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