, check it out (The Satanic Verses) sometime. It's sad that probably 90% of the people who have opinions about the book have never taken advantage of the opportunity to enjoy it.
this would better go under the "legal" or whatever law topics you have, as opposed to "the internet"
So a law in virginia applys to somebody living out of there state.. I don't know about you but if another state tried to force me because one of there lame law have been violated, I would tell them to go F*$k themselves. Hey if that law does not exist locally, screw virginia. And they will have a hell of a time trying to extradite you as well.
Still... if the Ayatollah had been a Virginian...
:)
He'd have to be a Virginian judge
It's wrong to paint the people opposing the dissemination of pornography via the Internet as hicks who 'don't know what they are talking about.'
Look at the figures: most of the revenue being made via the Internet at this time are going into sites delivering Pornography. I'm sorry, but these are not the people who should be the standards bearers for free speech. If that is all the 'net can offer, maybe we are better off without it. Frankly many of us had hoped that the 'net would be a medium for the free exchange of ideas and ideals, not another marketplace for mass produced tripe.
Some people seem to feel that the international Internet, which answers to no jurisdiction, should serve as a means to steamroll all local opposition to anything. That's the opposite of democracy. At present, democracy doesn't scale well, and until something about it changes, there has to be local control, or we might as well give up and send our tax dollars directly to Coca-Cola and Nike, and be done with it.
Actually, the article said it was a federal circuit court that handed down the decision
In inter-state civil cases isn't there a procedure to argue/rule on which state the case is tried in? Doesn't the defendant get to appeal for the case being heard in his own state?
Don't we have controls like that in existing inter-state case law?
The alternative, of course, is to get over your fear of women and go out and meet a few, instead of strokin' away while looking at pictures of them.
No, that won't work. Reality sucks!
"This would be akin to Canada passing a law that makes it illegal to smoke bacon in Florida. And as soon as someone fires up the smokehouse trying to prosecute him for it. This is a joke. "
The Virginia court has effectively decided that the Texan was 'electronically' located within Virginia when the defamation took place. If Canada passed a law that you cannot smoke bacon in Canada and a Floridian visited Canada, smoked baken, then he can be prosecuted. You must obey the laws of the place you currently reside in.
Of course if this becomes a standard ruling, the Texan could not be prosecuted in Texas for defamation because at the time he was not 'electronically' located within Texas.
his does do damage to the notion of the Internet as something of a worldwide phenomenon,
unaffected by such obsolete notions as borders.
It's rather snide of you to declare that borders are 'obsolete notions.' If that's true, you'd better remove the lock on your door. I don't care what the rules are that obsolete notion you call 'your house,' in the big world we all live in, I like to smash in computer monitors with a ball-peen hammer. Don't you dare try preventing me from having my fun. It's my right, and there aren't any borders any longer.
Since there aren't any borders anymore, we may as well admit it was wrong for the US to 'steal' California from Mexico. Back it goes! You have the 'right' to still live there, but don't try to stand in the way of those poor people coming up from down south and building a shantytown on your front lawn. You don't own that property, you're carrying on again about that obsolete notion of 'borders.'
Don't even get me going about that 'constitutional rights' stuff. That's a form of National government. We don't have borders any longer. You'll now answer to anybody who has the biggest army. Clue: it isn't you.
if you think Satanic Verses is a good book you got other problems than the Virginia Case, its one of the worst written books i have ever come across and of course being an american didn't help, he rights stuff the only another british could like... if it wasnt' for Khomani no one would have read it, This is way off topic though...
I think there's no irony at all in the fact that this is your only criticism of what was typed above.
You'd be extradited.
The rest of your post is posturing, and a waste of time to read, or resond to.
Well take fruad charges for an example. If the crime was commited in VA but you are in MI I think you are given a subpoena, which has to be served to you in MI by an agent of the courts from VA. Like any subpoena you could try to dodge it for sometime, adding up more costs to the court. Then once you have the subpoena and you don't show then an arrest warrent is issued. So the next time you are pulled over by a MI cop he picks you up (maybe depends on if the cop is in a rush and checks everything, but thanks to high tech you most likely will be picked up) and puts you in county jail until the agents from VA come and pick you up (I think they have 72 hours or something to do this otherwise they let you go because they can't hold you indefinitely). So once you in the hands of the VA system then things roll along. And if you ignored the subpoena, you have the extra charge of failuer to appear which even if your not guilty of fraud you still will be charged with that. Lost of other variables here when you speak of the court system, but this is the general game plan. MI won't send you down to VA but they will respect VA by picking you up and holding you. States respect each others laws this way so no extradition needed. Even if what your being charged with is not a crime in MI, MI will respect the other states arrest warrent. So avoid the subpoena, don't go to work, don't go home, and you have nothing to worry about ;). If the charge is BS I'd avoid the agents as best as possible just to run up the cost of delivery.
Aye. However, I'm not a Muslim. Having read it,
there's the obNote that if I _were_, some of the
passages do seem to be rather blasphemous, and a
devout follower would be well within his rights
to be pissed.
That doesn't excuse a fatwah, however.
Go back to your picture books, troll. Let the
literate members of society read what they
prefer.
Whether libelling or slandering is a free speech
issue isn't the point here.
Jurisdiction is.
Now get a clue.
What about proxy servers. This is an even better example than routers.
How is this any different from getting sued because a newspaper that was sold in Virginia contained a libelous story??
People have to realize that the fact that they are using the internet does not make them immune from any responsibility for their actions. This includes libel, slander, theft of intellectual property, security fraud, child pornography, credit card teft, you name it.
OK, suppose you are public school teacher in Virginia and a AOL luser decides he doesn't like you for some reason, say your last posting just ticked him off. In response he puts up a web page that includes accusations and phony evidence that you are a pedophile, homosexual child molester who is wanted for murder and rape in 19 states, and the local school board suspends you while they investigate this stuff. Meanwhile local newspapers are running pictures of you on the front page, and your house has been firebombed.
How do slashdotters think this sort of thing should be dealt with?
There was a case of a guy who ran a porn BBS in Los Angeles. He got extradited to Tennessee because someone, a cop I think, dialed up his BBS and found the content of his BBS illegal in Tennessee. This guy lost his ass and went to jail for breaking a law in a state he had never been.
Anyone know more about this casse which to my mind was the first incident of this crap?
Actually, it means both. Under Virginia's new anti-spam law, as long as the spam passes through Virginia, it's subject to the law. This means that the spammer can be in Virginia, or the ISP can be in Virginia, or the person receiving the spam can be in Virginia, or any combination thereof.
And sueing has nothing to do with it. This is criminal law, not civil (at least with VA's anti-spam law). Basically, you can have the spammer arrested, and charged with either a misdemeanour or a felony (depending on the severity of the spam). They are then responsible for paying the associated fines.
-Todd
Remember, this makes the spammers who use AOL targets. Not AOL itself. The VA anti-spam law very specifically holds the ISPs themselves harmless in the matter.
-Todd
I've always wondered. In this case of a Texan and and Virginian, what would be considered 'a more convenient forum'? Moving it helps the texan while hurting the virginian.
It also seems odd that a transferred case is still tried under the original jurisdictional law. So a Tenessee judge (it's about midway) would know, follow, and uphold Virginia law?
No exodus at all until the US started bombing. Then everybody headed for the boarders by the hundreds of thousands.
Got that? Until the bombing, the Albanians were staying put. When the bombs fell, then they ran.
O.K., supposedly just because the person in
question signed up for an AOL account and its servers happened to be located in Virginia
this judge says it qualifies for "minimum contact" or whatever the sharkish term is. So if I want to
avoid being sued anywhere but my own state I just sign up with a local ISP, right? Suppose my local ISP is actually a
subsidiary of Global MegaCorp with business dealings in 51 countries? Do the sharks here agree that I have "voluntarily" agreed to be subject to
those 51 different countries' laws (and just to make this easy, it said that in the microdot fine print of the contract I signed)?
Ooops, you just made yourself liable for defimation of the Chinese government! Hey, isn't AOL planning to go global, maybe with servers in China?
Isn't that wonderful, this judge just made it possible for totalitarian countries to jail American citizens.
I'd say fuck Virginia and that Virginia judge, but these bits are probably passing through the state
(that and the fact that I agreed to a contract to a subsidiary of some Virginia corporation also makes me liable, right)?
Snicker. Someone seems to have forgotten that not everyone lives on this planet.
Get over yourself. Over-qualifying every statement so that it applies to the world in general is (usually) a waste of bandwidth. Adjust for the fact he's talking from his experience, and I promise not to flame you for your thick Canadian accent.
