The praising and condemning of contractors

[StillHope]

No,Kapohocat,not in the court of public opinion.In the real court.

[macuu222]

Ok Rob...Made the change on "Contractors not to Hire" to have people contact me for my opinion.

[Haole]

Here is an excerpt from an article titled "Bloggers Gain Libel Protection," dated June 30, 2003. It outlines the case law you were seeking, Rob.

"The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Tuesday that Web loggers, website operators and e-mail list editors can't be held responsible for libel for information they republish, extending crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers.

Online free speech advocates praised the decision as a victory. The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists. One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers cannot be sued as easily.

"One-way news publications have editors and fact-checkers, and they're not just selling information -- they're selling reliability," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "But on blogs or e-mail lists, people aren't necessarily selling anything, they're just engaging in speech. That freedom of speech wouldn't exist if you were held liable for every piece of information you cut, paste and forward."
The court based its decision on a section of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, or the CDA. That section states, "... no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Three cases since then -- Zeran v. AOL, Gentry v. eBay and Schneider v. Amazon -- have granted immunity to commercial online service providers.

Tuesday's court ruling clarifies the reach of the immunity granted by the CDA to cover noncommercial publishers like list-server operators and others who take a personal role in deleting or approving messages for online publication.
"Here, the court basically said that when it comes to Internet publication, you can edit, pick and choose, and still be protected," said Cohn.

The entire article can be found here: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/06/59424

Hope this helps!

aloha!

[lostboystoy]

just because of a new ruling doesnt mean it will stay like that for long, their are too many sue happy people out their, I agree with Rob just having to defend your position can cost you a fortune, and we all know how good public pretenders oops I mean public defenders, you get what you pay for and dont even think they could help with a civil law. I believe they can only do criminal law, so by the time you hire an attorney and go through the motions you may as well be bankrupt.

the Gov. has been trying to figure out ways of course to their advantage of regulating the internet.

I know in our small po dunk town even the sheriffs office uses
google not your normal google but they get on line and search a house infared to see where people grow lights ect. are before serving a search warrant, I have been told this by clients of mine that are in the sherrifs office.

So kudos to you Rob for covering your own Ass at the begining of this thread that alone should protect you for now.

setting my soul free....

[lostboystoy]

thanx for the correction, dont take offense, but are their lawyers, besides those doing pro-bono work, that really care about anything but the money?
lets face it weve all heard the joke (whats a 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?) a good start.

i believe just like the contractor situation, theirs alot more bad than good ones out their.
this could be said with just about every carrier field.

i dont know law thank god, and have never had to deal, with any criminal,civil or any other kind of law, havent even had a speeding ticket in over twenty years, i know kinda boring, but beats the altenative.

setting my soul free....

[John S. Rabi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH

lostboy ...
Sue happy clients or not, an attorney who values having a good name in the local courts ought to know better than to bring a legal "dog" to court and waste everyone's time.

---

That's what you would think, but look up the name of Paul Sulla on google. A local Hilo attorney fined by the Supreme Court for almost everything you find in the books.

Aloha,
John S. Rabi, GM,ARB,BFT,CM,CBR,FHS,PB,RB
808.989.1314
http://www.JohnRabi.com
Typically Tropical Properties
"The Next Level of Service!"

[Bob Orts]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KathyH

I don't think Rob is in danger of being pounded by a suit when he is clearly protected by recent rulings. Whether one of us could be sued for defamation for saying what we think is a whole other story.

---

Yep, the Batzel ruling did affirm liability immunity for Rob & Punaweb.[]

But, it provided no such protection to Smith. [B)]

[Rob Tucker]

So, Punaweb has now received a complaint and threat of a lawsuit.

Punaweb moderator

[Bob Orts]

Which brings up item #3, no ruling, decision, or opinion prevents a person from getting sued. []
The plaintiff may not have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing, but they can try.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rob Tucker

So, Punaweb has now received a complaint and threat of a lawsuit.

Punaweb moderator

---

Can you elaborate on this at all Rob? I mean since it would kind of involve all of us and whatever input we may have had in any thread that this complaint may have evolved from? Feel free to email me if you want to keep it off the record or PW.

-------
Glob