| Author | Message | ||
     D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5448 Registered: 4-1998  |
Are the teachers with us or against MOL? The silence is deafening. After the difficulties of '90/'91 I did pro-bono work for SOMEA to help during a difficult time for teachers. Before that, I helped raise the funds used to buy the 13" Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain scope that is used by the Physics Dept., which Mr. Dennis is a member of. Now I'm asking you, SOMEA, to pressure Mr. Dennis to have his Please let us know. It will be bad karma for all teachers if this continues. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4396 Registered: 10-1999  |
Much as I hope you and MOL are dropped from the suit, Dave, an attorney really can't listen to a spouse, parent, cousin, neighbor, or "screen-name" in deciding whether to drop a defendant from the suit. An attorney is supposed to carry out the wishes of his or her client. That having been said, an attorney is also supposed to tell the client about the applicable law, and about things such as legal protections for message boards and immunity from suit. An attorney is also supposed to tell a client, "No, I can't do that, because that would be a frivolous lawsuit." As a matter of fact, if an attorney does something which could cost the client money (such as file a frivolous lawsuit against an online message board), that attorney should notify the client immediately of the danger that a penalty could be assessed against the client. I suppose the teachers could suggest that the attorney should really consider discussing these matters with the clients. | ||
| LibraryLady(ncjanow) Supporter Username: Librarylady Post Number: 2262 Registered: 5-2001  |
That applies I guess if the defendants are the ones behind the suit and not the attorney with a separate agenda. But of course, I know nothing about anything like that. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4398 Registered: 10-1999 |
If an attorney uses the clients to further a separate agenda, without giving the clients proper advice, that also is a problem. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 83 Registered: 10-2004 |
Is it really frivolous? After reading the charges it seems that a serious invasion of privacy and illegal 'leaking' of documents has occured. While I hope the MOL is dropped from the suit, the plaintiffs seem to have legitimate grievances and they appear to be in fact harmed. | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 20 Registered: 1-2005 |
there's no guarantey but libel suits involving public matters get dismissed early and often. As much as possible, coast on the work done by the municipal defendants' lawyers in seeking dismissal. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4399 Registered: 10-1999 |
Hoops: Naming MOL and the Messrs. Ross as defendants in this case is very likely a frivolous legal action, and there's a law against that. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 84 Registered: 10-2004 |
So in effect if some confidential information obtained illegally about anyone or anything is posted to any website or bulletin board there is no law against it? I am not affected by this lawsuit in any way but if my personal information was disclosed and allowed to be displayed on a website it would pretty much tick me off. What is frivolous about that? | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5450 Registered: 4-1998 |
This is (part of) the federal law about the treatment of ISPs. (c) Protection for "good samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material. (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). | ||
| No ID Citizen Username: Noid Post Number: 4 Registered: 2-2005 |
So we should sue everytime we're "ticked off"? Come on. If you want to sue, sue the leaking source. You think Paris Hilton sued every single website that carried her scandelous video? How ridiculous would that be! | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5451 Registered: 4-1998 |
This doesn't mean the plaintiffs don't have a case against others, including the News-Record. The reason the News-Record is left out of the complaint is likely because certain parties don't want unfavorable coverage. Who could that be? | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2005 |
Hoops: Don't jump to the conclusion that what's said in any legal complaint is true. | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5452 Registered: 4-1998 |
The greatest use of the internet is to exchange ideas. If all of a sudden ISPs could be sued for what a third-party posted on their web site (AND MIND YOU, PLAINTIFFS NEVER REQUESTED THE INFORMATION BE REMOVED!!!!), no sane person would run an open web site. No one would post on one. With that said, we run a responsible site and if Hoops had personal information posted by someone else and requested it be removed, we would do so even though by law we are not required to do so. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-2004 |
Please understand that I am not attacking Dave, this board or any other poster here. I think the board is great and that it is a valuable public service. But - I believe the plaintiffs have sued the leaking source plus anyone or thing associated with what has hurt them. No Id - Remember that the plaintiffs in this case were minors at the time and certainly not public figures ala Paris Hilton. They were private individuals who were held up to unfair scrutiny. Including the publication of confidential, private school records. Eric - I was not a MOL member at the time and I do not remember exactly what was published in the News-Record re their case but I do recall the controversy regarding the incident at the high school. I thought at the time and still do that the school administration was totally out of line and that this is the end result of administration going too far. D. - again I believe that this is a properly run site and that you should not have been included on the list of plaintiffs. | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 22 Registered: 1-2005 |
That's long before my time too. I'm a Millburnweb casataway. Is it still possible to find the postings in the archives? They are not public figures for all purposes but this was an incident of public concern. That doesn't mean everything that came out should have. I'd like to see it. | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5453 Registered: 4-1998 |
There's a link through this page: http://www.maplewoodonline.com/pleasehelp Click on "letter" | ||
| D. Moderator Username: Dave Post Number: 5454 Registered: 4-1998 |
This is the archive page, where you can access all parts of the topic /discus/messages/3130/18558.html?1062640036 | ||
| Eric Wertheim Citizen Username: Bub Post Number: 23 Registered: 1-2005 |
Done. Thank you. | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2091 Registered: 3-2003 |
For what it's worth: When I first heard and read about the lunchroom incident I formed an opinion unfavorable to the kids involved, and very favorable to Renee Pollack, the administration, and the school board. Posts made here on MOL by the DEFENDERS of the kids were a significant part of what convinced me the kids were out of line--their tone was high-handed, full of all sorts of special pleading, and basically aroused my contempt. I recall in particular one person using the term "young children" to defend high school students' inability to goverrn their own belligerant behavior. Being disrespected, being hungry, of course the "young children" misbehaved. But I kept reading and I discussed the incident with others, and my view changed: perhaps the incident was one event and the idiots making all the noise and claiming racism were a separate thing. Perhaps Pollack could have handled the situation better. Perhaps things weren't so cut and dried as I thought. After all, I'm quite critical of the school board and the admin in other circumstances; why should I assume they were blameless here? That is where my opinion stood, and that is where it remained--until now. Now that these' kids' attorney is suing MOL, I believe second-guessing my initial reaction was wrong. At this point, I don't really give a damn whether Renee Pollack behaved perfectly. I think no amount of the kowtowing to teenage sensitivities she seems to have been expected to perform would have been sufficient to keep her from being called a racist. And so I am now willing to give her a complete pass. I am willing to give the admin and the school board the benefit of the doubt and assume they acted with near-perfect rectitude in issuing suspensions and requiring apologies. It is the actions of the kids' attorneys, striking out at everything in their path, that have led me to the conclusion that their cause is not just. It's one thing to sue the school district--that's the party that gored your ox. It's another to attack a message board in an attempt to shut down free speech--speech that once included opinion that disposed me favorably toward the young adults you claim to be protecting, but are merely using to fuel a meretricious controversy. This is a kind of first-amendment terrorism. It should not only not be tolerated, it should be punished, and if it is at all feasible, I hope that the brothers Ross see fit to countersue. | ||
| Meandtheboys Citizen Username: Meandtheboys Post Number: 255 Registered: 12-2004  |
Dave: Have you contacted any of the network news programs? ABC, NBC, CBS. They always seem to be looking for story leads. What about the NY Times, Star Ledger? If this is indeed the threat to the first amendment we all believe it to be, wouldn't they be interested? |