Why don't you go back to your hole which ever one you creeped out off, you think you read more than I do? you think you are more literate? I doubt you have read a book in your life which wasn't forced down upon you by a teacher and even then you bought cliff notes, you're the type of person who wouldn't know the difference between similie and metaphor even when your cliff notes showed it to you.
You make a good point.... "Will they also be trying to sue people in China, or Europe or anywhere else in the world for that same use of that server? " All internet discussion arround this point makes me beleive even stronger that all this is just paving way for the N.W.O (new world order). People trying to sue each in other countries.. how everything from food to a psychiatrist can be found online.. they're trying to get us ready for the N.W.O to make them selves shown. The internet was not created from businesses to make money or for 12-15 year olds to chat with each other or for you to look at porn it was built for to allow people to see the need for one WORLD GOVT... Maybee I've just smoked too much crack in my life but I don't think so..
There have been a lot of comments about how backwards and twisted Virginia is, based on the notion that they have this weird law. Most states (if not all) have identical laws. They are called "long-arm" statutes, and they (typically) extend the state's jurisdiction to whatever the constitution will allow. With these laws, the question is simply, "Does the constitution allow the state to assert jurisdiction over this case?"
Now, this judge may have made a mistake (the tests for jurisdiction are fuzzy at best, so without knowing more, I don't know), but there is no law involved in this matter which is any more weird than the laws of most of the other states. If this judge made a mistake, the appeals courts (up to the Supreme Court) are there to correct it.
Yes, I am a lawyer. No, I don't live in Virginia.
-Steve
I'm not a history buff...but as I recall, it was the British than burned DC...not the Canadians. Maybe the Canadians were involved, but they certainly weren't running things.
Oh, great. So *you* don't have to get stuck with Bible Belt regulations, but I do.
this has nothing to do with the whole court thing,
but 'conservative types' are one of the major
forces in the history of computing... the military
industrial complex was not built by a bunch of
save the whales anti war hippies, it was built
by MIT, stanford, and other war schools, + ibm,
RAND, fairchild, TI, amd, intel, and other war companies.
It isn't knee-jerk -- politicians get voted on. They do what makes the most people happy (and therefore voting for them). That's their job. It works most of the time. It's when the general public isn't informed that the problems come in. What we need is some visionaries from Sun and whatnot to start doing interviews on talk shows and things to get information disseminated to the general masses. In the past, the masses were ignored by most of us...no one cared what the general public thought. But as the Internet becomes more and more a social issue, the general public is acting like a blind man with an AK47...who's pretty angry. They vote, make the rules, and have the power...and have no idea what's going on. Thus, any religious or conservative nut can come along and play off fears (Pedos will stalk your child on the 'Net! People will e-mail them porn! The Columbine shootings are only the beginning of the evils of the Internet!) The public needs to be better informed. And no one seems to want to do that...even those with good intentions rapidly realize that it's easier to get your agenda pushed by playing off fears.
There's already been cases in (I think) France, and I believe Australia regarding required ISP content filtering. The ISP is a midpoint. I don't know of the liability of the people upstream from them, but there's a *lot* of idiots running around making laws when they don't understand the damage they're doing.
[Snicker] I can see it now...
Slashdot hauled up on charges of spreading false and obscene information.
And American citizens have nothing to complain about. We just get fined. Imagine the Chinese website maintainer who gets shot because he didn't filter content. Now *that's* not fun.
Welcome to the bold new world, where the kings *are* the fools.
Yes, but there have been cases (or suggestions of such) where failure to filter content has been reprehensible. I think France had some sort of cases like this, and I'm sure that more are on the way.
Yeah, tell the idiots who make these laws and equate technology with shiny wristwatches and complicated VCRs that.
Even if routing isn't publication (what about broadcast packets? Information is being created, not just passed along), what about public proxy servers? What about web sites that allow free posting (Slashdot among them)?
looks like it!
You'll probably want to enforce it, but you'll need an *American* court to enforce it and in this specific case the American court is likely to lecture you on First Amendement and tell you to go jump into the lake (living in the US does have some advantages, after all).
I hope he never feels like traveling to Switzerland, though. Plus, the US doesn't exactly have a wonderful history of upholding First Amendment rights on the Internet.
I partly agree with the people here saying that freedom of speech does not give you the right to slander. This ruling protects you from unjust slander by others, but opens up other, frightening, perspectives at the same time. What if you are sued by someone who you may have offended (unknowingly, perhaps) *by his standards*?
If you think you have a right to impose your sense of decency on others, be prepared to have worse imposed on yourself.
dude lets move to canada
the courts can be linked and 'venue' becomes a strange
strange thing.
If you call someone a pedophile in print, you'd better be ready to be sued. Why should it be any different on the Internet?
I have to disagree. The Internet != print media. It's not equal to any existing form of media. It's very different. Printed text is all that's in printed media...the Internet has forums like Usenet, chat environments like IRC, and telephone conversations (those currently immature Internet phone products). I'm no lawyer, but I believe that libel is a more serious crime than slander. Just for starters, I would say that the conversation on Slashdot is very much closer to traditional speech than to written content, even though the content is typed. Would you try comments on Slashdot as libel or slander?
Besides, I suspect that every single person here has, at some point, said something that they later regretted saying. Normally, it's promptly forgotten...or said behind the subject's back, and never comes out. The Internet often allows things you said ten years ago to be dredged back up...rare in the real world. Suppose you flamed someone way back...well, Dejanews knows about it. It's extremely easy to build cases against people, because of all the wonderful material that can be found. A lifetime's worth of *anyone's* Usenet postings, e-mail (you know, that stuff that employers like to archive at the server), and so on can make pretty good fodder for lawyers.
Imagine that the anti-Communist craze of Nixons' heyday was just beginning in 1999. Remember how past material from victims was brought up and shown to be damning? The Internet makes this a hundred thousand times worse...anything you say, anywhere, anytime could come back to haunt you. Well, you *could* encrypt everything, become a paranoid security nut and act like you're on a hard core CIA mission...but that you did so makes a certain statement. No second chances, no mercy. I don't really like the idea, quite frankly.
Uh...yeah, but this is not new. And, at the state level you're mentioning, things have improved quite a bit. In colonial times, states were essentially different countries. Your primary loyalty would be to your state.
And then you have to leave the computer, and go down to the grocery store to get some food...and you pay sales tax.
We're not going to be there for a *looong* time, if ever. Countries aren't going to want to give up their power. Plus, providing for seperate entities provides for competition and choice. Don't like mainland China? Move to the US!
Isn't it only recently that the FCC rescinded the archaic Morse-code test for ham radio licences?
I can see it now: "So, you want to use the Internet, eh? What are the ASCII and EBDIC values of 'J'?"
Ayatollah's IQ low, but not low enough to be a judge in Virginia.
...constantly clueless.
But that's ok, because, even though we have a chronic, critical shortage cluefull warm bodies, we have the ability to seduce cluefull warm bodies from other countries with our Sex and our Drugs and our Rock&Roll, baybeee!
It's all a big lie, of course. But, when you come from a country where opression comes in the form of being beaten by riot police with sticks and guns, well, America seems like some mythical land over the rainbow.
I can think of a lot of Americans who mind escaping from America without having to leave, if you know what I mean.
I hate to say it; but Moderators are carrying a pro-Establishment political agenda.
you know, why is it that freedom of speech laws seem to allow us to say just about anything we want about the government, but we simply look the wrong way at a corporate entity, and we're in the heat?
hmmm....
Uhh wrong. Libel is not even mentioned by the first amendment.
Legal Agreement: By reading this message, you agree that any and all potential legal actions pursuant to the content of this message shall be under the jurisdiction of my home state of Missouri. Your reading of this message signifies agreement to these terms.
Just an idea. A similar concept seems to have worked against spammers.
Which means that my friend in a country where gambling is legal can run a server in that country where gambling is legal and since the server is there he can't be prosecuted under US laws? I seem to recall a while back the FBI went after a bunch of people who were running servers based in the Caribbean somewhere. I think Virginia is opening a can of worms that they might in the future prefer they had left closed.
There was a case of a guy in LA who ran a porn BBS in Los Angeles. He got extradited to Tennessee because someone, a cop I think, dialed up his BBS and found the content of his BBS illegal in Tennessee. This guy lost his ass and went to jail for breaking a law in a state he had never been.
Anyone know more about this casse which to my mind was the first incident of this crap?
First off, I tend to agree with the spirit of the original poster's message. Responsibility should come with freedom of speech.
However, it should also be noted that (IMNSHO) the purpose of libel is to protect people from an overly vindictive press. Let me put it this way:
If a story appeared in my hometown newspaper accusing me of incest, I would be concerned, to say the least. If someone in a bar calls me a mo'fo in front of a bunch of my friends, I'd presume the fellow was drunk and would shrug it off. Assuming I WAS the sort of person who called lawyers over slights like that, I'm pretty certain a libel suit over an angry, drunken remark would be laughed straight out of court.
