 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM The background for this case is the Long Island community of Lawrence, NY in Nassau County. Pamela Greenbaum is an elected member of the Lawrence school board. With the recent influx of Orthodox Jews into Lawrence, (all who send their children to Yeshiva or private school), there has been a bitter battle for conrol of the school board between these new folks and the old guard whom Pamela Greenbaum represents. At a recent session of the school board Pamela Greenbaum was the deciding vote against the district expending money for certain remedial reading courses for private school children. Orthomom is an Orthodox Jewish housewife living in the community who maintains an anonymous blog on the internet dealing with current events affecting the Jewish community. Her blog focused extensively on Pamela Greenbaum's negative vote and its implications. During a heated and emotional discussion, one anonymous poster to the blog described Ms. Greenbaum as "an ugly bigoted anti-semite". This ruffled Pamela's feathers and she filed a defamation lawsuit against Orthomom claiming that she should have deleted that particular post which libeled her. Google was served with papers by Ms. Greenbaum's attorney, Adam Feder Esq. trying to force them to divulge the real name of Orthomom and the anonymous poster who posted the offending comment. Orthomom is defending the suit based upon First Ammenment rights of free speech. She also claims that since Pamela is a publicly elected official, the bar is set higher for criticism and defamation. If this lawsuit is allowed to go forward and succeed, it will be a tremendous blow to the first ammendment rights of every poster on the internet, including us here at Mudcat. With all the things we say on this forum about our illustrious president and vice president we would all be vulnerable. A Google search on Pamela Greenbaum will turn up all the information that you need to have an informed discussion about this matter here and now. SOL ZELLER |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM George W Bush is an honest, hard-working President. He has never fucked sheep and he never would. He served in the National Guard when others were dying in Vietnam. It was only through good fortune that he had to stay in the United States and not go to Vietnam. Today, he and some friends of his who do NOT have any connections with oil companies or Halliburton are sending other people's kids to war to die on their behalf. It has nothing to do with making millions of dollars. I once called Bush an asshole. I hereby retract that. There was no need to insult anal sphincters world-wide. That is all I have to say about that war-mongering idiot. Sincerely, Dick Cheney |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: bobad Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:10 PM Sue Me, Sue You Blues George Harrison You serve me And Ill serve you Swing your partners, all get screwed Bring your lawyer And Ill bring mine Get together, and we could have A bad time Its affidavit swearing time Sign it on the dotted line Hold your Bible in your hand Now all thats left is to Find yourself a new band . . . Were gonna play the sue me, sue You blues Were gonna play the sue me, sue You blues Hold the block on money flow Move it into joint escrow Court receiver, laughs, and thrills But in the end we just pay those Lawyers theit bills When you serve me And I serve you Swing your partners, all get screwed Bring your lawyer And Ill bring mine Get together, and we could have A bad time Were gonna play the sue me, sue You blues Im tired of playing the Sue me, sue you blues |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM Great song Bobad. But if this lawsuit is successful it will have very serious first ammendment implications. If Google's lawyers fail in their motion to dismiss, this blogger will have to spend mucho dinero to defend this action. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: RangerSteve Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:26 PM People who claim bigotry when someone doesn't agree with them need to be slapped. Hard. If you don't agree with me, you are anti-Hispanic, anti-Native American, anti-Scottish, anti-mixed blood. And I'll sue you. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: folk1e Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM But what if I am a(n) Hispanic Native American Scottish mixed blood (and I had better be with that list) and still disagree with you? Don't answer, I know ...... I'm an awkward sod! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:40 PM "People who claim bigotry when someone doesn't agree with them need to be slapped. Hard." That's assault. (Sorry, I just HAD to say it.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: pdq Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:41 PM If this lady has something to say she should have the guts to go to the board meeting and say it face-to-face. We have the right to free speech but not to abusive speech, character assassination, threats of violence or anonymity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:47 PM If you are dealing with a publicly elected official, as in this case, where do you draw the line between free speech and libel. Many worse things have been said on this forum about our publicly elected officials but none of them have sued us yet. It may yet happen if this lawsuit prevails. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:50 PM This is a folk music site. What they gonna get? If Bush sued everyone who'd called him an asshole, it would take his lawyers a decade to list the people he was suing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:54 PM Once you are a publicly elected official the standard of proof for libel is set much higher than if you would be a private individual. And that is what we are dealing with in this case. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,meself Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM Just think of how rich he'd be if he won, though - even if he got no more than say a penny a head ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: pdq Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:01 PM I don't think 'being elected' has that much to do with it. A 'public figure' is just as likely an athlete, show business personality or businessman. Just because people recognize you does't mean that's it's 'open season' so they can 'fire away'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:07 PM There is a difference. If you are setting public policy people have the right to dissent and sometimes in the heat of the argument emotion takes over and harsh words are used. Was it the INTENT of the blogger to personally slander Ms. Greenbaum or was the primary intent to cast her public policy in a negative light. That is what this lawsuit will hinge on. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:10 PM In terms of Bush and a penny a head: I think he and his friends have taken much more than that from the country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: catspaw49 Date: 26 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM Although a parochial issue, where is it written there are any first amendment rights on the internet? If the website is and can be accessed from world wide locations, do local laws rule? Just curious. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 09:02 PM Athough the first round will be in State court, it will eventually end up in Federal Court becuase it is a first ammendment case. A similar case was decided in favor of the blogger where a Rabbi right here in Rockland County was accused of sexual misconduct. His attorneys sued Google to get the name of the anonymuos blogger and a Federal judge tossed the case and ordered the Rabbi to pay the defendant's legal fees. Because Google is headquartered in California the Rabbi went direct to Federal court out there. Pamela Greenbaum's attorney is trying a different route by going into New York State court first. Even if he has a weak case in the opinion of many, he is trying to make Orthomom spend as much money as possible in legal fees. What he did not count on is the many lawyers who are ready to defend this action pro bono. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM There is a developing worldwide jurisprudence on defamation forum shopping. Here all parties and the vast preponderance of interested readers are in the US, which militates against non-US jurisdictions. By UK rules, this would be, if defamatory, libel, not slander. Also by UK rules much of the comment would be "mere vulgar abuse" not defamatory, but the charge of anti-semitism might well be potentially defamatory, although it puzzles me to see someone called "Greenbaum" accused of anti-semitism, that being at first blush a Jewish name. I also thought I remembered a fairly recent thread in which Rabbi-sol supported the efforts of a religious block-vote to make a school board sell assets to drive the cost to the community of the school board down, so I'm thinking it might be inconsistent here for him to defend the right of a religous block vote to drive the cost of the school board up. I also find the construct "bigoted anti-semite" odd. Is the blogger implying that there are anti-semites who are not bigoted? And finally, where does Google come in? DO they host the blog, or is it simply that there search engine caches parts of the blog? They just lost somewhere (I think it might have been Holland) on the basis that thier caching of parts of newspaper articles was an infringment of copyright, so that might be an indication that their search results amount to republication of the libel if there was a libel, but the UK case over the Motley Fool might indicate that once they are on notice of the defamation then if they do not delete it from their results they are publishers of it (if it is defamatory). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Feb 07 - 11:09 PM Hi Richard, Yes, Google does host the blog and they are being sued to force them to divulge the name of the anonymous blogger and poster. I am not taking a position on who is right or wrong with regard to the policies of the Lawrence School Board. I am only taking a position with regard to the constitutional rights of a blogger to crticize the policies of an elected public official. Yes, Pamela Greenbaum is Jewish. That is why the anonymous poster on Orthomom's blog could not have been seriously intending to defame or libel her by refrerring to her as "an ugly bigoted anti semite". It was just used as a figure of speech to attack her public policy vote. Orthomom was ready to delete the offending post had Pamela asked her to do so. Instead, Pamela through her attorney asked the judge to make sure that the post remained on the blog so that the evidence would not be destroyed. I hope this clarifies the situation. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Feb 07 - 03:10 AM I can't really comment on the curiosity of the particualar US rule - I have a feeling it partly turns on showing actual malice. We don't have that rule here in the UK and are only slowly developing branches of qualified privilege as defences for criticisms of politicians and officials and for "serious reportage". The Australians are ahead of us here. We do however have a rule that a local authority itself (eg Derbyshire county council) cannot be defamed - at all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: autolycus Date: 27 Feb 07 - 06:14 AM I assume there is a law of defamation in the U.S. and it also has the first amendment. How are those two reconciled normally in the U.S.? I take it Ms.Greenbaum was called an anti-semite because her vote was,in effect, against a Jewish school. There are such things as Jewish anti-Jews (a more correct phrase than 'anti-semite'). Alas. The comment of the anon blogger strikes me as that of someone angry and defensive and preferring violence,albeit verbal,to argument. Which reminds me of loads of people. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan Date: 27 Feb 07 - 12:52 PM "This ruffled Pamela's feathers and she filed a defamation lawsuit against Orthomom claiming that she should have deleted that particular post which libeled her." "Orthomom was ready to delete the offending post had Pamela asked her to do so. Instead, Pamela through her attorney asked the judge to make sure that the post remained on the blog so that the evidence would not be destroyed." Pam doesn't have a case since the blog remained on the site at her request. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Wolfgang Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:31 PM the first ammendment rights of every poster on the internet Rabbi, how you dare to argue that US constitutional rights apply to everyone on the world is beyond comprehension. The situation reminds me of Mudcat: Foolestroupe has repeatedly asked for the real name of "Martin Gibson". As far as I know the name has not been given to Foolestroupe. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Date: 27 Feb 07 - 01:48 PM "Pamela through her attorney asked the judge to make sure that the post remained on the blog so that the evidence would not be destroyed." Yes, what an extraordinarily strange claim, if true. All they needed to do was have someone hit the print button and/or save to disk, etc. "Rabbi, how you dare to argue that US constitutional rights apply to everyone on the world is beyond comprehension." I believe he was referring to the right of free speech as a universal "right" under natural law, but used first amendment as shorthand. I'm quite sure he meant no offense. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Feb 07 - 06:03 PM Wolfgang, I did not mean to apply US law to any other country where the laws are different. I was referring strictly to jurisdictions where the US constitution does apply. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:05 PM By demanding the retention of the item on the website the complainant must surely thereby have waived damages in respect of such retention and resulting republications, thereafter. But not those resulting from the presence of the item to the date of the request, and not in respect of injunctive relief once the request was withdrawn. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan Date: 27 Feb 07 - 10:25 PM If the site was willing to remove the offending comments, once a request was made, doesn't that absolve them from damages? Perhaps they are absolved only if they disclose the name of the poster. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:25 PM The request was never made. Orthomom said that she would have been willing to remove the offending post had a request been made. Instead she got the summons directing her not to remove the post in order to preserve possible evidence. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:30 PM I guess the question is whether or not Orthomom is responsible for every post on the site. Seems to me there are plenty of t.v. networks that cover themselves with a disclaimer such as - The opinions expressed are those of ... and do not reflect the opinions off... I would think it would be up to Pam G. to prove that it was, in fact, the opinion of Orthomom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,J Date: 27 Feb 07 - 11:44 PM Sol you couldnt be more wrong about this. Mrs. Greenbaum (yes, a Jew) sought a court order directing Google to divulge the names of the blog authors(s) and offending posters in order to frame a libel complaint against the actual person or persons who posted libelous statements about her. Orthomom is not defending any suit right now although she may try to intervene and prevent what Google has, with the judge's guidance, already agreed to do. The Court documents are all posted at the OM blog if you dont believe me. Your rights here at Mudcat are not threatened: the First Amendment does not protect and has never protected defamatory speech. Calling a Jew a bigot in the context of the Lawrence School Board could be libel per se - bloggers do not usually commit such gaffes even as they criticize individuals and discuss the issues of the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 28 Feb 07 - 12:07 AM Guest J, You seem to be more familiar with the case than I am. Has Google in fact agreed to divulge the identity of Orthomom and/or the offending poster ? Also, how do you reason that our rights here on Mudcat are not threatened when remarks made on this forum against President Bush and other high public officials have been much stronger than those made against Mrs. Greenbaum ? Does not the First ammendment apply (or not apply) equally in both cases? I eagerly await your comments. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:37 AM The post in question was anonymous, and the intent was malicious--the question is, is the publication of anonymous, malicious speech, a protected right? A wider issue is, to what degree is their a right to participate in public political debate anonymously, particularly when that participation includes dissemination of speech with malicious intent. How would you feel about people attending a public meeting with their faces concealed, with sheets for instance? And how would you feel if their "participation" consisted of malicious and inflamatory speech? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 01 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM M. Ted, I am not trying to defend anyone or take sides in this case. I am just trying to clarify the issue. My main qustion is "Why should an elected official of a local school board be entitled to greater protection under the law than the elected President or Vice President of the USA who have been villified to a much greater degree right here on Mudcat" ? If this suit is successful are we on this forum not all in the same boat ? SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:42 PM If the suit is successful, it will effect all internet communication. Lets wait and see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Date: 01 Mar 07 - 03:31 PM >>My main question is "Why should an elected official of a local school board be entitled to greater protection under the law than the elected President or Vice President of the USA who have been vilified to a much greater degree right here on Mudcat" << (1) The school board official Greenbaum is not entitled to greater protection than GWB. GWB and Greenbaum have equal rights to sue their respective tormentors. They are equally entitled to have their cases thrown out of court. (2) I think you may be more worried than necessary because of the technical definition of malice being less than clear-cut. ("A false statement of fact that was uttered with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.") I