|
26 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM (#1980019) Subject: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 02:23 PM (#1980027) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:10 PM (#1980339) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: bobad 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:15 PM (#1980341) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:26 PM (#1980360) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: RangerSteve 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:38 PM (#1980369) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: folk1e 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! |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:40 PM (#1980372) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace "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.) |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:41 PM (#1980373) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: pdq 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. |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:47 PM (#1980378) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:50 PM (#1980382) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace 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. |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:54 PM (#1980388) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 07:56 PM (#1980391) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,meself Just think of how rich he'd be if he won, though - even if he got no more than say a penny a head ... |
|
26 Feb 07 - 08:01 PM (#1980395) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: pdq 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'. |
|
26 Feb 07 - 08:07 PM (#1980401) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 08:10 PM (#1980405) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Peace In terms of Bush and a penny a head: I think he and his friends have taken much more than that from the country. |
|
26 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM (#1980407) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: catspaw49 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 09:02 PM (#1980442) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
26 Feb 07 - 10:44 PM (#1980485) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge 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). |
|
26 Feb 07 - 11:09 PM (#1980497) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
27 Feb 07 - 03:10 AM (#1980543) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
27 Feb 07 - 06:14 AM (#1980615) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: autolycus 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 |
|
27 Feb 07 - 12:52 PM (#1980929) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan "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. |
|
27 Feb 07 - 01:31 PM (#1980971) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Wolfgang 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 |
|
27 Feb 07 - 01:48 PM (#1980986) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric "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. |
|
27 Feb 07 - 06:03 PM (#1981223) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
27 Feb 07 - 07:05 PM (#1981270) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
27 Feb 07 - 10:25 PM (#1981400) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan 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. |
|
27 Feb 07 - 11:25 PM (#1981425) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
27 Feb 07 - 11:30 PM (#1981427) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan 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. |
|
27 Feb 07 - 11:44 PM (#1981435) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,J 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. |
|
28 Feb 07 - 12:07 AM (#1981444) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
01 Mar 07 - 09:37 AM (#1982708) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted 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? |
|
01 Mar 07 - 01:51 PM (#1982958) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
01 Mar 07 - 02:42 PM (#1983043) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan If the suit is successful, it will effect all internet communication. Lets wait and see. |
|
01 Mar 07 - 03:31 PM (#1983098) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric >>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. |
|
01 Mar 07 - 11:27 PM (#1983509) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted 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-- |
|
02 Mar 07 - 01:11 PM (#1984113) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
02 Mar 07 - 02:22 PM (#1984182) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Have we a US attorney with relevant experience in the house? Or don't those provide information freely? |
|
02 Mar 07 - 03:15 PM (#1984245) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric 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. |
|
02 Mar 07 - 04:39 PM (#1984319) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted 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-- |
|
02 Mar 07 - 11:16 PM (#1984616) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge 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). |
|
03 Mar 07 - 12:15 AM (#1984637) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: heric 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.) |
|
03 Mar 07 - 12:50 AM (#1984648) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,Scoville at Dad's 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. |
