Page 25 of 25 FirstFirst ... 152122232425
Results 289 to 297 of 297
  1. #289
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Born under a bad sign.
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YumYum012
    California court: websites not liable for libel in third-party postings
    http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_z112019A.xml.html
    I hope Lin Wood receives several copies of that article.

  2. #290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStrat
    I hope Lin Wood receives several copies of that article.
    Me, too. But the problem is, underneath all the legalese, Lin Wood is suing for "assault" not libel.

    Wood knows he's on slippery ground when it comes to Internet free speech. He knows everyone would be up in arms and demanding his head on a platter if it got out in the media that he was trying to take away Internet freedoms. So, he's trying to get in the back door by suing for assault, not libel.

    That may be harder to prove, but the end result is the same. Lin Wood gets what he wants, which is private information regarding Internet posters through subpoenas. Once Wood sets case precedent, then he can build on that to get more and more information about anyone on the Net. Also, people like Tricia who own forums have to spend money on lawyers to deal with his subpoenas and all the case filings. A lot of forum owners don't have that kind of money, so it not only causes them to shut down, but it discourages posters from speaking out.
    Last edited by Cherokee; November 21, 2006, 11:07 am at Tue Nov 21 11:07:56 UTC 2006.

  3. #291
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStrat
    I hope Lin Wood receives several copies of that article.
    That's being reported here too! on BBC:-

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6167930.stm
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  4. #292
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YumYum012
    California court: websites not liable for libel in third-party postings

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_z112019A.xml.html
    Commenting on the California case... at the end of the day, if the woman published a libellous letter on her website, that doesn't mean she is advocating the libel. She might not be - she might be saying "isn't this awful?". I agree that the originator of the libel should be the target of any lawsuits. If the libelous article/letter/e-mail is published by a third party, then they should be asked to take it down or retract it. If they refuse - THAT should be grounds for a lawsuit.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  5. #293
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    Me, too. But the problem is, underneath all the legalese, Lin Wood is suing for "assault" not libel.

    Wood knows he's on slippery ground when it comes to Internet free speech. He knows everyone would be up in arms and demanding his head on a platter if it got out in the media that he was trying to take away Internet freedoms. So, he's trying to get in the back door by suing for assault, not libel.

    That may be harder to prove, but the end result is the same. Lin Wood gets what he wants, which is private information regarding Internet posters through subpoenas. Once Wood sets case precedent, then he can build on that to get more and more information about anyone on the Net. Also, people like Tricia who own forums have to spend money on lawyers to deal with his subpoenas and all the case filings. A lot of forum owners don't have that kind of money, so it not only causes them to shut down, but it discourages posters from speaking out.
    If the Ramseys didn't have to hand over phone records why should Tricia or anyone else hand over information?

    If Tricia did hand over information couldn't she be sued by the person whose details she divulged?

    Has she a case for this being harrssment - that perhaps Wood is pursuing a personal vendetta against her, especially if a certain other person was warned beforehand and accidently 'lost' some posts?

    What about the ACLU?

  6. #294
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Candyland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber
    If the Ramseys didn't have to hand over phone records why should Tricia or anyone else hand over information?

    If Tricia did hand over information couldn't she be sued by the person whose details she divulged?

    Has she a case for this being harrssment - that perhaps Wood is pursuing a personal vendetta against her, especially if a certain other person was warned beforehand and accidently 'lost' some posts?

    What about the ACLU?
    No. If you read the TOS, it says that personal details may be handed over in the event of a lawsuit. That's pretty standard.

    If you go to the Wiki, you'll see that Wood tried to get the personal information of the Wiki manager - who had included UndrtheRadar's loony theory in the list of theories with a link to Topix. What was THAT about? Miss Marple, who runs the wiki had listed ALL theories and wasn't promoting any of them. It's just a record/encyclopaedia about the case.

    Fortunately, PBWiki responded with a great letter:-

    ....Likewise, no law under which we are bound compels us to disclose our usersí personally identifiable information by simple request or to restrict usersí use of our service, short of an order by a court of law, such as a subpoena from an applicable jurisdiction. PBwiki is proud to protect the privacy of its users to encourage free speech and open content collaboration.

    Therefore, we find the claims against our company to have no grounds in California or Federal law. As such, we will not be taking any action.

