Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by RiverRat, Nov 9, 2006.
We're going to have to bail you out of jail again, aren't we?
As you all know I'd love to be 'UnderTheLaw' :cop:
Some things go without saying, Free.
LOL, I just knew you'd understand.
shamey shamey shamey
personally, I think it would be hilarious if undrtheradar (from Michigan, I believe?) turned out to be a poster we all know and love......
California court: websites not liable for libel in third-party postings
That seems fairly definitive.
Now what about privacy laws? Can Forums be forced into divulging information about users?
They could certainly be caused a great deal of expense in fighting it. I read some real horror stories when the ESPC were trying to get hold of the embroiderists personal information (they didn't succeed by the way - the engaged the support of the EFF who fought it and won).
Your privacy also has an extra layer of protection on a board like this where your personal information is not required for membership. All Tricia can provide is your IP number. A lawyer would then have to subpoena your ISP for your personal information and many ISPs would routinely inform you of this and give you an opportunity to fight it with your own lawyer. US law is a bit crazy in this respect because only at THIS stage, would the lawyer who is trying to get ahold of your personal information have to prove just cause to a court. In the UK, the lawyer has to prove just cause BEFORE he can get a subpoena.
Just think of jameson's poor members. If anyone served a lawsuit on jameson for the personal information of her members, she couldn't say she only knew their IP numbers. Either SHE would have to pay a lawyer loadsbucks to fight it or simply hand over the information. What do you think she'd do? I wouldn't like to bet she'd fight it. Her members are possibly assuming that any demand for their personal information would have to have "merit". Not so. Ask machine embroiderists!
I hope Lin Wood receives several copies of that article. :wood:
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.
That's being reported here too! on BBC:-
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.
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? :uk:
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:-
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Legal Issues Surrounding JBR Case#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.
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.
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... :curses:
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.
Separate names with a comma.