|
03 Mar 07 - 02:44 AM (#1984671) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge 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". |
|
03 Mar 07 - 09:55 PM (#1985438) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
04 Mar 07 - 12:06 AM (#1985501) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST, trackwatcher 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. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 03:12 PM (#1986081) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol 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 |
|
04 Mar 07 - 03:23 PM (#1986092) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric >> 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. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM (#1986103) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric "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! |
|
04 Mar 07 - 04:23 PM (#1986134) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Thanks counselor. You have just answered it to my satisfaction in your previous post. SOL |
|
04 Mar 07 - 06:35 PM (#1986267) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Given that Greenbaum's defamation claim is crap, I would think that under the relevant jurisdiction (NY?), the judge would grant a motion to quash a subpoena for people's identities. (Her affidavit, purporting to support the validity of her defamation claims, suggests this (reasonable validity) to be a requirement.) Unless orthomom is otherwise identifiable (she probably is) I think only google will have to pay any money to defend this. The judge will explain to Feder that crap is crap, so no one will go after orthomom even if she is outed. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM (#1986288) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST Here is an article that discusses the criteria for determining whether identities of anonymous internet posters should be revealed. The Right to Anonymous Speech For those too lazy to go to the link--the discussion concerns Doe v. 2TheMart.com, a suit file in Seattle Federal court--2TheMart.com subpoenaed InfoSpace to reveal the identities of those made anonymous posts to their forum, claiming that the posts caused their stock to lose value. From the article: First, the right to speak anonymously is protected by the First Amendment. U.S. Supreme Court cases that predate the Internet have ruled that "anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Second, the right to anonymous speech must sometimes yield to other interests. One celebrated Supreme Court decision holds that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing panic." To balance these competing interests, the 2TheMart.com court adopted a four prong test to be used in this and future cases: whether (1) the subpoena was issued in good faith, (2) the information in the subpoena relates to a core claim or defense, (3) the identity of the anonymous commentator is materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information to establish or disprove the claim or defense is unavailable from any other source. |
|
04 Mar 07 - 07:03 PM (#1986290) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted That, last was me-- |
|
04 Mar 07 - 11:50 PM (#1986518) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Thank you Heric. That is a very big difference. It roots (for public figures) defamation in falsity, rather than in reputation. While the UK position may be over-restrictive, even though we are developing a defence of "serious reportage", my instinct is to feel that the position you set out is an encouragement to gutter debate (like the remarkable TV ad seeking to denigrate Barack Obama by hinting that he consorted with white female prostitutes). It would seem to leave the US position that any anonymous source can accuse any politician of dishonesty, leaving the politician unable to discover who the source is and even then having to prove that like Washington he never told a lie (in his entire life). But I still don't see that an accusation of antisemitism can be anything other than defamatory. Plainly, if an allegation of antisemitism gained ground, it would be the kiss of death in American politics, wouldn't it? The relatively recent UK position in this area revolves around the "Motley Fool" case, which exemplifies two things. First that a person hosting and moderating a bulletin board ("operator") must disclose the identity of a poster of defamatory matter, and second that such an operator is liable for defamatory matter if not removed (which is rather like a mirror of the defence of innocent publication). |
|
05 Mar 07 - 01:41 PM (#1987197) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Richard, Being that Pamela Greenbaum herself is Jewish, the charge of anti-semitism could not have been a serious statement taken at face value but rather as as a descriptive tool to characterize her political position on the contoversial issue at hand. She was more upset at the word "bigoted" which implied that she, as a secular Jew was prejudiced against the entire Orthodox Jewish community of Lawrence and could not perform her job as an elected member of the school board properly. SOL |
|
05 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM (#1987543) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge With due respect, Rabbi, to your training in logic, that is not so. There is no conclusive reason why a Jew can not be prejudiced against Jews. And in any event, as I thought I had covered above, in English law as distinct from the US federal law addressed by Heric, the initial issue is the ambit of possible meanings of the word or phrase complained of, not what the user intended to convey. |