think you should focus on the fact that in their respective arenas the speech is question is simply not defamatory in the first place. That is to say, calling Greenbaum an ugly anti-semite is not defamatory, and calling GWB an asshole baby killer is not defamatory. Both are arguably "true" or "not true," so that you could end up in expensive litigation over each assertion. However, in context, they are not defamatory speech. Defamatory speech must "harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." In politics and with political editorials, the courts recognize not only the need to protect such speech with wide leeway, but also that political and editorial rants and hubris do NOT tend to damage reputations of politicians, they are merely part of the landscape into which the policiticans have voluntarily entered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted Date: 01 Mar 07 - 11:27 PM It can be reasonably argued that the intent of this malicious and demonstratively false utterance was inflamatory--and that, given the highly polarized and volatile situation, the utterances could incite others to displays of hostility that might escalate to personal violence. Your comparison, Rabbi Sol, is flawed. If someone was close enough to the President to impact his physical well being, and they shouted out inflamatory acccusations of the type that you describe, their would be immediate action--- These false utterances could incite others to confront Ms. Greenbaum when she goes out in public, to vandalize her home, to make threatening, anonymous phone calls, and other such things--in fact, it may have already begun to happen. Think about this---deliberately false statements are not protected under the law, utterances intended to inflame are not protected under the law-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 02 Mar 07 - 01:11 PM M. Ted, In other words because the President is protected by the Secret Service to the point where no one can get close to him and Mrs. Greenbaum is not, that is the deciding factor. Is this a true calrification of your position or am I missing something ? SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 02:22 PM Have we a US attorney with relevant experience in the house? Or don't those provide information freely? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Date: 02 Mar 07 - 03:15 PM I guess it doesn't show, but yes. I've had defamation suits successfully dismissed many times - twenty or more? I've never defended one brought by an elected public official, but I should think it easier than breathing. A competent judge will throw Greenbaum out in the early rounds, in any US jurisdiction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted Date: 02 Mar 07 - 04:39 PM Neither you nor I decide anything, Rabbi Sol--I am just pointing out that your analogy doesn't really work because it is possible for someone who , in word or deed, makes remarks that can be construed as threatening to the president to be prosecuted. To clarify my point again, my thought is that it can be argued that anonymous and false utterances have been made and propagated with the intent of inciting hatred against a public official-- From my point of view, I am skeptical of anonymous bloggers who involve themselves in the political process-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Date: 02 Mar 07 - 11:16 PM Interesting, Heric. The basic definition is very similar in the UK - matter is defamatory (subject to a few twiddles) if it reduces the subject in the eyes of right-thinking (see Byrne-v-Dean, accusation of providing information to police not defamatory because right thinking members of society would favour such action) members of society generally or tends to cause them to be shunned or avoided. This is very similar to the definition you cite, but not the same. It was the difference that made me wonder whether someone had looked up a bit and then filtered their own utterance through the American political perspective... Then you enter the murky realms of the defences such as (possibly, in this case) qualified privilege or (improbably) justification or fair comment. Trade libel may add causes of action where there is an attribution of incompetence in a trade profession or calling. I find it almost inconceivable that an accusation of anti-semitism is not defamatory, particularly of a person holding some public office. An accusation of bigotry would be close. Once upon a time I used to advise a number of UK TV companies on avoiding libel litigation, and I would have had no hesitation whatsoever in telling them not to broadcast an accusation of antisemitism unless they had several smoking guns to back it up. Nonetheless, it tends to appear that the claim so far has been an exercise in evidence gathering, so the principal issue is whether Google may be obliged to reveal the identity of the blogger so that the blogger may be sued (which latter action might succeed or fail) so the current analogy is rather that of the RIAA seeking identities of file sharers so that they may be sued for copyright infringment (which latter actions might succeed or fail). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: heric Date: 03 Mar 07 - 12:15 AM On the defamation part of it, how about looking at it this way: The anonymous poster (as I understand it) does not pretend to have any fact-based, special knowledge of Ms. Greenbaum. He or she is not saying "I know, as fact, that Ms. Greenbaum once poked Jewish kids in the eyes with sticks, whenever she had an opportunity," or "I know that Ms. Greenbaum was a member of a Nazi-worshipping club, and here is some of their literature." Mr. Anon is saying (as I understand it) that the position Ms. Greenbaum has taken on this issue of public concern is a position that a bigoted anti-Semite would take. Maybe he is even saying "Ms. Greenbaum's positions on a string of these public issues have demonstrated a track record indicative of bigotry and anti-Semitism." In either case, the anon poster is STILL talking about *issues* of public concern, even if presented as a "character" statement. That's similar to why I think you could call the President of the US a "baby-killer" for instigating the hostilities in Iraq. The speaker's discernable intent behind using the words could be argued in various ways, but in reasonable application, they are addressing policy issues, not a "true" or "false" assertion that GW Bush has ever killed or been responsible for killing a baby. (It's also possible - I really don't know - that anti-Semitism issues in policy, law and general public discourse are more sensitive in Europe and the UK than they are in the States, so that the way I see it is not the same way it would be seen on the right side of the pond.