6-18-15 Illinois:
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. The Illinois Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court opinion ordering Comcast Cable Communications to identify a subscriber who posted an anonymous message suggesting a political candidate molests children.
The court said Thursday that the internet service provider must identify the subscriber who commented on a 2011 article in the Freeport Journal Standard about Bill Hadley's candidacy for the Stephenson County board.
The commenter, who used the online name "Fuboy," wrote that "Hadley is a Sandusky waiting to be exposed" because he can see an elementary school from his home. The comment was an apparent reference to former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky who was convicted of child sex abuse in 2012.
Hadley filed a defamation lawsuit against the commenter and subpoenaed Comcast demanding that it identify the subscriber. ..Source.. by WNDU.com
June 18, 2015
Illinois high court: Comcast must reveal anonymous commenter
March 9, 2014
Philly judge orders media company to reveal name of anonymous commenter targeted by suit
3-9-2014 Pennsylvania:
A Philadelphia judge has ordered the owner of philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News to reveal the name of a person who's being sued over a comment posted online.
The ruling came in a defamation suit filed by John Dougherty, the head of Local 98 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers union. Dougherty sued the anonymous poster over a comment on a Daily News blog, and his lawyers subpoenaed Philadelphia Media Network, demanding the person's identity.
A lawyer for the media company said it would not do so without a court order.
Common Pleas Court Judge Jacqueline Allen ordered Philadelphia Media Network to turn over the name, along with any comments he or she posted from Aug. 10, 2012, through this January, the Inquirer reported Saturday.
Philip L. Blackman, a lawyer for the individual who posted the comment, had argued in court filings that his client's statements were protected by the First Amendment. Blackman said the description of Dougherty was not "defamatory per se."
Dougherty's lawyer, Joseph R. Podraza Jr., called Allen's ruling "absolutely appropriate."
"I think it does bring accountability back to people who post things online, and I hope it disposes of the notion that just because you're anonymous, you can say defamatory things about other people and not be held accountable for it," he said. ..Source.. by The Republic
December 11, 2013
Gov Walker campaign aide fired over derogatory tweets from 2011
12-11-2013 Wisconsin:
MADISON, WI (WTAQ0 - A Scott Walker campaign aide is the latest to learn that what you say on social media can haunt you -- even years after the fact.
The Republican governor fired Taylor Palmisano Tuesday as his deputy campaign finance director, after she was caught making derogatory comments about Hispanics on Twitter.
She was working in a library in March of 2011 when she referred to a library custodian on Twitter as being "illegal," and she wrote, "Turn off your Walkman."
In January of '11, Palmisano tweeted that "Nobody speaks English" on a bus she was riding after she watched the Wisconsin Badgers play in the Rose Bowl.
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel caught wind of the tweets, and asked the governor's campaign about them. A Walker campaign spokesman later said that both the governor and his camp "condemn these insulting remarks."
Palmisano released a statement in which she apologized, and regretted what she called "offensive and irresponsible remarks." ..Source.. by Wheeler News Service
November 18, 2013
California jury finds schoolgirls, parents defamed teacher, awards damages
11-18-2013 California:
SAN JOSE, California — A Northern California jury that found three schoolgirls and their parents liable for defaming a Catholic school teacher they branded as a "perv," is about to decide how much one of the students should pay in punitive damages.
The Santa Clara County Superior Court jury found on Friday that the defendants damaged John Fischler's reputation by spreading false statements two years ago that he inappropriately touched the 10- and 11-year-old girls and peeked into a girls' bathroom at Holy Spirit school in Almaden Valley.
The former physical education teacher was awarded $362,000 in compensatory damages.
The jury also found that one of the girls, whom Fischler called the "ringleader" in spreading the rumors, acted with malice and is liable for punitive damages. The San Jose Mercury News reports (http://bit.ly/1ecK83v) the second phase of the trial to determine how much she'll have to pay is set to begin Monday.
Fischler, 49, was cleared by the school and police of sexual misconduct allegations after the rumors surfaced in 2011, but he declined to return to what he called a poisonous atmosphere at work and filed a lawsuit seeking nearly $1 million in damages. He accused the defendants of conspiring to get him fired from the private school and claimed the ordeal stained his reputation and ruined his teaching career.
"I just feel good my name is cleared," Fischler said after the verdict. ..Source.. by The Republic
August 13, 2013
Speedway man accused of making online threats; faces federal charges
8-13-2013 Indiana:
A 53-year-old Speedway man faces as many as five years in federal prison after being charged with making online threats against a federal judge and others in the legal community.
Delenore Lowell McTarsney was arrested Sunday at his home, accused of threatening the lives of the officials in comments left on a YouTube video posted by an attorney who had represented him in a civil matter.
U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Hogsett announced the charges Monday.
According to the formal complaint, an attorney posted a video related to a legal issue in June 2012. Beginning about then and into 2013, McTarsney posted hundreds of comments in response to the video.
“These comments were generally concerned with the defendant’s belief that he was the victim of a conspiracy that involved the local attorney as well as a number of other individuals associated with the Indianapolis legal community, including a current federal bankruptcy judge, according to a written release from Hogsett’s office.
The comments posted early this year included threats of violence.
