[Vision2020] Email Lists/Bloggers Gain Libel Protection
Donovan Arnold
donovanarnold@hotmail.com
Tue, 01 Jul 2003 14:59:39 -0700
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P>Here is how you get rid of Junk Mail:</P>
<P>Tax them: </P></DIV>
<P>1) One cent a piece if you send more then 1000 a day.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>2) 5 cents a piece if over 5000 a day. </P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>3) 15% tax on the profits made through soliciting ads.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>4) Give them 0 tax credit for advertising</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>5) Arrest anyone for tax evasion (minimum 20 years in person) for not paying the fee.</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>6) Give the money raised to private corporations trying to create spam blocker software.</P>
<P>Donovan J Arnold<BR><BR></P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Tim Lohrmann <TIMLOHR@YAHOO.COM>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>To: vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: [Vision2020] Email Lists/Bloggers Gain Libel Protection
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:49:06 -0700 (PDT)
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Visionaries,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> Of course this is from the 9th Circuit--THE most
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>likely to be overturned of them all.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> So take it for what it's worth.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> But anyway, FYI
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Email Lists/Bloggers Gain Libel Protection
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,59424,00.html
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > By Xeni Jardin
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Tuesday that Web loggers, website operators and
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > e-mail list editors can't be held responsible for
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > libel for information they republish, extending
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > crucial First Amendment protections to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > do-it-yourself online publishers.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Online free speech advocates praised the decision as
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > a victory. The ruling effectively differentiates
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > conventional news media, which can be sued
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > online communication such as moderated e-mail lists.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > cannot be sued as easily.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > "One-way news publications have editors and
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > fact-checkers, and they're not just selling
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > information -- they're selling reliability," said
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Frontier Foundation. "But on blogs or e-mail lists,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > people aren't necessarily selling anything, they're
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > just engaging in speech. That freedom of speech
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > wouldn't exist if you were held liable for every
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > piece of information you cut, paste and forward."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > The court based its decision on a section of the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > 1996 Communications
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Decency Act, or the CDA. That section states, "...
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > no provider or user of an interactive computer
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > of any information provided by another information
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > content provider." Three cases since then -- Zeran
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > v. AOL, Gentry v. eBay and Schneider v. Amazon --
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > have granted immunity to commercial online service
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > providers.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Tuesday's court ruling clarifies the reach of the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > immunity granted by the CDA to cover noncommercial
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > publishers like list-server operators and others who
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > take a personal role in deleting or approving
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > messages for online publication.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > "Here, the court basically said that when it comes
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > to Internet publication, you can edit, pick and
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > choose, and still be protected," said Cohn.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > The case traces back to a North Carolina town in
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > 1999, where handyman
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Robert Smith was repairing a truck owned by attorney
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > and art collector
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Ellen Batzel. Smith claimed to have overheard Batzel
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > say she was related
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > to Nazi Gestapo head Heinrich Himmler. He said he
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > concluded that the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > European paintings he saw in her home must be stolen
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > goods, and shared
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > this in an e-mail he sent to the editor of the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Museum Security Network, an organization that
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > publishes information about stolen art.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Without telling Smith the e-mail would be published,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Ton Cremers -- the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > sole operator of Amsterdam-based Museum Security
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Network - made minor
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > edits, then posted Smith's e-mail to a list of about
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > 1,000 museum directors, journalists, auction houses,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > gallery owners and Interpol and FBI agents.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Three months later, Batzel learned of the post. She
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > contacted Cremers to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > deny both the stolen art and Nazi ancestry
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > allegations. She also said
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Smith's claims were motivated by financial disputes
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > over contracting
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > work.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Smith said he had no idea Cremers would publish a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > private e-mail on the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > list or on the Web.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Batzel sued Smith, Cremers and the Museum Security
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Network for
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > defamation and won. Cremers appealed.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > The appeals court questioned whether Cremers' minor
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > edits to
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Smith's e-mail altered it so much that the post
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > became a new piece of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > expression, and decided it had not. But because
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Smith claims he didn't
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > know the e-mail would be published, the court also
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > questioned whether the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > immunity provision of the Act applied, and passed
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > the case back
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > to the district court. The lower court will
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > reconsider whether Cremers
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > had reasonable belief that Smith's e-mail was
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > intended for publication.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > "Some weblogs are interesting mixes of original and
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > forwarded content,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > so this issue may come up again in the courts,"
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > EFF's Cohn said. "Where
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > that legal line is drawn may become a point of
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > contention."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Ellen Batzel says the case changed her life.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > "This was a small, North Carolina mountain town -- I
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > talked to the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > (district attorney) and he said 'Get a dog, get a
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > gun, get a security
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > system or better yet get out of town.' I sold my
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > house and moved. I've
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > been hurt in my professional reputation and in my
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > private life.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > "I know what free speech is, and I support it, but
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > this is about
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > invasion of privacy and my civil liberty. Every time
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > I meet someone now,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > I have to say, 'Hi, I'm not Himmler's
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > granddaughter."
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > Attorney Howard Fredman, who represented Batzel in
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > the case, said the
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > next legal steps could include a rehearing before
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > the appeals court, or
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> > petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>__________________________________
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>Do you Yahoo!?
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>http://sbc.yahoo.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>_____________________________________________________
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> http://www.fsr.net
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr>Help STOP SPAM with <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMSENUS/2731??PS=">the new MSN 8 </a> and get 2 months FREE*</html>