    Furthermore, you should be aware that these actions represent to us an attempt to stifle free and open discussion of issues by our members and, more broadly, by the Internet community as a whole. If online service providers had to worry about what their users linked to, itís unlikely that the rich, hyperlinked environment of the Internet could have come to fruition. This is exactly why online providers like PBwiki were granted protection by Congress from suits like this in the form of the Communications Decency Act. If you continue along your current course, we may explore other options available to us, e.g., OPG v Diebold.
    http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Leg...0Case#LibelLaw


    This amounts to little more than a SLAPP suit by Wood. Here, he is using UndrtheRadar to try and obtain personal information about other members of the community! However, if Wood pursued his case against PBWiki (or anyone), they'd have to hire a lawyer to handle the case and some hosts might not be able to afford that and would simply hand the information over (that's what Lin Wood would be hoping for). Either that or he might be hoping that the forums would simply close down rather than risk having to pay to defend frivolous lawsuits.

    I've seen libellous and potentially libellous accusations against Bill McReynolds and Fleet White on jameson's forum. I cannot honestly see that she will pay a lawyer to defend a subpoena for the personal information of those members - ESPECIALLY not now when she may be feeling less than happy with some of them.
    This is my opinion and it may not be copied in whole or in part without my written permission

  7. #295
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Born under a bad sign.
    Posts
    491

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber
    If the Ramseys didn't have to hand over phone records why should Tricia or anyone else hand over information?
    It wasn't the Ramseys that didn't hand over their phone records, it was Hunter and his band of idiots who wouldn't get the BPD the warrants to obtain the records from the cell phone company.

  8. #296
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    574

    Default

    Sorry

    But you get my point? This was murder and yet it was a struggle to even get phone records - why did they need a warrant? If there was nothing to hide, why not just hand them over? If their beloved intruder spent 5 hours plus in the house perhaps he used the phone? (he was stupid enough to practice writing, then write, the war and peace ransom note) As a parent wouldn't you hand over your grandmother if you thought it would help?

    This assault case is trivial in comparison, yet it seems a potential murder suspect has more rights than a forum owner...

  9. #297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amber
    Sorry

    But you get my point? This was murder and yet it was a struggle to even get phone records - why did they need a warrant? If there was nothing to hide, why not just hand them over? If their beloved intruder spent 5 hours plus in the house perhaps he used the phone? (he was stupid enough to practice writing, then write, the war and peace ransom note) As a parent wouldn't you hand over your grandmother if you thought it would help?

    This assault case is trivial in comparison, yet it seems a potential murder suspect has more rights than a forum owner...
    Amber, it's not only prudent, but Trial 101, for LE to get warrants for everything connected to a criminal case. That way, the evidence is not going to be thrown out on a technicality. Nor would LE end up being blamed for MISSING something that the prime suspects might not have given up, left out, etc., because it was incriminating.

    But you're absolutely right about the outrageousness of LE not getting those records. With all the high-powered and WORLD-CLASS investigators of the Ramseys, you'd think THEY'D DEMAND that LE look into those phone records as well...except that they weren't WORKING for the DA, they were working for THE PRIME SUSPECTS, and if they made that demand, then it turned out something INCRIMINATING was ON the records...they'd be the worst lawyers in the state.

    You see, this is the bind that the Ramseys always end up trying to talk their way out of: either they wanted to find the killer of their daughter, and therefore would have done ANYTHING LE asked; or they wanted to PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM BEING ARRESTED AND TRIED FOR THE MURDER. They can't have it both ways, though god knows they have TRIED.

    Not only could the killer have made a phone call from the home, but what about that MISSING CELL PHONE they try to pass off as WHY there were no calls on that record for December? What if the killer HAD found the phone and THAT was the connection? Maybe he called and talked to the maid? Or maybe he saw the CALL WAITING number from the home and tracked it? Maybe he made HIS OWN CALLS and THOSE COULD BE TRACKED TO SOMEONE WHO KNEW HIM?

    This is so elementary investigation, a KID could think of this. Which is why nobody is EVER going to convince me that that cell phone WAS missing, that the record for the month of DECEMBER 1996 wasn't erased, and that this wasn't done deliberately to cover-up INCRIMINATING CALLS THE RAMSEYS MADE THAT NIGHT DURING THE TIME THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ASLEEP.

    And this is why I'm never going to give John a pass.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.



Similar Threads

  1. Did John find JonBenet's body at 11 a.m. and not 1 p.m.?
    By Learnin in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: August 30, 2012, 3:15 pm, Thu Aug 30 15:15:54 UTC 2012
  2. To The Poster Who Questioned WS!
    By shannon1233 in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: October 9, 2006, 10:32 pm, Mon Oct 9 22:32:47 UTC 2006
  3. Why hasn't Lin Wood Sued the real Pornographers?
    By Scarpetta in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 14, 2003, 8:49 pm, Fri Nov 14 20:49:37 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •