| Author |
Message |
    
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4286
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:23 am: | 
|
Good news for the brothers Ross, and for anybody who favors the free exchange of ideas (even if it gets a little rough sometimes):
quote:Court: Web site publisher not liable for e-messages
Panel upholds earlier ruling on protecting anonymous opinion.
TRENTON | Web site operators are not liable for electronic messages posted by anonymous visitors, even if the content of the postings is intentionally malicious or potentially libelous, an appeals court ruled Monday.
The Appellate Division of New Jersey Superior Court ruled that Stephen Moldow, whose ''Eye on Emerson'' Web site contained information on local government activities and included a discussion forum, was immune from liability under a provision of federal communications law. The panel's decision affirmed a ruling by a lower court.
''We accomplished what we needed to accomplish — to purge the town of this Web site,'' said Gina Calogero, one of two Emerson council members who sued Moldow, the site's publisher, for damages.
Calogero and Vincent Donato, who both resigned from council in 2002, claimed the site's electronic bulletin board contained negative messages from third parties that attacked them professionally and personally.
It was not immediately clear when the Web site was dismantled. A call to Richard Mahoney, the lawyer representing Moldow, was not returned Monday.
Fictitiously named anonymous posters also were named in the suit, though the claim against the fictitious defendants ultimately was dropped, as were attempts to learn their identities.
Cite: http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b15_3nj-webfeb01,0,6960577.story?coll=all-ne wslocal-hed
One interesting aspect is that the proprietors of a website are still protected, even if they do take steps to police the site and reprimand folks who violate the rules: "The defendants argued that Moldow had 'actively participated in selective editing, deletion and rewriting of anonymously posted messages,' and therefore was responsible for the content of the postings. The appeals panel disagreed, saying Congress has crafted rules for electronic publishers that differ significantly from those for publishers of print materials, granting 'broad immunity' to e-publishers in its 1996 Communications Decency Act."
An unfortunate aspect is that the website in the lawsuit was driven out of business, by the tactics of the litigants. The politician quoted seemed happy to have shut down a source of local information, just because of the mis-use of that source by some of the participants. The court decision allows those online sources of information some protection, so that more, not less, information and opinions can be exchanged. That's a good thing. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5132
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Is there a way to get a copy of the ruling? |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4288
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:39 am: |
|
Presto!
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5942-02.pdf |
ML
Supporter
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 2231
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:47 am: |
|
Kudos to Maplewood's TC members for having the good sense not to sue MOL over the rantings of "fictitiously named anonymous posters."
 |
Rick B
Citizen
Username: Ruck1977
Post Number: 459
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 12:03 pm: |
|
They talked about this on Curtis and Kuby this morning. I didn't call in, but they seemed to lack what its like being in an online community. People usually know who they can take seriously, and those that rant and BS are usually outed in some way... |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 702
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
MOL has a uncommonly fairly large group of contrarian posters plus a few rational thoughtful posters such as Joan, tempered by an opinionated , but generally fair moderator aka Dave.
My NY's resolution was to be a little more respectful online, but only a little....
Depends who I'm posting to. |
Mayor McCheese
Citizen
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 145
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 12:21 am: |
|
Reflective,
That might not have been a good idea. Almost every new year's resolutrion ends a terrible failure. Still, there is always the hope that this is in the 1% that makes it. I say good luck to you. |
Michael K. Mc Kell
Citizen
Username: Greenerose
Post Number: 556
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
I'm happy to hear..... What about the individual who posted it? Are they subject to any action? |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 705
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 8:43 pm: |
|
Mayor McC
Thanks for the encouragement. Only 1%? That's a bummer. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5148
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 10:38 pm: |
|
Thanks for the link, Nohero. Now I have some light reading for the weekend. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5359
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Not so fast.
Just learned we're being sued along with the superintendent, the board of education and John Does 1-100,etc.,etc. for what I gather is "allowing" to be reprinted on MOL a story in the Star-Ledger and a letter from the superintendent regarding the expulsion of two students in '03. I suppose others are being sued for allegedly saying those things that were printed and reprinted. I barely recall this incident, so it's quite strange to be served this civil complaint (along with my brother, Jamie, and MaplewoodOnline, LLC). Regardless of the outcome, we have to pony up over $400 in court fees for simply being named defendents.
Any legal angels out there who want to rescue an online community from oblivion? Can we assemble a crack team of regulars who are of the lawyerly persuasion to offer comfort and assistance? I'll pitch in my entire moderator salary of $100/mo. for the duration. (I bet the boys at Sbenois & Sbenois can spare a few hours to keep the show going. Hey Mayor Profeta: I'll give you a pass on any future party changes if you help.)