Although Usenet is a mass medium which posts to millions of machines throughout the world, in general, I would consider the environment much closer to bar banter than to a newspaper article. I don't lose much sleep over being flamed on the net.
Every libel case which is sucessfully prosecuted makes for a chilling precedent. The next time you post something in a newsgroup, you must weigh the odds that the person you are aruging with will seek to harass you through legal means.
Some people may hope that a few sucessful libel cases will encourage people on Usenet to mind their manners a bit more (certainly an admirable goal!), this will not happen. As long as there are anonymous remailers, cyber cafes, and open university workstations, people will be able to flame on Usenet to their heart's content with little or no risk of reprecussion.
jsa
Okay [flame suit on] I have an opinion on this that differs greatly from most of what I'm seeing here. This is not flamebait, but just another perspective.
/. summary), the suit accuses the defendants of no less than that very act.
One of the major problems with the Internet, and especially the people on it, is the prevailing assumption that "freedom of speech" equates to "freedom to libel and slander other people and corporate entities".
If you call someone a pedophile in print, you'd better be ready to be sued. Why should it be any different on the Internet? For those of you who didn't actually read the article (apparently a lot of you judging from the comments that seem to have opinions formed solely off of the
I think it is high time that people be held accountable for what they say online to other people. Folks say things on the Internet that they'd dare not say in print. I've been accused of a few libelous things myself and was advised to not proceed with filing suit due to the ambiguity of how the law applies to the Internet.
Americans have enjoyed the freedom of speech for many years, but have always known that the freedom of speech does NOT mean that you can say anything about anyone and get away with it. Apparently folks have forgotten that after getting their AOL accounts.
This has been happening for a while in various other forms. For example, Kevin Mitnick, after his federal charges are dropped (finally, several years later), will be hauled off to various states that have all charged him with computer crimes because the servers happened to be in those states.
The effect this creates was that even if somebody was completely innocent, and could win all the cases, they could be hauled around the U.S. and put on trial 15 different times, and would lose 10-20 years of their life before being finally cleared.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by drkwndysky:
You know it seems to me that this wonderful country we all live in has been getting worse and worse. Too many people out there don't seem to know how to live their own lives. When they don't get their way they play politics, run off to local law enforcement, etc. Can't anyone resolve their own conflicts of interests? I know that phrase "love thy neighbor" is really corny but you have to admit that when society began to look at their neighbors and virtually say "piss off" it is going to have some repercussions. And as far as the Virgina legal system is concerned they are only allowing a place for more whiners to have access to more money that they wouldn't have otherwise had this country learned to resolve it's own conflicts! Now the way I see it is the Supreme Court has at times had more wisdom that most lend credit and perhaps we will see this rediculous law overturned! It has got to get better people
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
This would be akin to Canada passing a law that makes it illegal to smoke bacon in Florida. And as soon as someone fires up the smokehouse trying to prosecute him for it. This is a joke.
This is a state court in VA. The "long arm" statute is only enforceable within VA. Just because the kid down the street has to be in bed at 6PM doesn't mean that I'm a bad parent because my kid stays up until 9. Even if they want you, all you have to do is refuse to appear. The judge will issue a bench warrant and as long as you don't have to go to VA you're fine. One state's bench warrant doesn't have to be honored by any other. For something as trivial as libel chances are that nobody in the state attorney general's office will care enough to extradite you.
Just as Geronimo learned to use borders to his advantage those tactics can still apply for trivial matters. If this were me, I'd refuse to show and then I'd contest the bench warrant. It would go to the supreme court. A case like this would lean towards the defendant because the current supreme court is rather conservative.
Posted by apav:
Law suit abuses abound but I think you picked a bad example. My understanding of the facts of the case are that the company had many (on the order of hundreds) incidents where customers were burned in similar situations. They were aware of these cases and had done nothing to protect there customers. There were providing a product that could severly injure customers if used in a manner that was obviously within the norm. Being aware of the problem, they had made no changes or provided any warnings. This was the basis for their liability.
Though the award seemed large, judged against the revenue from coffee sales by the defendant, it could be argued that it was not excessive since it was small in comparison. If awards are too small, corporations have no motivation to change their behavior. Such awards are for juries and judges to decide until we can come up with a better method.
The injuries to the plantif required hospitaliztion and skin grafts. I admit that I had minimal sympathy for the plantif until an acquaintance of mine (admittedly a bit of an impulsive character) suffered similar injuries when he had to make evasive manuvers while driving - talk about bad burns, wheeew! We are not talking about the frivolous here.
So in this case, I cannot find that the verdict and award were unreasonable even if I disagree with them in whole or in part.
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Not necessarily, for example a few months ago a man sued "God" and when "God" did not appear in court the man was not awarded victory. The case was thrown out.
Moreover this is an issue that will most likely be decided by the US supreme court.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>They can do that now, if the letter was part of the commission of a crime (fraud, blackmail, false advertising, etc.) In that type of crime, however, you would have actually had to have had a real presence in that jurisdiction.
A difference is that you've just described FEDERAL crimes. Since the US postal service is under federal jurisdiction. What's wierd is that Postal Inspectors are allowed to carry guns.
This is why junk mailers have had to become so clever. "You MAY have won!" is common with the MAY portion stressed. Because mail fraud is not taken lightly.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
Sorry to go off topic, but...
>>The only one of the lot that you can count on to favor your rights over the government regardless of the issue is Thomas, politically incorrect as it is to say this. I used to think that he was peeking over Scalia's shoulder, but in the still rare cases that they vote opposite each other, it's Thomas voting for individual rights, and Scalia voting for government power.
It is exactly this that the liberals (using the modern definition) hate about Thomas. He's a right wing conservative who favors the rights of the individial over what the government deems to be the best for the collective.
LK
Posted by Lord Kano-The Gangster Of Love:
>>ou should grow up and be responsible for your actions. Stop whining.
Um, you seem to not be getting the big picture. What if a VA resident decides that he doesn't like you and will file a civil action against you. If this situation is allowed to progress you will be forced to incur the cost of travel for yourself and or a lawyer or you lose by default for not showing up. Even if you show up and win, you're still out the cost of the lawer and the trip.
What if it's done twice? Three times? A dozen times. It'll cost him what $100? Maybe $200 to sue, how much will it cost you for two round trip plane fares and lawer fees?
Do you get what the opposition to this is all about now?
LK
Posted by Psyc_Snyper:
I find it interesting when people make comment of laws being passed against internet mischef to be a blow to free speech. If people are going to make reference to a constitutional principle it should actually apply to the situation. Not every Internet regulating law deals with freedom of speech. In this incident it's more like a trespassing issue than a freedom of speech issue.
To spam or not to spam this is the question, cmon give me a break. That stuff is a waste of time, ten times out of twenty it is done by an employee who was pissed off at there boss for firing them. I mean really when is this law ever going to effect the internet shadows and demons that lurk in unsuspected gateways? Never, I say let them pass their irrelevant laws. First and fore most if you are stupid enough to get caught then you deserve whatever they give you. What spammer would ever use his personal email accountor one that could be traced to him? Give up? Okay here comes the answer, an idiot!
The war of 1812 was between the US and the UK, not Canada. The UK just happened to use Canada as their staging ground, because those northern colonies were still loyal to them. That's a bit different than saying the country of Canada that we see today was responsible.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Sea a lawyer licensed in your jurisdictionif you need legal advice on this matter.
>1. if i were named in such a suit and refused to
>appear, wouldn't VA need an extradition order
>or something to get me into the VA court?
nope, this is a civil case, not criminal. They would would enter a default judgment against you, then have that judgment entered in your state (or wherever you had seizable assets or a paycheck).
>2. does the sovereign state of VA have standing
>in the case because the AOL server is locate in VA
It's not an issue of standing; that's for the plaintiffs. It's a question of jurisdiction. And it appears that it is not that just *any* server was in VA, but that the newsserver that *published* the statement to the rest of the world was in VA. If this had gone first to a Texas surver, when was relayed to VA in the ordinary course of Usenet distribution, this would be a different matter.
hawk, esq.
No, he's not. Rehnquist & O'Connor are conservatives, as is Kennedy on a bad day. Scalia & Thomas are "classic liberals," as liberalism was understood in the eighteenth century. Classic liberals tend to be opposed to government action in general, and will strictly hold the gov't to its defined powers, regardless of what it's trying to do. They'll join the conservative block to slap down extra-constitutional social programs and preferences (with the liberals voting to permit them), and join with the liberal blcok to slap down intrusions on personal freedom and liberty (with the conservatives voting to extend government power).