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,Scoville at Dad's Date: 03 Mar 07 - 12:50 AM I find it almost inconceivable that an accusation of anti-semitism is not defamatory, particularly of a person holding some public office. An accusation of bigotry would be close. Once upon a time I used to advise a number of UK TV companies on avoiding libel litigation, and I would have had no hesitation whatsoever in telling them not to broadcast an accusation of antisemitism unless they had several smoking guns to back it up. That's what I was thinking. Whether Orthomom--if she even wrote it--meant it or was blowing off steam, it was at best a very careless and ill-considered choice of epithets in light of the kind of dust accusations of anti-Semitism have been kicking up in the news recently. According to this blog post, Orthomom did not call Ms. Greenbaum any of the above. So, which is it? She either did or didn't. If not, there's no case. If she did, I guess they'll have to take it from there, although it sounds like a lot of crap to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Date: 03 Mar 07 - 02:44 AM It is beginning to look as if the USA searches first for the true meaning of the words used, and then addresses that found meaning, if I correctly read the above. The UK does not do that. It searches first for the for the legally available meanings of the word. Plainly the legally available meanings of the word "anti-semite" include the meaning that the object of the word is in fact an anti-semite. Similarly, in the UK, in order to justify an accusation that a person is a liar you must show not merely that they have told a lie (perhaps in relation to the subject of controversy) but that they are a habitual liar, for that is an available meaning of the word "liar". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 03 Mar 07 - 09:55 PM Scoville, Orthomom did not herself write the offensive post. An anonymous poster to her blog did. She is being accused of not deleting the offensive post in a timely manner. And now she can not delete it because it would be destroying evidence. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST, trackwatcher Date: 04 Mar 07 - 12:06 AM I can see how free blog hosts, such as Blogger and Wordpress, might feel more comfortable when registering bloggers and commenters to posts do not volunteer their regular offline names when they are not required. If IP address logs and email addresses are obtained by litigating parties, much of the investigation might move to email providers and ISPs (Internet service providers) and to records of computer activity and digital transmissions. It can make a lot of difference what digital information is personally identifiable, and who has it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:12 PM Trackwatcher, Your post is right to the point and hits the nail right on the head. Given the post 9/11 climate that exists today, anything and everything can be considered fair game in the name of national security. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM >> I find it almost inconceivable that an accusation of anti-semitism is not defamatory, particularly of a person holding some public office. . . . It is beginning to look as if the USA searches first for the true meaning of the words used, and then addresses that found meaning, if I correctly read the above.<< I've been pondering. The answer is (of course) "yes and no." US defamation laws derive from British common law, and for private plaintiffs complaining about "private" issues (i.e. issues lacking public a interest component), I think you would find rather minor distinctions from the law as you know it (including a presumption that defamatory speech is false – giving rise to your concerns that your clients be able to prove up their defenses). However, if the speech has a public interest component, the First Amendment changes everything drastically. If the speech has a public interest component, and the plaintiff is a public figure (as Greenbaum), the bar is set even higher. There are two major cases that explain it (and googling should take care of it). The first is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964), which clearly set forth the Constitutional override of common law by the First Amendment and the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The second is a case called Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 769 (1986). The Supreme Court expressly reversed a common-law presumption that defamatory speech is false, and changed the allocation of burdens that you are discussing. (If the plaintiff is a public figure and raises an issue of public concern (as with Greenbaum), she must prove scienter (knowledge) and falsity. If the plaintiff is a private figure but raises an issue of public concern, then the plaintiff must prove at least negligence and falsity to recover actual damages. If the plaintiff is a private figure and raises no issue of public concern, then the Constitution does "not necessarily force any change in at least some of the . . . common-law landscape." – Hepps.) But even beyond allocation of burdens, I honestly think the trial judge will rule that the speech in question was not defamatory in the first place, as I wrote above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Date: 04 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM "Trackwatcher, Your post is right to the point and hits the nail right on the head. Given the post 9/11 climate that exists today, anything and everything can be considered fair game in the name of national security." Holy crap Sol - I really missed what your main question was! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 04 Mar 07 - 04:23 PM Thanks counselor. You have just answered it to my satisfaction in your previous post. SOL |