|
05 Mar 07 - 07:45 PM (#1987581) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol Richard, Yes, I realize that the laws in the UK are quite different from those here in the USA, even though our system evolved from English Common Law. However, talking strictly within the context of our system, this case would be akin to one African American using the "N" word to another member of his own race. It is quite different if that same word would be used by a Caucasian. In one case it is overt bigotry and in the other case not so. SOL |
|
05 Mar 07 - 11:53 PM (#1987739) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted So, Rabbi-Sol. are you trying to tell us that Jews calling other Jews anti-semitic is just like blacks calling each other "N-----"? Sort of a term of endearment? |
|
06 Mar 07 - 12:04 AM (#1987744) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Mr. Greenbaum: Good morning, honey. Pam: Heya Mr. Greenbaum: Hey, you know that orthomom website? Pam: uh-huh. Mr. Greenbaum: I was reading it last night. Some anonymous poster called you bigoted and anti-semitic for voting against that special ed thing. Pam: No shit. Mr. Greenbaum: Yeah Pam: Pass the Rice Krispies, would you? |
|
06 Mar 07 - 01:18 AM (#1987784) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: dianavan Thats the way I see it, heric. Somebody is trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. I think the courts have more serious business to attend to. Can you imagine how clogged the courts would become if everytime someone called somebody else a name, it was considered defamation? btw - Your mother wears army boots. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 10:21 AM (#1988161) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Pam: I bet it was my mom again. Mr. Greenbaum: Yeah, Probly. |
|
06 Mar 07 - 05:29 PM (#1988689) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol M. Ted, It is NEVER a term of endearment, either in the African American community or the Jewish community. It is more a term of criticism for doing the wrong thing to your own people. The term always has a pejorative meaning, no matter who uses it. It is however not bigoted when used strictly within the community and not from the outside. SOL |
|
06 Mar 07 - 07:16 PM (#1988823) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge So, said he, pouncing, it is intended to cause the addressee to be reduced in the eyes of right thinking members of society and to cause them to be shunned and avoided? |
|
06 Mar 07 - 07:32 PM (#1988856) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol In order to understand the situation in Lawrence in its proper perspective, it is a conflict between secular Jews who have been entrenched in political power and the Johnny- come-lately Orthodox Jews who have been moving in, in rapidly increasing numbers and who now constitute the majority on the school board. The Orthodox Jews all send their children to Yeshiva (parocial) schools but still pay taxes to the public schools as required by law. Mrs. Greenbaum represents the old guard while Orthomom represents the newcomers. It is not Jews vs. non-Jews like the situation in the East Ramapo School District of Rockland County. SOL |
|
06 Mar 07 - 07:42 PM (#1988878) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric No, Richard! Byrne-v-Dean! |
|
06 Mar 07 - 08:24 PM (#1988945) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,lawrence resident This suit is ridiculous. Orthomom did not call Greenbaum any of the names mentioned in the suit. In addition, no one AT ALL called Greenbaum "anti-semitic"(Greenbaum curiously claims that orthomom "implied" she was an anti-semite rather than saying she actually called her one outright. Does that mean I can't "imply" GWB is a warmongering fascist?). An anonymous commenter called Greenbaum a "bigot", and did so in response to a quote of Ms. Greenbaum's as reported in a newspaper. The quote was in regards to her positions on aid to private school students (she came out unequivocally against it). Also, the comment thread Ms. Greenbaum refers to in her complaint has more than a hundred comments that run the gamut from supportive of Greenbaum, abusive of Orthomom, etc. It is clear that the comment calling Ms. Greenbaum a bigot holds no more water than a comment calling other board members names (which exist in the same thread). To my eyes, and I am a local, it seems that greenbaum is not intending to file a libel suit at all (she has no case) but simply trying to unmask Orthomom or at least silence her criticism. |
|
07 Mar 07 - 12:44 AM (#1989086) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted "Secular Jews" and "Orthodox newcomers" sound like two different communities to me, Rabbi Sol, and they seem separated, with considerable enmity. That's the breeding ground for bigotry--and, if their is one thing that traditional ballads tell us, it is that members of the same family can turn on each other with cruelty and brutality-- |
|
07 Mar 07 - 03:13 AM (#1989134) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Surely Byrne -v- Dean is against you Heric. What right thinking member of society would approve of antisemitism? You will recollect in Byrne -v- Dean the sting of the allegation was that Byrne had informed against a breach of alcohol licensing laws - which made him persona non grata in the club in question. However he was not defamed because a right thinking member of society would have wished the law to be upheld. |
|