Given the cases that come up today, they vote with the conservatives more often than the liberals. Bring up free speech issues, or government surveillance issues, and expect them to vote with the liberals.
Kennedy tends to vote with this pair, except when he gets cranky, and spends time in the conservative block. And if police safety or similar issues are in issue, Scalia's knee has a tendency to jerk to the right.
The only one of the lot that you can count on to favor your rights over the government regardless of the issue is Thomas, politically incorrect as it is to say this. I used to think that he was peeking over Scalia's shoulder, but in the still rare cases that they vote opposite each other, it's Thomas voting for individual rights, and Scalia voting for government power.
Nope. That sounds more like "collateral estoppel"--which only applies between the same two parties.
However, if Santa Clara County, California, holds a criminal trial, no other county in California can try the same defendant for the same crime. Clark County, Nevada could. However, I know most of the judges there (err, those who were there 5 years ago), and most of them would be downright frosted to see such a case come before them . . .
>Well, the problem itself is not new. E.g. if you,
>a Californian, kill another Californian in
>Nevada, either California or Nevada can try you
>for murder (either, but not both, though).
Actually, both could. Double jeopardy applies to multiple trials by the same soverign, and Nevada and California are separate sovergeins (the imperial pretensions of some California agencies notwithstdanding).
Caselaw has held that this permits the federal courts to try an individual after a state fails, as well, though this, IM!HO, is an incorrect application of the principle: the federal government is *not* sovereign in its own right, but relies on delegated power from the states. In these cases, the delegated power is generally from the state that has already held a trial. Hoever, these cases tend to come up when there has been either a miscarriage of justice, or a politically unpopular result, and the maxim that, "hard cases make bad law" comes into play, and the desire to punish the wrongdoer takes precedence over a bedrock legal principle.
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need advice on this matter, see a lawyer in your own jurisdiction.
It's fairly typical for long-arm statutes to claim jurisdition as in all matters not prohibitted by the U.S. Constitution.
While I could also see the case going the other way, I don't see the publication from virginia as all that questionable. Sending an article to usenet is done by having an initial server publish to the next servers in sequence. A deliberate act of the defendant used the virginia server to publish.
OTOH, while there are no surprises in this case, I'm not sure that it's necessarily the best policy. While the overwhelming majority of the activities of today's federal government exceed its constitutional authority, I'd tentatively agree that given that substantially all of the transmission of a usenet message is interstate, that there is at least some authority from the commerce clause to address the matter.
also, It seems to me that the case could have been first removed to federal court on grounds of diversity of citizenship (unless the plea specifically asked for less damages than required for removal), then transferred to federal court in the defendant's home jurisdiction in Texas.
How does the opinion of one judge in the United States suddenly become the opinion of all United States citizens?
I'm a resident and citizen of the USA, and I think the ruling is dangerous and ill-considered because it means that what I write electronically might be subject to the laws of faraway places even though I might not even be *aware* that my postings were being stored and read in those places.
That means, if it were applied to Usenet, that all postings on Usenet would have to meet the legal standards of all states and perhaps countries which had at least one Usenet server, or I as a Usenet poster could be subject to prosecution.
On the subject of 'merkins -- let's try to avoid sweeping generalizations, shall we? There are many things to discuss related to this topic -- and slamming other Slashdot users isn't constructive.
--
-Rich (OS/2, Linux, Mac, NT, Solaris, FreeBSD, BeOS, and OS2200 user in Bloomington MN)
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
MAE East is located in Vienna, Virginia. Can I get hauled into a Virginia court because my network traffic passes through a national access point in Virginia? Or is storage of the message/traffic required?
It's rather snide of you to declare that borders are 'obsolete notions.' If that's true, you'd better remove the lock on your door. I don't care what the rules are that obsolete notion you call 'your house,' in the big world we all live in, I like to smash in computer monitors with a ball-peen hammer. Don't you dare try preventing me from having my fun. It's my right, and there aren't any borders any longer.
Actually, I've heard this from many internet Utopians, and it's not a frivolous notion. In many places, the political and cultural climes were such that many forms of media were simply not available before the advent of the Internet. For instance, I have access to foreign newspapers over the Internet, and my access is not dependent on paying a fortune to a importer delivering week old papers. In that sense, the geographical borders between myself and Europe are essentially irrelevant. During the coup in Russia, traditional media was cut off, but some people were able to communicate using the Internet.
A border is not limited to the minefield and barbed wire fence around your home. Often a border is a arbitrary creation of state. That state may not be completely compatible with desires and needs of its citizens.
All I can say is "try to find a local ISP." This, however, is harder than it sounds. The ISPs that offer the most bandwidth are likely to be multistate, exposing their users to this kind of harassment. The "local" phone company offering that coveted DSL or the cable company offering high-speed service may be headquartered thousands of miles away.
This does do damage to the notion of the Internet as something of a worldwide phenomenon, unaffected by such obsolete notions as borders. I think the latest issue of "Communications of the ACM" (June 1999) has a short article on Chinese Internet infrastructure. It is quite enlightening-- as the main purpose of ChinaNet is geared toward maintaining state control...
Typically you'll find strict laws like this, often bordering on the absurd, in Southeastern states like Virginia. Trouble is, Bible thumping locals in turn elect Bible thumping politicians to rule over them. This is all fine and dandy by me until they start to think they have any juris- diction over people living in saner areas of the country.
This is another case of US law that unfairly penalises US citizens. I live in the UK. I can get an AOL account in the UK and US law has no jurisdiction whatsoever over me. I cannot be extradited for an offence that was commited in another country whilst I can clearly prove I was in this country. If I get an AOL account here it still uses the VA servers.
Seeing as AOL is now a global mess, is it really fair to introduce laws that only penalise one section of that mess. Then again anyone that is dumb enough to use AOL deserve what they get.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
That's right and when they're done maybe they can go after the pornographers, the gays, the bigots, the pro-choicers and the pro-lifers, the Democrats, and whoever else isn't in power and can't stand up for themselves.
The ends do *not* justify the means, because once justified, the same means may lead to different ends. If we want to curb spam, let's do it right, let's not do it by circumventing the constitution.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Well, from my perspective, the alarm comes not from any notion of "new" legal precedents. Nor does it come from the real-world consequences of Internet behaviour. What does concern me is the variation of laws in different geographic entities.
It is a given that I have no control over where my words go. Anyone who reads this posting might save it to a server anywhere. Anywhere. Do I have any means of checking that I'm not violating any law in existence anywhere in the world? Of course not. Yet, this ruling underscores the fact that I could be held liable for local laws in regions that I have never physically entered, nor directly contacted.
If I write an inflammatory article about a particular state or nation, can I be extradited? As others have pointed out, U.S. courts would likely prevent the execution of any judgement for a case like that. But what about "offensive" (i.e., unprotected) speech?
It's hard enough to find rationality in the courts within one jurisdiction. Now, it would seem, that every person on the Net must comply with the set of all laws from every jurisdiction on the planet. (It's not too hard to imagine mutually contradictory laws arising between, say, the U.S. and France. What do we do then?)
The bottom line is, not too many people are arguing that no laws apply to the Internet. But doesn't it seem a bit ludicrous that every jurisdication can enforce their own local code on netizens from anywhere in the world?
"Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped." --Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915)
I'm split on this issue, given that I'm now a resident of Virginia. I'm unsure as to support this ruling (it's got both its good and bad points; good because it leaves lots of loopholes to get around shitty rulings, but bad because long-arm jurisdiction sucks, and puts in more shitty rulings to need to get around), but at least it means now I can threaten a lawsuit to AOL spammers with legal grounds to stand on. :) (I'm not sue-happy, but I'm sick and tired of spam. blah.)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
There's somewhat of a scientific flaw in the 'bits as atoms' argument they're using. They're assuming that when I send a bit from my computer to a server somewhere else, it's the exact same electron(s) which carried that bit that end up in the server somewhere else. This is a common misconception, but the electrons travel literally at a snail's pace; it's the *signal* which goes at relativistic speeds.
As I commented previously, I'm split on this issue. It's beneficial to me, being a resident of Virginia, to be able to sue someone for libelling/slandering/spamming/etc. me since their bits eventually reach my home computer in Virginia (and since I use a personal proxying/masquerading firewall to have all my and my roommates' systems online, it could be argued that a Virginia server is used, without even having to piss over the difference between server and workstation), but I don't like this precedent as it applies to the Internet in terms of long-arm jurisdiction and the like.
Also, would defamation online be constituted as libel or slander? It's "spoken" in a way, but it's also "printed" in a way (libel relates to untrue printed information, slander is to spoken information), but in reality it's neither. But if 'printing' is constituted by the act of publishing, well, technically anything you say on Usenet is eventually 'published' (on the web) thanks to Deja et al.