“We in the law enforcement community are committed to doing all within our power to ensure the safety of all those who work in or around our criminal justice system,” Hogsett said in a written statement. ..Source.. by Diana Penner
June 3, 2013
Social media changing law enforcement landscape
Bloggers beware, the new Indiana law is effective 7-1-2013.6-3-2013 Indiana:
Nearly three months after a student posted on Facebook the alleged threats a Lake Station teacher wrote on classroom chalkboard, prosecutors mull criminal charges against the man.
The posting set off a maelstrom of media attention leading the veteran Edison High School business educator to retire.
The message to a sixth-period class read, in part: "A. You are idiots!!! B. The guns are loaded!!! C. Care to try me???"
Veteran teacher Jeff Kincaid is reported to have been angered at the time by students' conduct toward a substitute teacher during his absence.
Kincaid was placed on administrative leave March 1. Police took their findings to the office of Lake County Prosecuting Attorney Bernard Carter for review later that month.
Police are reported to have been considering a charge of intimidation, which can be filed as a felony if the offense takes place on school property. Telephone calls from The Times to Lake Station police officials were not returned.
Kincaid's attorney, Andrew Yoder, of Merrillville, declined to comment, as did Carter's office.
However, law enforcement professionals not directly connected to the pending case discussed how social media is changing their world.
"It brings out issues we never had to deal with in the past," Porter County Prosecutor Brian Gensel said of social media such as Facebook, Twitter and other Internet platforms.
Gensel said his office has had to deal with whether posts on social media sites constitute threats. He said threats can lead to charges of harassment or intimidation.
Gensel said the determination can be "tricky," depending on the threat's specificity or directness.
"You can't harass a hospital, but you can harass an employee," Gensel noted as an example.
Harassment is a lesser charge, confined to a B-level misdemeanor, he said. However, intimidation can rise from an A-level misdemeanor to a D-level felony. The higher the letter, the more serious the offense.
And then there's free speech, Gensel said. Law enforcement has to be sensitive to people being able to air their grievances in a free society.
The question becomes at what point would a reasonable person interpret a comment as a threat, Gensel said.
David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, said the Indiana Legislature recently expanded the intimidation statute to incorporate social media into the framework.
Powell said what triggered the effort was the experience of state Sen. Michael Crider, R-Greenfield.
"The intimidation statute was expanded under his bill to give law enforcement the tools to deal with these issues," Powell said.
The new law, which will take effect July 1, creates the crime of intimidation for using Internet social media sites to post threats.
It makes the crime a D felony if the threat is lodged against an employee of a school, hospital or church.
The crime rises to a C felony if the target is a prosecutor, deputy prosecutor, judge or bailiff, or if the threat is designed to interfere with the occupancy of a public building, that is, a bomb threat.
Crider, a retired Indiana conservation officer in Hancock County, serves as security manager at Hancock Regional Hospital.
"We had an individual who posted a threat to come there and shoot up the place," Crider said. "As you might imagine, it caused quite an uproar."
Crider said he took his concerns to his local prosecutor who determined that, under current statute he had no case, as the threats were against the hospital as opposed to an individual or specific doctor or other employee.
Crider said he asked whether this was, in fact, a gap in the law, which led to his bill.
"I'm pretty pleased with the final outcome of the bill," Crider said.
In Kincaid's case, he did not post the alleged threats to social media -- a student did. Yet those close to the case say the attention created notoriety throughout the community. Previously, it likely would have been handled administratively -- and more quietly -- by the school system, they said.
Joel Schumm, clinical professor of law at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said the influence of social media can't be discounted.
The county prosecutor is an elected official, and police officers work for elected officials, he said.
"Modern technology and social media make it much easier for the public to quickly and strongly apply pressure," Schumm said. "Facebook and Twitter have largely rendered obsolete the old avenues of expressing dissatisfaction through handwritten letters, picketing, or letter to the editor."
The impact can be either beneficial or harmful, he said.
"Public pressure sometimes works to the benefit of someone charged with a crime," Schumm said. "In other cases, police and prosecutors may be pressured by a strong public reaction to pursue a matter that would normally be resolved short of criminal charges." ..Source.. by Susan Brown
July 12, 2012
S-R must provide info on anonymous commenter
7-12-2012 Washington:
The Spokesman-Review must provide information that could identify an anonymous reader who typed a disparaging online comment about the chairwoman of the Kootenai County Republican Party in February, an Idaho judge ruled Tuesday.
The attorney for the chairwoman, Tina Jacobson, subpoenaed information about the identities of three Huckleberries Online readers who commented under assumed names below a photograph featuring Jacobson.
Under the name “almostinnocentbystander,” the commenter questioned whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be “stuffed inside Tina’s blouse.”
Two other commenters, “Phaedrus” and “outofstatetater,” also typed comments responding to the original post about Jacobson’s blouse.
The comments were deleted from Huckleberries Online after S-R blogger Dave Oliveria discovered them, but the first post was visible for about 2 ½ hours.
In late April, Jacobson filed a lawsuit against “John and/or Jane Doe.” Her attorney, C. Matthew Andersen, subpoenaed the names of the commenters so the suit could proceed, and the newspaper responded with a motion to quash that request.
In a hearing last month, Jacobson’s attorney argued that his client’s reputation was hurt by the posts and sought to have the judge order the newspaper to provide identifying information about the people who made the comments.
The newspaper’s attorney, Duane Swinton, argued at the June hearing that the blouse comment “wasn’t nice” but that it was made on a blog site “where people express opinions, sometimes airing outrageous views.”