07 Mar 07 - 10:02 AM (#1989452) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric Resident: Thanks for dropping by. I'll bet you are right concerning the tactic. It is so common that in California, under a fairly recent statute, Greenbaum would now almost certainly be sanctioned with the defendants' attorneys fees. What she is doing is called a "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," with its own official acronym: SLAPP. Richard I was joking, not very well, that right thinking members of society would favour standing up to the new guard and not worry about its srident web ranting or be coerced in how they have to vote to be free of anti-semitism charges. The orthomom people are saying "You're not with us so you're against us." Being against them, under such threats, is right-thinking. (In other words, yes, I see fault all around. The new guard seem to be oppressive. Pamela is right to stand up to them, but not in the manner she has chosen.) |
|
07 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM (#1989652) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol M. Ted. Unfortunately, what you say is quite true, not only in Lawrence but in Lakewood, NJ and right here in by own backyard in the Town of Ramapo, Rockland County. And it is not right. It should never be this way. All bigotry is wrong whether it is within or from outside the community. But the question here is were the LEGAL standards of slander and defamation met in this particular case. Apparently according to the attorney here, the answer is no. SOL |
|
07 Mar 07 - 01:17 PM (#1989661) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Uncle_DaveO I think it was Autolycus who said: 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.? First, let me say that I am not a lawyer, but I have spent my career rubbing shoulders with lawyers, and in my professional training and 46 years of working with lawyers I have learned a few things. That being given, my take on your question is like this: The Constitution's function is to prescribe the shape, function, and limits of US government. "The government may do this; it may not do that; it is required to do the other. The way it does (whatever) is to be thus-and-so." Originally designed for the federal government, many parts of the Constitution, including the First Amendment, have been extended to cover the operations of state and local governments as well. So the First Amendment prohibits the various governments in the US from preventing a private expression (however objectionable)--what is called "prior censorship". In general, it also prohibits the government from punishing the exercise of free speech. (Yes, there are exceptions to those principles, but that's the basic shape of things.) Defamation, libel, and slander are actions by private persons, not government, and legal actions against the perpetrators may be brought by the individuals allegedly defamed. While such a lawsuit must be brought through the courts (a branch of government in the broad sense), the courts are merely referees, not parties to the controversy, and the First Amendment does not prevent the courts from acting to apply anti-defamation rules and sanctions. The courts do not in such a case exercise the police power of government. Your question quoted above tends to confuse the two spheres of action. I hope this answers your question, and that Messrs. Heric and Bridge don't shoot me down. I believe it to be a generally correct statement. Dave Oesterreich |
|
07 Mar 07 - 01:20 PM (#1989664) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted It may be that a more important constitutional issue here is that of providing public money to parochial schools, which are religious institutions. Perhaps Rabbi-Sol could illuminate this aspect of the issue--Historically, the American Jewish Community, both secular and religious, has been a strong force in the alliance against subsidy of Parochial Schools, based on the concept of separation of church and state--now, it seems that there are strident voices in the Orthodox community who regard this as some sort of betrayal-- |
|
07 Mar 07 - 03:51 PM (#1989820) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol M. Ted is right. The generation of Jews growing up here in the USA from the 1930s through the 1950s were very much interested in safeguarding the separation of church and state. At that time the percentage of Jewish children attending Yeshivas (Parochial Schools), were only a fraction of what it is today. The prime concern of parents was twofold. l) That children should not be learning about Jesus in elemetary public school and become assimilated into the Christian majority and 2) That the government should not be dictating what should and should not be taught to Jewish children in the Yeshivas. A strong barrier separating church and state was the best insurance policy. What has changed since then ? First of all, after World War II & the Holocaust, you had a very large influx of Eastern European Jews into the USA who's religious observance was far stricter than those already living here. They were determined to educate their children in an Orthodox atmosphere much in the same way as they were in the shtetls (small towns) of Europe. They did not view the separation of church & state doctrine in the same light as those who were here before them. These people also tended to have many children and the Yeshiva tuition consumed a major part of their monthly budget. Any type of funding that could help them out, be it public or private, was welcome and no legal precedent was going to stand in the way. The Yeshiva movement, especially in the New York City area has grown exponentially beyond any one's imagination. The second factor that has percipitated the present