Complicated issue, not at all helped by the fact that our government and legal system are still set up in terms of late 1700s/early 1800s technology.
Perhaps the best way to look at this whole argument is how it would be on a national television broadcast. If someone in Texas is on CNN and broadcasts his message about how someone in Virginia is a stupidhead because he thinks such-and-such about the purported JFK conspiracy, where would a slander case be held? (Since in this case it's definitely speech at issue, it'd definitely be slander, not libel.) Woudln't it be a federal case? Take it one step further; if someone in Iraq slanders the American president and military and broadcasts it (and some of Saddam Hussein's speeches were, I might add, rebroadcast in the USA as part of the US media's anti-propaganda propaganda) and Clinton decided to sue that certain Iraqi for slander, where would a case, if any, exist?
Many things to consider.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I wish this was the case. It would be nice if people would be allowed to browse freely, but would have to take a basic computer literacy test before they were permitted to post. It's a really bad idea and it would never work, but just think of how clean Usenet would be if it was possible.
---
All I have to do to sue an aoler is move to VA?
:)
My bags are already packed
Thanks 1E+08.
Let me lay out the significance for everybody: This Virginia court has declared AOL, well.. rogue. They just rang the dinner bell and yelled "fresh meat!". I'm sure somebody else can phrase this better, but that's essentially what they've done, and it's a sharp departure from what most courts would do.. that is, allow other courts to excercise control in their jurisdiction.
What does this mean? Well, in short.. spammers just got a few bruises. It isn't a pancea, but it's a step in the right direction.
I'm looking forward to somebody using this new development to go after the AOL spammer-scum out there.
disclaimer: #include
--
This could be used as an argument against applying local community decency standards to remote Internet sites - this way Bible Belt judges can't apply their standards to anything other than porn sites in the Bible Belt...
it's a rule that EXISTS, yes, but does not necissarily (sp) make perfect sense in this case. some things that you got wrong:
no one libeled AOL. someone committed libel USING their AOL account. I'm all for enforcing libel laws, but in this case there's some doubt as to which juristiction to try the case in. I have accounts overseas (or I did at some point). If I, as an American citizen, libel a German, while in France, with a Swiss account, on a server in Belgium, where are you going to try it?
personally, I'm not a lawyer, but I always understood that legal advice was to be given dispassionately and objectively. (according the my grandfather, who is a practicing lawyer, at any rate) if you're a lawyer, act like one. if you're not, you're unlikely as I am to have a perfect understanding of the issues that cause real contraversy (sp) in our legal system today and so should not be pointing fingers and calling names.
people who do not use the internet as "a haven for lawlessness" have legitimate concerns about laws and precedents that affect them. big brother may be your best friend, but others may not wish such a close relationship.
Lea
considering the inconsistencies across state lines in laws, am I going to have to choose my ISP by state, now?
and if you're going to say that I should be responsible for my actions, don't even bother. all I am trying to point out is that local standards are not universal, and that responsibility differs among states. if I choose an ISP and end up with a server in the bible belt for my web page, on which I post some erotic but literarily valuable literature, I could be sued for what is perfectly legal where I live.
just something to look at...
Lea
Personally I think that there are too many lawsuits in the world today, and that there are many frivolous lawsuits abounding.
Further, I'm not sure that the courts picked the right course on this item either, but...
Where would you folks propose that someone go for redress in a case like this? Or do you all think that people should feel free to say whatever they want, about whomever they want, with total impunity?
Personally, I think that until there is an internet based court system, people have to accept that there are some difficulties with the drawing together aspects of the net.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Jurisdiction is defintely an issue. And currently there is little legal precedent set where jurisdiction should lie in cases like this. The VA courts are simply applying their laws to the case, as there is a dearth of authorities currently available to seek redress of matters like this in the cyber sphere.
I'm not sure that applying laws from the physical sphere is totally appropriate to the internet, but I do think that it's probably better than letting people run around doing and saying whatever they like.
I agree with several of the poeple that have pointed out previously, that freedom of speech does not guarantee that you can say whatever you feel like, with impunity.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
The problem here is that this question is not so easily answered. Can someone in another country be held to account for an online action that is legal in his own country but a crime somewhere else? These jurisdictional issues need to be addressed. It does no good whatsoever to say that laws shouldn't apply (for whatever odd reason) to things we do on the Internet; the simple fact is that people do bad things online just as they do in the "real world" and they need to be punished for them. This problem is not going away, and blabbering about an alleged "autocracy" won't change things.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
According to the NYTimes article, this was not about pornography:
Bochan alleged that in some of their messages, the defendants accused him of being a pedophile, according to the court papers.
This is clearly a question of possible defamation (if he is not a pedophile), and because it was done in a published form it could be libel.
I'll relent on the question of libel/slander being an actual crime; I think you're right that it's only a tort. I disagree that the Constitution provides protection for deliberate attempts to damage the reputation of others through spreading untrue information about them. However, it is neither a tort nor a crime to spread the truth about another person, no matter how unpleasant that truth is. This is something the Constitution does protect. The critical issue has to do with the truthfulness of the attacks upon another person's character.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
DFL
Never send a human to do a machine's job.
I find this strange that they can apply this kind of law to the net...
It's the same as being able to drag someone into court from another state simply because they sent a letter there...
Will they also be trying to sue people in China, or Europe or anywhere else in the world for that same use of that server?
It seems to me, that this law cannot be consistently applied, and is quite simply another case of the people that make the laws deciding on things that they don't understand (c.f. the troubles experienced by Demon internet, and a particularly litigious, and highly annoying person, who's determined to make a name for himself by ruining a good thing for everyone else)...
If there's one thing I've noted in Law over the past several years, it's a complete lack of common sense...
I hope they wake up before they try to tie th ings down so badly that simply connecting up to the net, and viewing the wrong banner ad, yoiu get sued halfway across the world.
Malk.
According to long arm statutes all you have to do is conduct sufficient activities within a state to warrant a connection with that state. That's the way it has always been and always will be. It would appear that using a server in that state is grounds for sufficient activities for a connection to that state.
So what. You should grow up and be responsible for your actions. Stop whining.
KS
This is eventually going to have to be settled in the Supreme court. I wonder how long that is going to take. Whatever way it goes, I would rather know for sure than having to guess what some state my traffic is going through might want.
*shrug*
This sig is false.
COURT LIMITS STATE JURISDICTION ON WEB
In a decision with global implications, a three-judge appellate
panel from the California Court of Appeal for the Second District
has ruled that the state of California has no jurisdiction over a
Web site whose hosting servers are located in the state. The
ruling clarifies the issue of jurisdiction in lawsuits involving
Web sites and out-of-state companies. The court's decision
addresses a defamation suit filed by plaintiff Steven Rambam
against the Jewish Defense Organization (JDO). The JDO had
posted information on its Web site claiming that Rambam was a
racist Nazi sympathizer and a potential murderer. In his
lawsuit, Rambam claimed that the JDO's contracts with
California-based Web hosts GeoCities and Xoom.com provided the
state with jurisdiction in the case. The judges disagreed.
"Defendants' conduct of contracting, via computer, with Internet
service providers, which may be California corporations or which
may maintain offices or databases in California, is insufficient
to constitute 'purposeful availment,'" wrote judge Mildred
Lillie. (C|Net 06/09/99)
The C|net article is here. Seems to me that the case law is very unsettled. (Not that I have a clue about law!) Which makes the pending battles over UCI TA legislation all the more important and dangerous.http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/display Story.pl?/features/990531ucita_home.htm
yeah, well, maybe where you're from.. I think the attitude says it all. Not all of us categorize people from a given region into one stereotype. I have tended to see it taught elsewhere in Virginia -- where the education and water aren't so keen...
* AOL Subscribers probably explicitly consent to jurisdiction in Virginia as part of their subscription agreement.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the case in question. In the AOL terms-of-service (ie, your use contract with AOL), you can consent to jurisdiction in Virginia for disputes arising out of your contract with AOL.
This case is about a third party suing someone for comments posted through AOL. AFAIK, AOL isn't even a party to the litigation.
*Bzzt* Nope. A fatwah is a "statement" about a question of faith in Islam, IIRC - and quite a few other religious leaders appear to have stated that Khomeini's letter wasn't a real fatwah, but that Western media have presented it as such.
A more real example of a fatwah is the one from Algerian religious leaders which allowed women raped by the "revolutionaries" take an abortion (which normally is prohibited in Moslem countries).
This has some disturbing connotations, if taken to its logical conclusion. How long before writing foul language to a newsgroup in America results in extradition to Australia, or posting dirty stories results in incarceration in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or elsewhere?