In his written decision, Judge John Luster pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled since 1942 that the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech. “… while the individuals are entitled to the right of anonymous free speech, this right is clearly limited when abused,” Luster wrote. ..for the remainder of this article: by Thomas Clouse The Spokesman-Review
December 13, 2011
Online commenter IDs may be divulged
This is definitely an emerging topic, folks may want to review a 2009 Times Newspaper Editorial which explains many things.12-13-2011 Indiana:
INDIANAPOLIS | The Indiana Court of Appeals seems likely to require disclosure of the names and identifying information of anonymous commenters who make defamatory statements on newspaper websites.
A three-judge appellate panel clearly was not persuaded Monday by an Indianapolis Star argument that online comments are the equivalent of anonymous news tips, which would exempt them from disclosure under Indiana's journalist shield law.
The state's largest newspaper was sued last year after online reader "Downwiththecolts" accused Jeffrey Miller, former CEO of Junior Achievement of Indiana, of stealing the business education group's funds in the comments section of a story about Miller's retirement.
A Marion County court ordered the Star in March to share its information about "Downwiththecolts" with Miller, who intends to sue for defamation.
Miller's attorney, Kevin Betz, said the Star cannot be allowed to protect a commenter who made false statements harming Miller's reputation.
"This is not about free speech. This is about illegal speech," Betz said. "This is an attempt to tell the victim of defamation, who has a constitutional right to repair his reputation, that you're toast."
Judge Carr Darden and Judge Nancy Vaidik, a Porter County native, spent much of the hourlong oral argument session bouncing questions off the attorneys and each other about how best to require disclosure of the names of anonymous commenters.
Vaidik said from the bench she didn't understand why the Star was defending anonymous online comments.
"Why would a newspaper want to provide protection for a blogger that they're not using as a confidential source?" Vaidik asked.
An appeals court ruling is expected early next year.
The decision is almost certain to be appealed to the state Supreme Court, as this is the first Indiana case examining anonymous online comments.
The Times generally does not reveal the identity of anonymous online commenters and often does not even know who is commenting as nwi.com only requires a valid email address to register to comment. ..Source.. by Dan Carden
March 4, 2011
Convicted sex offender sues mother of victim over blog post
Most interesting in this case is, that, even if the FSO is absolutely correct about what the mother said about him, he is still very likely to lose this case. The reason is he forgot the "audacity factor" the other hidden party to this case, and never to forget that the public court system is controlled by the "audacity factor," whether he likes it or not.3-4-2011 Washington:
TACOMA, Wash. -- A convicted sex offender is suing the mother of a child he had inappropriate contact with because he says she wrote negative things about him on her blog.
Patrick Rojas, 26, plead guilty in 2007 to a gross misdemeanor for contact with a minor for immoral purposes. But Danielle Schneider says that charge didn't come close to describing what Rojas did to her 11-year-old child. Schneider decided to blog about it and warn others.
"I have gone outside of myself in hopes that something redeeming would come out my family's nightmare," Schneider wrote. "I just felt like we needed to tell our story so that that community could know who they were dealing with to protect themselves."
Rojas was the pastor's son at Schneider's church and often visited their home. He is now classified as a level two sex offender in Washington. But in court documents, his attorney claims Rojas is embarrassed by the blog and can't get employment because of it.
Schneider says her family can't afford another court case. She says she offered to take the site down but Rojas' attorney refused.
"The audacity that the person who abused my child and changed the course of our family and our life was suing us," said Schneider.
Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Linquist says he's never seen a case quite like this.
The civil division of the Prosecutor's Office says there are factors in the case that will likely need to be established. The first is whether everything on the blog is true and whether it is public record.
Rojas' attorney did not return calls for comment. He's asking Rojas be paid unspecified damages. ..Source.. by KING 5 News
August 25, 2010
Blogger Beware: You Can Be Sued Over ‘Anonymous’ Posts
8-24-2010 National:
Updated: When you're angry, complaining on the Web about a business or the person who runs it can be tempting.
But you might want to think a bit before putting up an online rant. While website hosts are generally protected from liability for comments posted by others, those who write such diatribes can be sued, points out the Los Angeles Times.
Expressing an opinion is often OK. However, disparaging a business operator or accusing a public official of criminal conduct are danger zones, as a growing number of those who are criticized on the Web turn to the courts for redress.
"Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online," says Eric Goldman, an Internet law expert at Santa Clara University. "A whole new generation can publish now, but they don't understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, 'My dentist stinks.' "
Posting anonymously also may offer little or no protection if an Internet Service Provider is ordered by a court to reveal the poster's identity.
Last month, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District of Nevada order requiring identity of three people accused of conducting an "Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings" against Quixtar, the Times article reports.
And in Canada courts are also ordering ISPs to identify individuals who have posted defamatory material online, writes attorney Maanit Zemel in a July 26 article in Law Times.
These so-called Norwich orders are routinely issued without an opportunity for the unknown poster to respond, the Miller Thomson associate points out. So plaintiffs seeking to unveil anonymous bloggers need to beware of potential legal repercussions, too:
Those who proceed without a sufficient basis to establish a defamation claim "might face significant consequences down the road," Zemel writes, "if the identified defendant can later demonstrate that there hadn't been enough evidence for the allegation of defamation and, thus, for the granting of the Norwich order." ..Source.. Martha Neil
June 19, 2010
Fla. high court: Nonresidents can be sued over Web posts
6-19-2010 Florida:
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Nonresidents can be sued for defamation under Florida law over their Internet postings if that information is accessible and accessed in Florida, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
That applies even to bloggers such as Tabatha Marshall, who lives in Washington state and has no ties to Florida other than taking a vacation in the Sunshine State.