situation is the mass migration of Orthodox Jews from New York City to suburban areas such as Lawrence (the 5 towns of Long Island), Monsey (Rockland County) and Lakewood, N.J. While living in NYC, people paid a single property tax and income tax which all went into the general fund. There was one central Board Of Education. In the suburbs however, you have separate independent school districts controlling public school education. Your property taxes are separated. You pay a separate Town tax and a separate School tax. Now, for the first time, people were able to see exactly how much money they were paying for public schools from which they were deriving little or no benefit, because all their children went to Yeshivas. This was real culture shock to them and hit them hard, especially since Yeshiva tuition can cost as much as $20,000 per child per year. Multiply that by 7 or 8 children and you can see what I am talking about. Immediately the doctrine of church and state became an obstacle that had to be overcome as these parents sought more services from the public school districts in return for the mandatory taxes they were paying. As a result they received such non-educational items as bussing, remedial English and speech therapy, text books (for secular studies), etc. Now they have gone on to the next step and actually taken control of the local school boards by running candidates and electing their own members. This has happened in Lawrence, NY, Lakewood, NJ and Monsey, NY (East Ramapo Central School District). Pres. Bush's program to give more tuition tax credits has added fuel to the fire. Now that the Orthodox have taken over these school boards the old guard is worried that by trimming budgets they are going to increase class sizes, cut extra-curricular programs, and short change the public school population. Much animosity has been created on both sides and this is the climate that has given rise to the current lawsuit on this thread. SOL |
|
07 Mar 07 - 10:30 PM (#1990163) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted Catholic Schools are so much larger, even on Long Island, that, sooner or later,they will demand their fair share of the public money that is being spent. When that happens, your OrthoMoms will have a bitter pill to swallow, because their tax dollars will, by enlarge, be paying for Catholic Education. Tthat is the day that the Pamela Greenbaums of the world were trying to protect them from-- |
|
07 Mar 07 - 11:07 PM (#1990172) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol M. Ted, I really do not have an idea as to what percentage of practicing Catholics send their children to parochial school but I suspect that it is somewhere around 40%. As far as I know you can be a good practicing Catholic and still send your children to public school. I lived in Staten Island, (Richmond County) NY which has the highest percentage of Catholics in the entire US and the parochial school attendance was under 40%. In Orthodox Jewish families you have a Yeshiva attendance rate of over 99%. You can not be considered a good practicing Orthodox Jew if your children attend public school. The existing Yeshivas are literally bursting at the seams and new ones are opening every year. Catholic schools are spread pretty evenly around the country and even if the general public had to pay for them it would not be that great of a strain on the districts. Yeshivas however tend to be concentrated in specific areas that are the homes of Orthodox Jewish communities. In my small town of Monsey, NY there are over 100 yeshivas alone. The Borough of Brooklyn, NY alone has more yeshivas than the entire country of Israel. Canada pays for Catholic education and I do not see them going broke up there. The problem here is only confined to the 3 districts that I mentioned above (Lawrence, NY, East Ramapo, NY & Lakewood, NJ) specificly because of the abnormally high concentrations of yeshiva students. And no, I do not think that the Pamela Greenbaums of this world are doing anybody a favor by filing frivolous lawsuits instead of trying to solve the problem through constructive dialouge. SOL |
|
08 Mar 07 - 02:38 AM (#1990225) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Hmm, the sytem just ate a thoughtful post of mine on separatism. Are we heading back to the bad old mudcat days of russian roulette for posts so eveything of length needs to be created offline, or is it just bigotry and discrimination against English lawyers (grin). |
|
08 Mar 07 - 01:22 PM (#1990655) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted That's still an awful lot of kids in Catholic schools-- Give them all a $1000 educational "voucher", and you'll notice the costs around tax time. The objection isn't a matter of money, though -I don't want to pay for someone else's religious education(which may contain ideas that I don't agree with), and I don't want local, state, or federal government involved in my religion-- At any rate, Rabbi Sol, I think that Ms. Greenbaum is a bit thin-skinned and needs to lighten up a bit(my School Board member mother involved in implementing a school desegregation program--and never lost her sense of humor, even when threatened by the Ku Klux Klan) Orthomom seems to have an ax to grind against Ms. Greenbaum--the net effect being that she is prone to examining to Ms. Greenbaum as opposed to examining the issues at hand. The bottom line in all of this is that it reduces some rather important community issues to rather amusing petty bickering. |
|
08 Mar 07 - 10:50 PM (#1991054) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,Goy boy This smells like a staged event. H.R.254 was introduced in the U.S. House of Reps on Jan 5. It's a "hate speech" bill. Despite the fact the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says no law abridging freedom of speech shall be passed, the congress is going to pass this thing and Bush has said he'll sign it. It'll be void the moment it's signed, but people will be told it's the law and you just can't criticize Jews anymore. The 24-hour news cycle has come to regulate the attention span of most Americans, so the day the hate speech bill is enacted, something like this phony catfight will be made story # 1 by the media, and then a week later we'll all remember something about that Ortho Bug Bomber being stopped, but no one will recall H.R. 254. What a crock. |
|
09 Mar 07 - 03:29 AM (#1991151) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Laws prohibiting hate speech are a mark of civilisation - so long as even handed. |
|
09 Mar 07 - 11:54 AM (#1991586) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Rabbi-Sol The law does not only apply to Jews. It applies to African Americans, Latinos, Gays and Lesbians or to anyone who can possibly be victimized by hate crimes. How and to what degree it will be enforced is up to the courts. SOL |
|
09 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM (#1991724) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,heric I just posted a response for Uncle DaveO, but forgot to add a name. I saw it briefly, I am quite sure, after I checked to see it had gone through properly. I then noticed that I had not added a name. Minutes later, it was gone (but the thread had not moved up the page). Either I am losing my mind, or "the system ate it," or some clone really is a pain in the ass. Here is a shorter version of what I wrote: Uncle Dave: Sorry it took me a while, but I checked on how private litigants can raise First Amendment issues between themselves. It turns out that the lawyers in NYT v. Sullivan argued exactly as you did, as follows (your words): "While such a lawsuit must be brought through the courts (a branch of government in the broad sense), the courts are merely referees, not parties to the controversy, and the First Amendment does not prevent the courts from acting to apply anti-defamation rules and sanctions." The Court ruled that the courts CAN be prevented from acting to apply anti-defamation rules between private litigants to the extent the rules, as applied, punish or prevent speech that should be Constitutionally guaranteed: "Although this is a civil lawsuit between private parties, the Alabama courts have applied a state rule of law which petitioners claim to impose invalid restrictions on their constitutional freedoms of speech and press. It matters not that that law has been applied in a civil action and that it is common law only, . . . The test is not the form in which state power has been applied but, whatever the form, whether such power has in fact been exercised."
-Joe Offer- |
|
09 Mar 07 - 04:57 PM (#1991916) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: Richard Bridge Thank you Heric, I am interested by that. I have been having posts eaten too. I think it is time to go back to the old Mudcat precaution of composing a reply as a docuemtn offline, and then pasting it in. If all else fails it can be re-pasted after it vanishes. |
|
09 Mar 07 - 07:51 PM (#1992082) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,Goy boy "The law does not only apply to Jews. It applies to African Americans, Latinos, Gays and Lesbians or to anyone who can possibly be victimized by hate crimes. How and to what degree it will be enforced is up to the courts." Bullshit. It's a federal law against freedom of speech. The ADL has lobbied for this kind of legislation all over the world, and people are now being imprisoned for "hate speech" against Jews. This is just another ADL hate crime in the making. An assault on free thinking. How can Jews go along with the ADL? Sure, their laws make Jews just a "little more equal" than others for the moment, but what are you going to do when YOUR religion is outlawed? The New Testament will be outlawed under H.R.254 because the NT talks about sodomy and how Jews killed Jesus, but what are you going to do when federal law prohibits you from speaking out against human sacrifice (the OT does that). These women seem to be shilling for the ADL, and Jews should have learned from Hitler's Germany that it's bad to target groups. The ADL should be outlawed, not free speech. |
|
12 Mar 07 - 10:38 AM (#1994361) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted I am alway curious about those who champion the right to use hate speech, "Goy boy"--you're rhetoric sounds a lot like those Stormfront people--take off your white sheet so we can see who you really are-- |
|
12 Mar 07 - 08:42 PM (#1994925) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,Goy boy The ADL is a terrorist hate group. They are against free speech. Unfortunately, Jews have been suckered into acting as cover for the ADL. The Old Testament has a lot more laws and rules than the NT, so what are Jews going to do when freedom of religion is outlawed? It's really just a simple matter of the Golden Rule. Live and let live. And look at what hate speech laws lead to: Nazi-hunting centre convicted for defamation http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=37453 Hate speech laws are the worst idea in the world, and that's why the U.S. Constitution prohibits them. |
|
13 Mar 07 - 09:38 AM (#1995304) Subject: RE: BS: Pamela Greenbaum Sues Blogger Orthomom From: GUEST,M.Ted From the looks of it, that was a simple defamation judgement, and had nothing to do with "hate speech laws" at all. |