Allowing one jurisdiction to start reeling in users whose alleged "crime" was committed sitting at a computer in a distant geographical location is a very, very slippery slope to an ugly future, where the most repressive and restrictive jurisdiction prevails everywhere.
Unfortunately this isn't the first time this has happened -- back in the BBS days there was a California man who stood trial in (I think it was) Kentucky or Tennessee for violating local obscenity laws, even though the postmaster who had accessed the "obscene" material had deliberately dialed into the BBS (located in California). I do not recall how the case ended up, but it wouldn't surprise me if it had been cited to justify this instance of jurisdictional abuse.
This kind of ruling gives governments a very heavy hand in choosing not only who they want to punish, but under what set of mutually inconsistent rules.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Some of us scream about the deterioration of "society." From the old perspective, yes, many of our tried and true institutions (ways of ordering the chaos around us) are crumbling. This is because they are no longer relevant to modern day life. They must be abandoned if real progress (wtf does that mean?) is to occur.
Yes, but some would argue that there are a few "conditions" that completely transcend this chaos, and our attempts to control it. Great societies have fallen because they fell into a state of neglect. Their citizens, having become greedy, lazy, and unable to maintain a sense of self-discipline, made them an easy target for takeover. There are some things we CANNOT abandon no matter how hard we try, because they come with the package - the one we know as humanity.
"the coffee wasn't spilled, it was in fact so hot, it dissolved the bottom of the cup, and that's how she was burned."
WRONG.
She put the coffee between her legs, she squeezed it a bit too hard, the top came off, which allowed the container to become compressed, and that made the coffee spill.
AOL resides in VA.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
They are both in Virgina. Sorry I wasn't a little clearer. I meant to point out that AOL actually resides in the same state as the person filing the suit.
This is an important point in Virginia since VA has stricter laws on this sort of things than most other states. In another state, this all would have been a slam dunk. In VA, we needed that extra little AOL being in VA thing.
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
Well given the fact that Wyoming doesn't come close to bordering Arizona I'd say that's a much more impressive feat than yours. (Hint: The Four Corners you are referring to are Colorado, Arizona, Utah and, New Mexico.)
This message brought to you by the Society of Better Map Reading.
So religious beliefs aren't a good reason to ban something, but your community's beliefs on pornography are? Many people's judgements about pornography come directly from their religious convictions. Many communities try to ban literature which is erotic but also has literary merit as well. Where do you draw the line? And before you say that pornography is against the law in some cases, consider that the the Satanic Verses is against the law also (in Iran, at least). It's not that I'm particularly in favor of pornography, I just don't think that the line between repressing religion and repressing pornography is as clear as you think.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
We are having a free exchange of ideas and ideals - right this very minute. No one is forcing you to look at pornography, even if those packets are mixing with my words right now. Sure, there are bad parts of the 'net, but there are also a lot of really useful parts. And you only get to the bad stuff out there if you decide to go there. I'm sorry that some parts of the 'net don't meet your high standards for free speech, but I think you have to take the positive as well as the negative consequences of free speech.
I agree that the folks opposing the dissemination of porn aren't just uptight prudes who don't "get" the Internet. Some of them are intelligent people with a lot of integrity and strong convictions, and I respect them for that. But the fact remains that I don't want anyone else to decide what information I can receive, no matter how well-intentioned they are. As soon as you let one person control your access to information, then you really can't trust what you know at all, can you? The bottom line is that I don't trust anyone else to form my perceptions of the world for me.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I agree that these jurisdictional issues need to be resolved, but the fact is, in this case we're talking about a crime in VA or a crime in TX. The laws are clear in both states, The person needs to be tried in one of them. Let it be VA, let it be TX, if the person is guilty just get him or her off the net. There's too many people opening their yap without using common-sense restraint and if we can get this one to stop we're one closer to a more rational net.
-Rich
the question was not about AOL's legal presence, but of the legal presence of an AOL subscriber - an entirely different legal situation
What the California judges ruled was that even if the ISP is in the same state as the person making the complaint, a court in that state does not have jurisdiction over a user from another state who has no other presence except his ISP
I don't remember which state it was, but a Federal judge ruled just a few days ago that simply having your site hosted on a computer in a jurisdiction in which you had no other "legal" presence did not create such legal presence, and without that legal presence, you could not be requred to reply to a suit in that jurisdiction.
Sounds to me like Virginia is trying to overrule the Federal courts - or someone is up for re-election.
"Look at the figures: most of the revenue being made via the Internet at this time are going into sites delivering Pornography"
cite?
1. if i were named in such a suit and refused to appear, wouldn't VA need an extradition order or something to get me into the VA court? would the VA Militia invade Michigan to drag me off to a prison cell next to Manuel Noriega? how can a moronic decision in a distant state do anything more than keep me from ever vacationing there?
if enough folks became VA scofflaws, the VA tourist bureau would take notice.
2. does the sovereign state of VA have standing in the case because the AOL server is located in VA? if that's the case, then we should inform anyone running a server in VA that we can't do business with them because of this stupidity. this will encourage those running servers in VA to relocate. once AOL & a bunch of other big guys move their servers to DC or MD, the VA chamber of commerce would take notice.
What I want to know is: what can VA do to me if I never go there? what can VA do if the server is out of state?
I beleive that this is an excellent law. If you went on a crime spree across the United States, and ended up in California-you will be sent back to each state and tried for those crimes. It does not matter where you end up-you 'physically' committed the crime elsewhere. There is no difference here-the data is 'physically' on the server in that state. It does not matter where you are now-you had to be on that server, in that state somehow-whether it was by FTP, Telnet, etc.. And that is when and where the crime was committed.
;)
As for your Swizerland scenario-the same would apply, except past examples have shown us that you would probably hold the owner of the usenet server accountable, and not the person who actually posted it (I'm not agreeing with this)-but yes, if the crime was commited on a server in Swizerland, I think that you should be tried under Swiss jurisdiction. BUT, I also think that it could go one way or the other-they had a decision, the state that the person was in at the time the crime was committed, or the actual state that the crime was committed in-they made a decision and either one would probably have the same effect. It could be worse, you could be tried for the same crime twice under two juridictions-but they took care of that a long time ago
OK-I can see your point about over-seas/outer country conflicts with this law-but to get back on track, this law is apparently only within states in the US-and like I said before, if it was against the law to post certain opinions on a usenet server in Moronia, then I believe it would be the admins responsibility to moderate what is going on-In the US, these "deformation of character" lawsuits have just begun with online content, therefore it has not gotten out of hand-and we have freedom of speech (somewhat). An admin of a usenet server would not have to keep strict moderation on a list here in the US (yet).
The only problem with that theory is the likely possibility that, when dialing into AOL, you are simply accessing a frame relay (or other data) network that passes all information back to Virginia.
It's much like what Tymnet and so forth used to do. You'd just call in and announce where you were going, and Tymnet would pass your data directly to the destination server without modification.
If the opposite ruling were true--that you could only be prosecuted where you are--but the "electronic presence" held, long distance phone fraud would be impossible to prosecute (IMHO) because you're not "talking" to your local switch, instead you're talking to the person at the end of the line because no "server" in between changes up the data.
Wes
(Copyright 1999, ARR. See author for republishing rights)
I'm a little uneasy about this decision. First of all, this means that precedent is set for other such cases of electronic storage being at some point under the jurisdiction of the state in which servers reside. There are millions of servers out there and with routing and storage the way it is, most internet users don't have the know-how or the means to track things like usenet posts or other sorts of uploads.
It seems that suddenly we can open up a whole new world of law, where a computer crime can be tried in whatever state seems to have the laws that are most in favor of the prosecution. The entire realm of computer crimes could be slowed to a halt while courts decide where all these cases should be tried.
Finally, the second poster here had a very good point. What about other countries? What if some American libels me on a newsgroup and some usenet server in Swizerland gets ahold of it. Can I try him under Swiss Law if I live in Swizerland? What about if I'm his next door neighbor? There's a lot of issues to be sorted out with this kind of decision, and I'm not convinced that the judge in this case was internet savvy enough to think about some of the technical and community ramifications of such a judgement.
I'm a little uneasy about this decision
Lucky you, just a littly uneasy. I am downright pissed off!
It seems that suddenly we can open up a whole new world of law, where a computer crime can be tried in whatever state seems to have the laws that are most in favor of the prosecution.
Well, the problem itself is not new. E.g. if you, a Californian, kill another Californian in Nevada, either California or Nevada can try you for murder (either, but not both, though). Of course, in Internet age the problem becomes much more severe and it is not helped by clueless courts.
What if some American libels me on a newsgroup and some usenet server in Swizerland gets ahold of it. Can I try him under Swiss Law if I live in Swizerland?