Previous rulings have determined phone calls and e-mails constitute “electronic communications into Florida,” but this is the first time a court has included blogs and other Web site postings.
Lawyers who participated in the case, though, said the ruling has limited precedential value because it did not address constitutional issues, which will be decided in federal court.
Marshall owns and operates a Web site that includes postings by herself and others on consumer-related issues.
Some comments, including those from Internet users in Florida, accused Internet Solutions Corp., an employment and recruiting firm, of criminal activity including “phishing.”
That’s the practice of duping Internet users into providing personal information.
Internet Solutions, which is incorporated in Nevada but claims Orlando as its principal place of business, sued Marshall for defamation in a Florida federal court, which dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Internet Solutions appealed to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which asked the Florida justices to interpret state law as a prelude to deciding the case.
“We conclude that allegedly defamatory material about a Florida resident placed on the Web and accessible in Florida constitutes an ‘electronic communication into Florida’ when the material is accessed (or ‘published’) in Florida,” Justice Barbara Pariente wrote in the unanimous opinion in Internet Solutions Corp. v. Marshall.
The case now returns to the 11th Circuit to decide Marshall’s other arguments that the lawsuit violates her constitutional rights of free expression and due process.
“Our game plan all along has been the constitutional issues, not the ministerial issue,” said her lawyer, Marc J. Randazza of Miami. “This is the scrimmage before the game.”
Greg Beck, a lawyer for the national consumer-advocacy group Public Citizen, said the ruling left a lot of questions unanswered. It did, though, narrow the law’s application to posts read in Florida rather than a broader net sought by Internet Solutions, Beck said.
Public Citizen filed a “friend-of-the-court” brief arguing that nonresidents should not be covered by Florida’s law unless their posts intentionally target someone in the state.
Pariente rejected Marshall’s argument that her acts were completed in Washington and nothing could be received by a Florida computer user without reaching into Washington to retrieve it.
That “ignores the nature of the Web, which is fundamentally different from a telephone call, an e-mail, or a letter,” Pariente wrote, because material posted on a Web site is accessible by anyone in the world.
Laws covering Internet defamation are a patchwork, Randazza said. He said at least five states have amended their “long-arm” laws so nonresidents cannot be sued outside their home states.
A lawyer for Internet Solutions did not return a call seeking comment in time for this story. ..Source.. First Amendment Center
December 16, 2009
Court orders Google to turn over blogger identity information
12-16-2009 New York:
New York State Supreme Court Judge Joan Madden ordered Google to turn over account information about an anonymous blogger to model Liskula Cohen in order to enable her to pursue a claim of defamation. The blogger had used Google's blogging service to create a blog entitled "Skanks in NYC" and had posted derogatory pictures and references to the model. Cohen claimed that the blog led to her losing potential business opportunities. When Cohen originally sought to find out who had posted the content, Google resisted, maintaining that its privacy policy did not permit disclosure of the blogger's account information.
The concept of the protection of free speech - especially anonymous speech - traces its roots back to Thomas Payne's pamphlet Common Sense.(1) First published in 1776, it anonymously challenged the authority of Great Britain in the New World and is widely regarded as the first work to ask openly for independence for the Colonies from Britain.
Since then, state courts in the United States have differed in their interpretations regarding the extent of these rights and the purpose for which protection is appropriate. The legal principle appears simple: if the speaker (whether anonymous or not) is expressing an idea or an opinion or belief, he or she is more likely to enjoy protection. Although there are limitations on freedom of expression (eg, shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre), political expression has typically enjoyed greater protection than 'commercial' speech - one being seen as fundamental to a society's encouragement of the free flow of ideas, the other designed to promote a commercial product, service or brand in a free market economy.
At the other end of the spectrum, and generally not protected, are public expressions that are clearly and solely intended to hurt someone, where actual harm can be shown from intentional or malicious public expression or, as was determined by the New York court in this case, where an illegal or actionable act was or was likely to have been committed - in this case, defamation.
While it is difficult to pinpoint a single factor that will always favour protection, US jurisprudence affords the strong legal shield of anonymity to protect individuals from the potential swords of those in power or from anyone who might seek to stifle dissent or unpopular ideas. For example, in 2005 a blogger who posted comments against a politician, accusing him of "obvious mental deterioration", was ultimately protected by the Delaware Supreme Court, which expressed concern over the potentially "chilling effect" on anonymous speech a contrary ruling might have. In this case the blogger referred to a politician and the court ruled that in order to justify revealing the identity of an anonymous blogger, the plaintiff must provide evidence sufficient to all elements of the claim if the case were to go to trial. Because the court concluded that no reasonable person would believe the blogger's statements to be factual, no action for defamation could be sustained and the court dismissed the case.(2) For bloggers, especially political and social bloggers, this represented a significant landmark and affirmation of the substantial protection afforded to anonymous posting by the US Constitution.
In a subsequent 2008 case, a Maryland Court of Appeals (Independent Newspapers, Inc v Zebulon J Brodie)(3) similarly concluded that anonymous posts should be protected and set out an approach first detailed in a New Jersey case(4) describing the steps that judges should take in deciding whether to compel disclosure of anonymous online speakers in future cases.