Or should we simply walk into court with the following printed in large letters on a poster: "the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. section 230 protects all persons who host discussion forums, whether or not they are Internet Service Providers like AOL".
This kind of stinks. I'm off to take photos of a wine bar. That should help.
It's one thing to try to find redress for a wrong and quite another to try to ruin a successful online community that offers a lot of positive attributes. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Maybe something positive can come from this, but I can't see it yet.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 5631
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
That's awful!
I don't remember, but when we sign up, do we get a warning that we should not post copyrighted materials here? If you put up such a warning, maybe that would satisfy the plaintiffs. |
sac
Supporter
Username: Sac
Post Number: 1839
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Maybe we'd better promote the tip jar again (?) |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 2649
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Now would be a good time for some NATIONAL PUBLICITY!
-s.
BTW: Shoulda known something was up as soon as I saw Marie benignly posting about fortifying/beautifying CHS... Now let's watch her try to distance herself from the suit against the Rosses. If what's happening is for real, then "two-faced" is too kind a description for Ms. Stratechuk. |
Dego Diva
Citizen
Username: Fmingione
Post Number: 269
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Can you enlighten some of us newer memebers as to what you're talking about Soda. Who is she and why is she two faced? |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 2652
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 6:39 pm: |
|
If Marie Stratechuk or her husband is NOT the instigator of this suit, I'll be quite ready to admit that I jumped the gun, even though I still think she has more in common with Janus than she'd like to admit.
Dego: Marie's hubby Michael has offered himself up as the proxy plaintiff in a suit against the BOE which is being brought by the Thomas More Law Center. If you're curious, just run a quick MOL search, and you'll find out all about it.
-s.
BTW: Dave/Jamie: Who's behind the suit??? |
Albatross
Citizen
Username: Albatross
Post Number: 527
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Soda - see the 'Getting Sued' thread. |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 2654
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:23 pm: |
|
Jumped the gun, but my heart's in the right place anyhow... |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1269
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:14 pm: |
|
No it's not, and South Orange Dad owes me an apology.
|
extuscan
Citizen
Username: Extuscan
Post Number: 436
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Does it cost less to name people in a lawsuit, or to be named in a lawsuit like Dave? Does naming additional people in a lawsuit add anything to the filing cost over naming only one person? When you are falsely named, are you entitled to fees from the filer automatically, or do you have to file against them? Messy! I'd call my lawyer to ask but the phone would wake up Mom too
--John |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 749
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 11:41 pm: |
|
Soda- you really need to rename yourself as
"I shoot from the hip" or
"I don't know what i am talking about I just mouth off, right or wrong."
Soda - your unthinking accusations are precisely what gives mostly responsible posters a bad rep.
Soda - you need to take a deep breath and step off the board for two weeks.
After a sincere apology to marie. |
Just The Aunt
Supporter
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 574
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 12:45 am: |
|
Now's the time to call the clowns at 101.5. Carlton and Rosie LOVE stuff like this!!! He's on his free speech kick and ticked the Assembly censored him. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 13247
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 1:26 am: |
|
Soda, you're going to need to muster up a big ••• apology to my Marie. The little one wasn't nearly good enough. And Michael deserves one as well.
They are both great neighbors and great people. |
Soda
Supporter
Username: Soda
Post Number: 2655
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
Sbenois: Like I said, I jumped the gun, assuming (& thereby perhaps making an ••• of myself ) that Marie & Michael -- just the swellest of folks, who (as we all know) have absolutely nothing but the welfare of our community at heart -- were, unthinkably, involved in a suit against the BOE, the Super, et al...
How could I have been so WRONG??? What could have possibly made me think that your pals the Stratechucks would EVER engage in such a costly, wrong-headed, and divisive litigation? My G-d! What was I thinking? WRONG WRONG WRONG!
Reflective: Naturally, you couldn't know this, but "I shoot from the hip" and "I don't know what i am talking about I just mouth off, right or wrong." were my second and first choices for a user name (typographically and grammatically corrected, of course). One was already taken and the other was just too long, though, so I settled on Soda.
As to a sudden and unexpected wandering from my well-worn path of "mostly responsible" posting, I confess: Strawberry made me do it. That said,
Marie: I sincerely regret all the pain and suffering you and your lovely husband must have endured during the long and lonely sixteen hours since I heinously postulated the idiotic idea that you two might have anything to do with a bogus suit against anyone, ever...
And to Dave and Jamie, in whose defense I sprang to my keyboard and fired off the aforementioned spurious hipshots: I've got yer back, dudes, but I'm taking off for a couple of weeks (down in Boca with the Oracle). I'll be lurking on my wireless laptop when I'm not hustling on the shuffleboard courts, though, never fear...
-s.
BTW: Gotta give some dap to Marie for figuring out that "Soda" stands for "South Orange dad"! "Clever girl..." |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 322
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Duh Soda I think you posted what yur name manet a while ago! |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 753
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Soda - almost everyone has known about south orange dad for months. Sorry to disappoint.
Suggest you go cold turkey from MOL while you are in Boca. You will come back more focussed. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Nohero's post beginning this thread is right on point. I looked up the case decided by the Appellate Division on January 31st. If my sources are correct about this law suit (are there details on another thread?)the Brothers Ross should have little trouble having the suit against them dismissed post haste.
By the way the filing fee for a civil action in NJ is $200.00, no matter how many defendants are named. The filing fee for an Answer is $135.00, so I don't know where dave got the figure of $400.00 from. Since Dave and Jamie operate MOL together I would think they could file one joint Answer.
Since this is clearly a Free Speech issue, why not call the ACLU? |
Strawman
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 4590
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
For the record, not to pick on Nohero but once again his "information" has been proven incorrect.
Nohero's track record of getting it wrong is absolutely incredible. From Gore will win to Dean will win to Kerry will win, to Mcgreevey will be great gov't, etc. etc. etc.
Nohero, I got to get March Madness picks from ya.. If I go with the opposite, I'll make a killing.. |
jamie
Moderator
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 800
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 7:58 pm: |
|
anon - you are correct we should be able to file one motion for Dave, Maplewood Online and myself. That's a relief. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Reflective - I think Soda was being sarcastic about Marie's sleuth skills - he posted SO Dad himself a while ago.
Soda - are you really in Boca? |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 4367
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 10:55 am: |
|
"For the record, not to pick on Nohero but once again his 'information' has been proven incorrect."
Howzat? My original post was made before the lawsuit was even filed. I can't help it if the plaintiffs' attorney doesn't do her homework, and files a lawsuit that is directly contrary to NJ law.
Far from being incorrect, I think I was able to provide assurance to the Ross brothers that under the law they're protected, no matter how many offensive posts are made.
Not to mention any names, of course ... |
Michael
Citizen
Username: Michael
Post Number: 798
Registered: 1-2002
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2005 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Well it may become interesting when John Does turn into real names. |
Taylor M
Citizen
Username: Anotherusername
Post Number: 331
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 2:23 am: |
|
Not going to happen Michael. The Courts have already ruled in another case -MUCH worse then this B.S. The owners of a message board were not obligated to release the names of the posters.
The other case involved people posting very negative comments about a business. (did NOT happen on MOL). Maybe some has a link to the article about the case. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5383
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Starting to put the complaint online
http://www.maplewoodonline.com/pleasehelp/
Leaving out first 3 counts, as MOL ain't in those. As of now, pages 20-30 are online, all of the fourth count. |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1673
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
Started to read the Complaint. They are suing Renee Pollack's daughter for defending her mother! They are suing Carol Barry-Austin, PTA leader and wife of the South Orange Municipal Judge. They are suing numerous unnamed members of Temple Beth-El apparently for receiving information from Mrs. Pollack and disseminating it to other unknown parties! if they are "unknown" how does anyone "know" if anything was disseminated to them? I am not sure if "The Elders of Zion" have also been named as defendants. For some reason, they do not appear to be suing the News-Record! |
anon
Citizen
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1674
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Dave and Jamie:
It is clear that MOL is immune from suit. Before this goes any further, I suggest you have an attorney write a strong letter to the plaintiffs' attorney pointing out clearly and strongly the fact that MOL is absolutely immune under the law, demanding that you two and MOL be immediately dropped as defendants without the further necessity of filing formal pleadings and threatening that if you are not immediately dropped as defendants you will not only seek sanctions under the Frivilous Law Suit Law but that you will immediately file Ethics Complaints against plaintiffs' attorneys with the appropriate District Ethics Committee. All one has to do to file an ethics complaint is write a letter.
The suit is more than frivilous. It's scandalous and perhaps even Anti-Semetic! |
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 765
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Thanks anon for providing perspective. |
marie
Citizen
Username: Marie
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
When this is all said and done with, can we talk about gang activity at CHS again?
|
Reflective
Citizen
Username: Reflective
Post Number: 768
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 10:57 pm: |
|
why not continue under education "gun at CHS"?
Or start a new thread.
The answer is yes and why wait? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page