You can, if you can convince the Swiss court that it has jurisdiction. I don't know about Switzerland, but various countries have different ideas about the jurisdiction of their courts. Even if you convince the court it has jurisdiction, and win the case (probably by default), your problems are not over. You have a judgement against that pesky American and what are you going to do with it? You'll probably want to enforce it, but you'll need an *American* court to enforce it and in this specific case the American court is likely to lecture you on First Amendement and tell you to go jump into the lake (living in the US does have some advantages, after all).
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
didn't Virginia just pass a pretty rough spam law. Does this mean anyone in Virginia that can sue any spammer that uses AOL?
The difference, of course, is that fatwahs are not recognised in international law, whereas presumably this Virginian law is likely to be enforced in other states.
Still... if the Ayatollah had been a Virginian...
--
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982
But where I disagree, is that I don't think suing is the right choice, unless something of harm actually happens.
And who determines if harm happened? The courts do. Libel can result in permanent damage, some which may never be realized. This is why libel is a tricky legal arena. If someone calls you a pedophile, your boss may not fire you because he realizes the accusation is baseless. What about when you are looking for a job, and your prospective employer types your name into AltaVista and link number one calls you a pedophile? That's certainly not going to help, and people being people will believe something that is written unless proven otherwise.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
F83h2lkHG3lk#H@
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
The judge in this case found jurisdiction under this provision on the ground that the defendants committed an "act" in Virginia by publishing on AOL's Virginia-based server. That's pretty questionable in and of itself, but what makes it even worse is that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been held to require that nonresidents have some certain level of "minimum contacts" with a state before they may be subject to that state's jurisdiction. It certainly seems questionable whether that standard was met here.
Incidentally, if you ignore a lawsuit against you in another jurisdiction as one poster has suggested -- "default" is the technical term -- the plaintiff can generally have the judgment entered in whatever jurisdiction you keep your wealth and use it to go after your assets there. (In particular, U.S. states are required by the Constitution to give the judgments of other state courts "full faith and credit.") A court will generally only refuse to enter the judgment where it is "repugnant to public policy" of the jurisdiction; for example, U.S. courts won't enter a British judgment if the underlying claim is a libel claim which would be barred by the First Amendment in this country.
Thanks for the congrats. Its nice to know there are other survivors out there.
As for the law thing. Federal district courts can only hear cases that the state courts can hear, for the state they sit in. In this case VA.
VA's long arm statute (in the relevant part) has limited the cases that can appear in its courts to those where the harm was caused by an act or omission in VA. This is an independent requirement not imposed by most states. Most states have a long arm statute which says they can hear any cases that the constitution allows.
The whole AOL server tidbit is just required to get around VA's long arm statute. This run around wouldn't be necessary in most states. In this sense VA is even stricter regarding what it requires for suits to be brought in its (her?) courts.
Also people should realize (as a check against their outrage) that just because the case is brought in VA doesn't mean the trial will be held there. The defendant can have the case transferred to a more convenient forum, and if it is an inconvenience for him to appear there, there is a good change it will be granted. The law of the court where the suit was brought will still apply, but the inconvenience factor isn't there.
This case is not about AOL. This case is not about the internet. I am a law student and I just studied this crap in school.
There are two separate issues, one is a constitutional due process issue of personal jurisdiction, and the other is a state long arm statute.
The state long arm statute requires that the "act or omission" that causes harm take place in Virginia in order for suit in Virginia to be proper. That is what the whole deal with the AOL server being in Virginia pertains to.
As for Personal Jurisdiction, this is a constitutional requirement imposed by the 5th AMD.
The article mentions three reasons that this satisfies the Due Process Clause. First, the plaintiff lived in VA, second the harm would occur there, and third the defendant knew the plaintiff lived in VA. Had these things not been satisfied the judge would have gone the other way.
Most of the post-apocalyptic hysteria regarding this is jumping the gun. This isn't really that big a deal. Wait until the circuit courts get their hands on it. District courts don't make the law, the appellate cts do. And in this field nothing changes until the Supreme Court says so.
Then perhaps you should learn more about this case instead of just repeating what you've heard from the (oh so reliable) media. The McDonald's in question had been (legally) cited on several previous occasions due to the temperature of it's coffee. It did nothing however. With respect to the old woman burned by the coffee, the coffee wasn't spilled, it was in fact so hot, it dissolved the bottom of the cup, and that's how she was burned. She first sued for the cost of the dr's bills. But the judge levied the high judgement as a penalty for ingoring the previous citations. I get my information from lawyers/paralegals working on cases. Where do you get yours?
---- The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. -Thomas Jefferson
Here's the problem:
;)
Current political structures are dependant upon the concept of geographical location and borders. Laws, government, etc. only apply within a set geographic region that you call your territory.
The net transcends the concept of physical location. On the net, your 'location' becomes your IP, it's really the only valid descriptor of location on the net, and it shares no ties to real physical location.
Attempts to apply legal models centered around physical geography to something entirely outside the realm of physical geography will only produce more confusion, and more instances like this.
To take it a step further, we are now moving into the information age with an alarming pace. All societal transformations of this magnitude (the industrial revolution, for example) have taken hundreds (if not thousands) of years to occur. This one will happen primarily in a few decades. One generation.
There will be growing pains.
Some of us scream about the deterioration of "society." From the old perspective, yes, many of our tried and true institutions (ways of ordering the chaos around us) are crumbling. This is because they are no longer relevant to modern day life. They must be abandoned if real progress (wtf does that mean?) is to occur.
Open your eyes
Anthony DiMarco
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
Though the article stresses that it was the location of the server that was the deciding factor in this case, there is more to this case than that. The article stated:
"...jurisdiction was justified for three reasons: Bochan lived in Virginia; the harm, if any, would be suffered there; and the La Fontaines knew Bochan was a Virginia citizen, despite their contentions to the contrary. As a result, they could "reasonably foresee" being sued in Virginia, Judge Ellis said. "
This paragraph shows the application of standerd personal jurisdiction doctrine. Take the server away and even the fact that this happened on the Internet and you get the same result as in this case. If you commit an act that causes harm in another state you can be brought to trial there.
We are talking about a possible crime - stock phrasers anonymous warning signal.
Seriously this is ridiculous. If you can't stand a little dirt, transplant yourself and sustain yourself in China. There's been a lot of knee-jerking on the net about free-speech my ass. Look around-- this country is the last one to go and it's already falling apart. Course you don't know that cuz it's impossible to wedge a bit of sense between the thoughts "I hate it when they put commercials in my favorite soap opera" and "Um ok I'm going to tape some kids just so I can buy four coolattas."
Every state is having parties for little children to teach them how to profile others and act like little fucking Nazis.
Check out www.aclu.org the House of representatives of one state has decided you can be fined for burning the American flag. Need I remind you that the fucking constitution and declaration was a closed doors movement. Nobody but a few real people wanted it.
200 years ago is very recent as far as I'm concerned.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
There's a huge difference between displaying profanity in a VA library on a clipboard and placing it on servers that are connected to the internet. There is absolutely no guarantee that what exists on a VA server is going to necessarily be seen primarily by VA's population.
If there were such a gaurantee, businesses on the Internet would not have to advertise.
BTW, I cannot be brought to trial for saying profanity from my home in CT to someone in VA or for someone in VA saying profanity to me in CT over the phone.
At this I can only suggest that you mirror websites often because in a few years the world is going to really suck it's happened before it will happen again and morons will be pushing the dominating philosophy even as it causes the world to rot.
Course you motherfuckers don't read any history. So you still think laws are about shame and not power.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
Took a trip and wrote a book about it. Course we were watching wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy, Dallas, Knight-Rider, and the A-Team so we were totally clueless.
Go find the book yourself. I am.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
>Yes, but some would argue that there are a few "conditions" that completely transcend this chaos, and our attempts to control it. Great societies have fallen because
>they fell into a state of neglect. Their citizens, having become greedy, lazy, and unable to maintain a sense of self-discipline, made them an easy target for takeover. There
>are some things we CANNOT abandon no matter how hard we try, because they come with the package - the one we know as humanity.
All I see is the neglect of education, people who are too lazy to read, and a bunch of opportunists. I wish me luck.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
>Wait until the circuit courts get their hands on it.
Yeah right, and sit there with my thumb up my ass when it hits home wondering what happened. By the way, it does in fact involve the internet. It is the internet that makes this ruling ridiculous as well as if it had been done on the phone.
Seriously have the courts talk about it before it's finished.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
>
This has some disturbing connotations, if taken to its logical conclusion. How long before writing foul language to a newsgroup in America results in extradition to Australia, or posting dirty stories results in incarceration in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or elsewhere?