Unlike in previous cases, and potentially distinguishing the Cohen Case first referenced above, the blogger here targeted Cohen intentionally, exclusively and individually. Although the defendant argued the postings were just "trash talk" and only opinion, the judge noted that if Cohen could prove the blogger's statements were factually inaccurate, it would refute the argument that the posts were merely opinion and would support a legal claim of defamation.
Online speech is coming under increased scrutiny and regulators and courts appear to be gradually wearing away the virtually complete immunity that anonymous bloggers once enjoyed, seeking to define the contours of what is and is not permissible conduct on the Web. ..Source.. Reed Smith LLP, Joseph I Rosenbaum
November 10, 2009
IL- Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked to Mom of Criticized Teen
11-10-2009 Illinois:
by Martha Neil
An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom "Hipcheck16" allegedly made "deeply disturbing" comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting.
The mother, Lisa Stone, is a trustee of Buffalo Grove in suburban Chicago. The comments on the Daily Herald's website were made just before an April 7 election in which she won a seat, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Stone calls the posted comments about her 15-year-old son "deeply disturbing," but they aren't specifically described in the article.
Attorney Michael Furling, who represents Hipcheck16, says he will talk to his client about whether to appeal today's ruling by Cook County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Lawrence.
Although Lawrence ruled that Hipcheck16's identity must be revealed to Stone—and to a process server, should she decide to sue—he said it should remain confidential to others, according to the newspaper. ..Source..
October 24, 2009
Blogger accused of threatening 7th Circuit judges is free on bail
10-24-2009 National:
NEWARK, N.J. — A New Jersey blogger accused of threatening lawmakers and judges in two states is free on $500,000 bond.
Hal Turner lit a cigar as he walked out of the federal courthouse in Newark on Oct. 21. The 47-year-old waved away a reporter and photographer because he’s under strict orders not to talk to the news media.
A federal judge also ordered Turner not to use a computer or any device that can access the Internet.
Turner was arrested at his North Bergen home in June after authorities said he posted threats against Connecticut legislators and wrote that three federal judges in Illinois deserved to die.
Turner’s release came after U.S. District Judge Donald Walter ruled last month that Turner could be freed under “strict conditions,” which included the news-media and Internet restrictions, The National Journal reported last month. Turner is also subject to home confinement and electronic monitoring.
Walter, a visiting judge from Louisiana who was assigned to the Illinois case, also agreed last month to move Turner’s case from Chicago to Brooklyn, N.Y. Holding Turner’s trial somewhere other than Chicago “would best serve not only justice but the appearance of justice,” Walter said.
Turner was charged in Illinois with making a death threat against three 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges after saying in Internet postings in June that the judges “deserve to be killed” because they had refused to overturn handgun bans in Chicago and suburban Oak Park. Turner also had said on his Web site that the judges’ blood would “water the tree of liberty.”
The postings included the photos and work addresses of the judges, along with a picture of the Dirksen Federal Courthouse in downtown Chicago and notations indicating the placement of “anti-truck bomb barriers.”
The postings also referred to the February 2005 slayings of the mother and husband of Chicago-based federal Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow.
In moving the trial to Brooklyn, Walter noted the “widespread media coverage” of those slayings.
Turner’s attorneys have said he merely gave his opinion, which was protected free speech. ..Source.. by First Amendment Center
Blogger charged with threatening judges free on bail
10-22-2009 New Jersey:
Internet blogger and talk show host Harold "Hal" Turner, jailed as a danger to the community after his June arrest by the FBI, was freed on bail Wednesday pending trial on charges of threatening the lives of federal judges in Chicago.
After 119 days in federal custody, Turner, 47, of North Bergen, walked out of the Martin Luther King Jr. Federal Building and U.S. Court House in Newark shortly after 1 p.m., under strict orders to refrain from discussing his case with the media and barring him from using a computer or any other device to access the Internet.
Waving a reporter and photographer away, Turner lit up a cigar as left the court complex.
Turner, who gained notoriety for controversial statements that endeared him to white supremacists, was arrested at his home June 24 for declaring in an online posting that three federal appeals court judges "deserve to be killed" for a June 2 ruling that upheld laws banning handguns in Chicago and a nearby suburb.
Turner provided the names, work addresses, phone numbers and photos of the judges in a follow-up post the next day.
During hearings in Chicago in July, Turner's lawyers disclosed — and federal prosecutors confirmed — that Tuner had worked on and off for several years as an informant for the FBI, passing along tips about violent threats against individuals and elected officials, including President Obama.
Prosecutors downplayed his role and a grand jury indicted him July 22 on a single count of threatening "to assault and murder" the three judges in retaliation for their ruling.
In September, U.S. District Judge Donald Walter, who sits in Louisiana, approved Turner's release under strict conditions that include a prohibition on his speaking to the media, home confinement, the Internet ban and electronic monitoring,
Walter also agreed to transfer the case from Chicago, where a federal judge's mother and husband were murdered in 2005, to Brooklyn for a Nov. 30 trial. Turner was later moved to the Hudson County Jail pending the posting of a $500,000 bond.
Newark attorney Michael A. Orozco, who represents Turner, declined to comment on the case.
Orozco has argued that Turner's speech was protected by the First Amendment, but the judge denied his motions to dismiss the indictment earlier this month, noting the right to free speech is not absolute. ..Source.. by PETER J. SAMPSON
August 31, 2009
Another blogger about to be outed?
8-31-2009 Canada:
OTTAWA -- A petty online insult turned the spotlight on anonymous bloggers in the United States. Now, a Winnipeg lawyer is leading the fight in a similar case in Canada.
But while the U.S. case involved a model versus a wannabe fashion socialite, the Canadian case connects two Ottawa politicians including the city's controversial mayor, Larry O'Brien.
It could have ramifications for the dozens, if not hundreds, of anonymous critics who pass judgment, and often libelous accusations, against everyone from politicians to celebrities to journalists.
On Aug. 19, a New York state court ordered Google to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger using Google's Blogger forum to spew what the court said were libelous comments against a model.
On Friday, Ottawa media reported that a Winnipeg lawyer, Brian Bowman, is asking Google to take down the site zeromeanszero.blogspot.com or unmask its author.
The site is a non-stop attack against O'Brien, Ottawa city councillors, the media and occasionally other politicians.
Bowman, an expert in privacy law, says he's representing a client who has been the subject of untrue statements on the blog. Bowman says the blogger has accused his client of doing things even when his client was not in town.
Ironically, Bowman won't reveal the identity of his client, except to say it's not O'Brien.
So far, the case hasn't gone to court. Bowman is negotiating with Google. But unless Google volunteers to shut down the blog or outs the name of the writer, it's likely it will be put before a judge.
Which could begin to answer one of the biggest privacy-related questions in the Internet age: Does freedom of speech allow someone to libel someone anonymously?
How can you stop it if you don't know who is doing it?
It is cowardly in the biggest sense of the word to criticize someone or insult them while hiding behind the veil of anonymity.
I am obviously a firm believer in freedom of speech, and truth is always a winning defence against accusations of libel. But freedom of speech does not, in my opinion, include the freedom to anonymously libel someone.
The Internet should not be a tool to allow anybody to say what they want about anybody, smearing reputations and even ruining careers, without the responsibility of having to out your identity.
And yes, you can put my name on that.
"ö "ö "ö
Manitoba got a lot of national airtime last week, an unusual occurrence for a province that is often overlooked.
Premier Gary Doer's sudden resignation and subsequent appointment as ambassador to the U.S. was the biggest news of the week.
Unfortunately, the other story that made national headlines was far more sinister and is the subject of a national epidemic: missing and murdered aboriginal women. More than 75 in Manitoba alone in the last few decades; and more than 500 nationwide.
After two more young women were found dead in the city in less than a month, Justice Minister Dave Chomiak announced a new task force to delve into at least 30 unsolved cases, some of which go back to the 1960s.
While that was going on, Manitoba Liberal MP Anita Neville was meeting with experts in Washington, D.C., hoping to get the issue some international help. Neville said she feels strongly there is a connection between human trafficking and the dozens of women that disappear and die violently in Canada, and she fears Canada is far behind when it comes to getting an understanding of it.
"I was looking to see what is being done and what the gaps are here," she said. "I want to know what we can learn from it."
She is demanding a comprehensive national strategy on human trafficking.
Imagine if police in every province banded together to look for links in these hundreds of cases?
Ask yourself how quickly that might have happened had more than 500 white women gone missing in Canada in the last 30 years. Or what might have been the reaction if two teenagers from the Winnipeg suburbs showed up dead in less than a month.
Neville said she is still piecing together what she learned in Washington and has a commitment from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff to include it in the party platform in the next election.
With another Manitoba MP, Conservative Joy Smith, making human trafficking her raison d'être, now the task force and Neville, maybe this issue is finally getting the kind of attention it deserves. ..Source.. by Mia Rabson
August 23, 2009
WA- Understand consequences of free speech
8-23-2009 Washington:
There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.
Words matter. Words are malleable and can be used to illuminate or obscure. Words can hurt. Because of the heaviness of words, newspaper journalists take seriously the power we wield through our publications.
Journalists spend an inordinate amount of time contemplating and discussing what to write and how to write it. This contemplating and discussing encompasses everything from topics, to word choice, to what is appropriate to be spun off the press.
Journalists have the right to write pointed critiques or damaging stories. This is never done lightly and must be backed up with fact. What we do can alter somebody's life for better or worse. Almost every professional journalist is careful not to abuse this right of free speech.
There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.
The common refrain from bloggers is that they have a right to say what they want, especially if it is their opinion. Whatever that opinion is, it needs to be grounded in fact. If it is not then the writer runs the risk of being sued for libel, which is a false statement that damages a person's reputation.
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she is receiving more and more calls from bloggers.
"They don't seem to understand that if you are going to spout off, that spouting off has consequences," she said.
The average blogger doesn't have the same understanding as trained journalists do of the difference between fact and opinion and the use of "red flag words."
"As more citizens are out there blogging away many of them don't have a grasp of what the law is," Dalglish said.
In the past couple of weeks there have been some cases of bloggers getting into trouble. One involved an anonymous blogger in New York who allegedly wrote false and defamatory comments about Liskula Cohen, a model. Cohen sued, and a judge ordered Google — who hosted the blogger — to release the blogger's identity to Cohen and her attorney. Turns out the blogger was a woman who turned up in some of the same social settings as Cohen.
No case is more bizarre than one originating out of New Jersey, which involves a blogger, Chicago judges and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Hal Turner is an Internet radio host and blogger who wrote that three federal appellate judges in Chicago should be killed because of their ruling against the National Rifle Association's attempt to overturn a couple of handgun bans. Turner followed up by posting pictures of the judges and a map of the courthouse. He also pointed out where the truck-bomb barriers were around the courthouse. Writing that people should be killed isn't libel but it is dangerous to incite such violence.
Not surprisingly, Turner got a visit from the FBI and is now in jail awaiting trial. Wired reported Wednesday that Turner claims he worked for the FBI between 2002 and 2007.
Oh, my. These kind of cases worry me as they do Dalglish because of the precedent they could set and Congressional backlash they could create.
"It's not to say that people shouldn't be able to go out there and write on the Internet to their heart's content, but we have libel laws for a reason. Sometimes people get hurt," she said.
If bloggers don't learn to check themselves, and use a modicum of restraint, then not only will people get hurt but free speech could be irreparably damaged.
..EDITORIAL.. by Ryan Blethen, Times editorial page editor
November 3, 2008
KY- Child pornographer blogs from prison
11-3-2008 Kentucky:
Passing long days while he awaits sentencing for distributing child pornography, Timothy "Casey" Richards writes out his blog updates, the G-rated ones for FreeCasey.com and the X-rated ones for Gay Boy in Jail on Blogspot.
He uses his phone calls from the federal prison in Leitchfield, Ky., to dictate them to friends and supporters in Nashville and elsewhere. They patiently post his words online or record them for Podcasts.
On both blogs, Richards rants about being targeted by the government for being gay, a scapegoat in a national investigation that he says shouldn't have ever involved him.
FreeCasey.com includes a running count of his incarceration — 1,135 days today. Gay Boy in Jail includes graphic sexual fantasies and dreams.
And they're both perfectly legal, attorneys and First Amendment experts say, although warnings from Richards' attorney prompted his supporters to take down the X-rated blog Monday night. With sentencing set for Nov. 7, attorney Kim Hodde said, she doesn't want to take any chances. The prosecution already cited portions of the blog in a sentencing recommendation — one of them Richards' theory that a certain prison guard is secretly gay.
Nashville resident Richards, 27, was convicted in October 2006 on 11 charges stemming from distribution of child pornography and related charges. He faces a minimum of 15 years in prison.
He slipped into the business nearly a decade ago, as an 18-year-old involved with a 15-year-old boy. The two made sex videos and put them on the Web. It later gave Richards an idea — working with friends in other states to charge Web surfers to watch. Or in the federal government's vocabulary: conspiracy to distribute child pornography.
And the federal government eventually paid attention. Richards was caught up in a multistate prosecution prompted by a 2005 New York Times report that featured an underage Internet porn star.
In recent months, Richards' sole pornographic enterprise has been the free blog.
Inmates in state and federal prisons are not allowed access to the Internet, but many prisoners get their message out on the Web after they dictate over the phone to family and friends. A former prisoner hosts a site open only to the incarcerated and their helpers, PrisonBlogs.net, but prisoners can be hosted anywhere online.
Each prison has set times allowing inmates use of a telephone and to receive and send mail, and all communications in and out are monitored.
Inmates have rights
Being in prison doesn't take away Americans' rights to broadcast their views and opinions, as long as those don't threaten someone else's rights, said David Hudson, a Vanderbilt University law professor who works with the First Amendment Center in Nashville. That would include trying to contact those they've harmed.
Hudson wrote in an e-mail that it's not unusual for inmates to blog.
"Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote more than 20 years ago that prison walls don't separate inmates from the protections of the Constitution," Hudson wrote.
But Richards should be an exception, said Chris Sanders, president of Tennessee Equality Project, a statewide organization advocating for gay rights. Those convicted of cyber crime, including hate crimes, shouldn't be allowed to keep using the Internet to spread their message, he said.
Postings continue
The government sees Richards as an unrepentant detainee who continued to blog in light of his conviction, according to court records. Some of Richards' postings were attached as exhibits to a sentencing recommendation of 30 years written by Assistant U.S. Attorney Carrie Daughtrey.
"No law keeps him from writing something down and telling people who type it in," Daughtrey said. "It's been going on all along."
Through his father, Russ Richards, Timothy Richards declined to be interviewed.
Several hundred have visited the blogs, Russ Richards said. They were started as a way to drum up support for his son's cause and detail his side of the story. He said he supports his son wholeheartedly and has since that first teen love affair.
"It was a relationship sanctioned between both sets of parents," Russ Richards said. "Tim got caught in a very big political situation and they had to prosecute him."
From a young age, Timothy Richards was out spoken and had a knack for business, his father said.
"He is very articulate, very outgoing," Russ Richards said. "I did not condone or agree to his blogging. Nonetheless, he has a First Amendment right to voice his opinion." ..News Source.. by Chris Echegaray
August 20, 2008
OK- Web site operator told to ID users
8-20-2008 Oklahoma:
McALESTER — The Pittsburg County District Attorney's Office has subpoenaed the operator of the "McAlester Watercooler" Web site, demanding that he identify 35 people who post comments under fictional names.
The document demands that Harold King provide the site posters' names, addresses and Social Security numbers to police by 9 a.m. Saturday as part of a criminal investigation.
McAlester Police Capt. Don Hass said the investigation concerns "criminal libel" complaints. Many of the posters have been critical of former state Sen. Gene Stipe, D-McAlester, who was sentenced in January 2004 to five years of probation for perjury and campaign funding violations; his brother, the recently deceased Francis Stipe; and local elected officials, including District Attorney Jim Bob Miller.
Hass said that once police turn over the information to Miller, the case likely will be referred to Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson so that another district attorney can be assigned.
"I think he's the victim on that — the DA," Hass said.
Miller said by telephone Wednesday that he thinks some statements posted on the Web site about him and others are libelous.
Libel usually is a civil matter rather than criminal, but Oklahoma law allows for punishment of criminal libel by a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Prosecuting online libel, however, is a relatively new frontier.
Gene Stipe accused King of criminal libel a few years ago, but the case was never prosecuted.
Stipe's business associate Steven Covington filed a libel lawsuit against King last year, but it was dismissed after McIntosh County Associate District Judge James Pratt ruled that irreparable injury to Covington's loan business had not been proven.
King said he will file an objection to the subpoena.
"There are several possible grounds — ranging (from) Bill of Rights issues to procedural ones," he said. "The problem that really concerns me is what they might try next."
King said he has been trying to get the district attorney and "most of the Pittsburg County judges" prosecuted for alleged corruption. Commentary on his Web site concerns local politics and the federal government's investigation and prosecutions of political corruption, kickbacks to legislators, and state funds that were illegally funneled to businesses controlled by Gene Stipe.
"I guess this is what happens when corruption is allowed to fester for decades," King said in an e-mail. "Such a clean-up problem will never be 'nice-n-tidy' — which of course is what everyone prefers."
Some of the comments on the site have been about Miller's teenage son, who was arrested in July on a misdemeanor complaint of possession of prescription medication without a valid prescription.
In a related matter, Miller said that because of another investigation he couldn't comment on whether he will file assault charges against Wayne Stipe, Gene Stipe's nephew.
King filed a police report Saturday after Wayne Stipe allegedly hit him in the mouth outside a grocery store, records show.
Wayne Stipe said: "This man has been trying to pick a fight with me for the last three years. He was finally successful. He picked a fight with me, and I defended myself. I felt like I was about to be attacked by the crazy man."
Asked whether King physically assaulted him, Wayne Stipe said King "verbally assaulted" him.
King said: "I don't know how you pick a fight when you say, 'No, I don't want to talk to you. Go away.' He hit. I didn't."
King sought a protective order against Wayne Stipe on Monday, but Special Judge Bill Layden would not grant the request.
"The funny thing is that me and Francis (Stipe) got along," King said. "It was a game to Francis. Personality-wise, I liked Francis." ..News Source.. by SUSAN HYLTON World Staff Writer
May 1, 2008
Online Critics, Beware
Here is an excellent Law.com article which warns the world about what they say to critize something written by others. I don't think I have ever seen someone get into the depth of the topic as this LAWYER does. So, do not forget his closing comment: "So, if you want to rate this article, post away -- we won't be waiting, until you get our complaint if we don't like what you say. "
5-1-2008 Global:
If you like this article, please rate it -- at any of the many sites that allow a reader to post comments and links. Also, please feel free to link to it, if you like anything in it. You can even quote this article in your own blog.
Just be careful about what you say. The author of this article is a lawyer, as, in fact, are the writers of just about everything else in this newsletter. Knowing what lawyers do when they get mad -- sue! -- just think about what could happen to you if we don't like what you post. Turning lawyers loose on their own account can be an invitation to spend lots of money in court over a casual posting.
EVERYONE'S A CRITIC?
But what could happen? With review sites, blogs and commentary appearing everywhere online -- and who knows if anyone other than these sites' creators read them -- let's examine the legal implications of online commentary, everything from writing a review of a book you love on Amazon.com, to registering a domain name and creating a Web site, such as www.myinternetprovidersucks.com (not a real Web site). In the words of the founder of one well-known (and sued) site, Ed Magedson of www.ripoffreport.com: "This is not the 20th century anymore, where businesses have the edge over the consumer. It's not 'buyer beware' anymore; it's 'seller beware' because consumers now have the power of the [I]nternet. We're all going to be blogged, good or bad. Get over it and try to respond. It's a sign of the times." (Quoted in the April 27, 2007, edition of The Newark Star-Ledger; not available online.)
Certainly, there are few barriers to posting comments, whether by a competitor, a disgruntled employee or a former customer. Online, it can often be done anonymously (and, as noted below, some ratings sites go out of their way to promote that anonymity). Since the earliest days of online content: "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" has been the shorthand way of expressing not only the need for caution when receiving messages from an unknown sender, but also worries of a buyer or seller, individual or retail, over whether the other party and the advertised item -- or an entire inventory -- really exists. Some sites now even use people's desire to vent about businesses -- and the human curiosity that draws us to read these ventings of emotion and other statements -- as part of their business model.
..CLICK for the remainder of a long article.. the substance of which, if followed everywhere, may keep you out of court. by Stanley P. Jaskiewicz, a business lawyer, helps clients solve e-commerce, corporate, contract and technology law problems, and is a member of e-Commerce Law & Strategy's Board of Editors. Reach him at the Philadelphia law firm of Spector Gadon & Rosen P.C., at sjaskiewicz@lawsgr.com, or 215-241-8866. Jaskiewicz thanks his legal assistant, Frank Manzano, for help preparing this article.