>
A fairly long time, actually, because this "precedent" has nothing to do with that. If this bizarre scenario did come about, the US would probably fight extradition because of the First Amendment.
However, if you commit a *crime* against a person in Australia, knowing that they are in Australia, knowing that damage will be caused in Australia, then yes, you might be extradited. Australian foul language censorship laws do *not* count as crimes causing damage against a specific Australian, nor does it imply that you specifically made minimum contact with Australian jurisdiction.
ryan
I'm sick of hearing about frivolous lawsuits.
8-P
Cheers
Better watch what you type here.
The slashdot server may be in virginia.
Cheers
So if Clinton wrote a letter to PlayBoy in Illinois about his famous blowjob(s), and someone read that in a state or district where it was illegal (obviously not DC), would he be in deeper sh1t than his was a few months back?
Me
--
I partially agree with you. People do get a little out of hand when they can write as Anonymous Coward (no offense). I always make it a habit of placing my name on everything I write so that I don't say something I wouldn't say to your face.
:)
But where I disagree, is that I don't think suing is the right choice, unless something of harm actually happens. I don't mean feelings hurt, but say you lose a job, because the employer read something about you that was not true. Then you have the right to sue. But just because you where called something you're not on a Usenet (of all places), doesn't mean you can (or should) sue. A good rebuttal is all that it takes.
I've had my share of being flamed, but I refuse to throw insults (or sue). That makes me look like the better person (regardless of whether or not I actual am
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
I've posted earlier about my feelings on Suing over name calling.
he puts up a web page that includes accusations and phony evidence that you are a pedophile, homosexual child molester who is wanted for murder and rape in 19 states
I agree that if this happens, more than just suing should be involved, but also criminal charges. I don't believe that you can sue if someone just insults you. But that is for the courts to decide.
The bigger issue is the way that the judge was able to arrest the accused. If this was a federal case, then there would be no questions. But to use the excuse that the server that the posting was done on is where I totally disagree. There's no question that a law suit should be attained if the accused actually did call the victim a pedophile. But the way the judge was able to get him, is totally wrong. This should have been a federal case. Not an state case because of where the server actually is located. God knows what laws I'm breaking because of the servers I use! I'm quite opinionated and could easily have said something illegal in some other country where a server lies.
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Last time I checked, all you had to do was get an attorney to appear.
Unless it's a criminal case, your attorney can appear for you.
Besides that, I see this kind of thing going to the Supreme Court soon.
I agree with your premise, but I disagree with you on three counts. First, libel and slander are not crimes. At best they are torts, and the most you can ask is that the offended person is put back into a state as if the action had never occurred. A libel should never punished as criminal.
Second, I know I'm in a minority, but I feel the constitution does give you the right to even slander and libel. I agree with Hugo Black that when the constution says, "Congress will pass no law..." they mean NO law.
Finally, the issue wasn't libel, it was pornography, which is a community standard. Libel requires proof of harm. Pornography laws carry no such requirement.
As for the jurisdictional aspect, the same rules apply that go for all other forms of mass communication. In US Jurisprudence, a person must have minimum contacts with the state in order for in not to violate their constitutional right of due process.
In this case, it was not b/c a person in VA read the material that caused the minimum contact. It was because the defendant had a contract with a company that had its principal place of business in Va. I'm not an AOLer, but I'd be willing to bet, that choice of law and choice of forum for VA are part of their standard service agreement.
They don't have to go. They can stay at home and have a default judgement entered against them. If they do not feel that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in VA, they can collaterly attack the judgement in Texas. If they lose on this issue, they lose on everything b/c the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution requires states to recognize other states judgements.
There may be some doubt, but the existing law is quite clear: a Virginia court has personal jurisdiction over anyone who commits an intentional tort against a Virginia resident, if the tortfeasor is or should have been aware that the injured party was a resident of Virginia and that the injury would take place in Virginia. This is well-established law.
You could clearly be sued in the United States. I don't know anything about German, French, or Swiss law, so I won't offer an opinion.
If I was a lawyer, and you were my client, perhaps that would be true. Since neither is the case....
I am not a lawyer. However, I am probably more likely to have an accurate understanding of legal issues than you are. Check my home page to find out why.
This ruling is nothing new. It's just the straightforward application of an _existing_ legal rule relating to intentional torts committed in interstate commerce. Some years ago, a Florida publisher published defamatory statements about a California resident in a magazine distributed in interstate commerce. The Californian haled the Florida company into a California court on the defamation suit. This case goes back at least twenty years (1972, if I am not mistaken).
Nor is this the first time it's happened on the Internet. I personally know of a woman from Minnesota who was sued by someone in Alabama (in Alabama state court) over something defamatory she put on the web. She failed to appear in Alabama and lost a default judgment and is now fighting (and losing) to keep the plaintiff from executing the judgment against her in Minnesota.
This has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" or anything like that. It's not even news (except perhaps to the woefully uneducated American public that pays no attention to legal matters 98% of the time anyway). This is a well-established legal rule, the application of which in this situation is completely unsurprising.
Now, let's correct some misconceptions:
* In theory this means that anyone who libels AOL can be sued in Virginia -- even if the libellant is without the United States. There may be problems with service of process, of course.
* "Internet Culture" (assuming there was such a thing) is utterly irrelevant.
* The theorem that the law doesn't apply to the Internet is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.
* AOL Subscribers probably explicitly consent to jurisdiction in Virginia as part of their subscription agreement.
* Virginia is not overriding the federal courts. They're exercising long-arm jurisdiction consistent with the constitution over an intentional tort committed against a domiliciary of the state of Virginia, consistent with well-established law. Every state has a long-arm statute of some sort; most states have one identical in effect to Virginia's. The same thing would have happened if it was Netcom or Earthlink instead of AOL except we'd be talking about a California court.
The Internet is not a haven for lawlessness. It's high time you twits figured that out.
I don't use AOL, so I don't know this: I'm assuming the local access point that the texan user dialed into pulled it's new from SOMEWHERE locally, not in Virginia. If that's true then the "offender" didn't post in virginia. They wrote some possibly defamatory remarks and published them in Texas. If true then someone, or something, later made copies of those remarks and posted them in Virginia, but they were only published by the accused in Texas--how can Virginia law apply to remarks made in Texas?
--DTS
This is unconstitutional. It was decided and placed in the books long ago that one state cannot rule or dictate another state or it's residents. This is why people still have to extradited in order to get someone from another state. In other words, if Virginia demands that a resident of Texas must go to their court.... it is completely up to Texas as to whether they actually compel the individual to go. Besides that, defamation is a CIVIL matter not criminal. So the odds of a person actually being extradited is astronomical.
im sorry but all of this is total bull shit!! In my oppinion , which some of you may find wrong, the internet should be totaly free. Totally free speach, press... there sghould be ABSOTUELY no control over the internet by any form of government. the only thinks that shoulf be controled are attacks on servers. there should be totaly free access without any type of blocking or filtering devices of any sort to all information that any one wants, including code, compiled code, porn, pireted software and music , educational information, and so on... the internet should be viewed as the information storage center of the world, "any thing" any one knows should be available to any one. you should be allowed to do any thing u want aslong as it doesnt hurt any one else. and people have to losten up about protecting the children from the "harm" that exists on the internet, i have never encountered anything harmful in my 5 years on the net. we shelter our children from this "danger" that does not realy exist. i do know that there are pedophiles and sick people like that but i dont see that it is very wide spread. i may be totaly wrong but that is what i see... that is just my oppinion...
You need to reread the 1st ammendment, it says that the media and private citizens are no longer protected when they commit libel. He commited libel therefore the constitution says that he has lost his 1st ammendment protection on this one
---Got Coffee?---
1) If you send the guy who shares the cubicle with you an email that routes through Guam, do international long distance postage rates apply?
2) You've set foot in four states at the same time (Wyoming, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah)? Feh! I can do all fifty, AND have it legally accurate in a court of law.
3) You can tell your live-in girlfriend that having a long-distance relationship is too taxing for you.
4) You can be tax exempt for subscription fees for porn sites under "Business Expenses" because it passed through your corporate server.
5) Open up a telnet connection to a server in Cambodia, leave it active, and declare your bedroom to be an official embassy!
-
Needless to say this is way f*cked up. Another blow for freedom of speech. Brought to pass by the pervaders of the status quo who have not bothered to fully understand the culture which they are commenting on. The beaurocrats all need to go back to Internet 101 Summer School.
I don't know if it was just me or what but I got the New York Times on my link and I wasn't goin anywhere in a hurry.
Another occasion where the knee-jerk basis which this archaic autocracy which governs this nation and all the surrounding ones is exemplified. All agendas are politically expedient and delivered by rotting old fools who cannot begin to understand the phenomena. And we suffer for their ignorance.