I am a criminal, Hans.
Judy
>
> Hi you all,
>
> Today beeing Monday there is a new law passed in this
> country in order to follow the legislation of the European
> Union (EU).
>
> Would I ever mention e.g. Stan Goloskov or Joel M Eichen
> or James P. Boyd or Bruce Chang or Steven Fawks or
> Annette C. Hollmann or Steven B Harris or Charlie Ruff or
> Roy Brown or Eric M. O'Brien or David DiBenedetto or
> Giuseppe Stradaioli or even "Dental Girl" or "El Jimno"
> let alone the name of some newcomer ... I would commit
> a criminal act. It may render me two years in prison.
>
> This law makes it illegal to write names public on the net
> without the mentioned persons written consent (which I
> must be able to prove I have got each time I say the name).
>
> The law makes it for me illegal to meet any comment from
> anybody here if I mention their name without their concent.
>
> Today, as a matter of fact, it is Monday and the law has
> become effective.
>
> From what I have written above (mentioning names) anyone
> can now report me to the police and I would be convicted.
>
> So gang, if you from now on will find my posts a bit weird,
> avoiding any attempt to mention you, or anyone, by your
> name or nickname or anything that you can be identified
> by (I cannot even write "the dentist in Philadelphia") you
> will know why. It will be hard for me to make any relevant
> comments to posts in the future. All must addressed:
> "Hi X" without any possibility to identify who is behind that
> "X". Therefore it will be hard for me to make any posts at all.
>
> I am not even allowed to write "the President" about that
> guy in the White House since I do not have Bill Clintons'
> unmistaken consent (shit...now I did it again!).
> From now on - NO MORE NAMES!
>
> Bye for now and thank you all for the time we have had,
> Hans ( I am allowed to mention my own name though ! )
>
> PS: If you think that this is a bad joke or just to hard or to
> stupid to believe just take a look at:
> http://www.jmk.su.se/global/global98/private/christop/finalpro/pul.htm
Hi Hans!
I bet you wish you were back on that beach with those little umbrellas..
I checked out that site and it does seem a little hard to believe and it
didn't make any more sense when I found the English version.<G>
You have been an important part of SMD with regards to all dental issues
and your knowledge of TMJ and treatments has been most helpful to many
of us.
We have all learned a lot from you and I hope this can continue.
I find it hard to picture you as a criminal though for the use of
someone's name. But I do understand that a law is a law (whether we like
it or not).
Can you tell me what other countries this "new law" will affect other
than Sweden?
I give you my permission to use my name as many times as you feel
necessary to answer this. In fact I give you my consent to use my name
whenever you are addressing me in the ng. Now... how many times should I
write this in order for it to be OK? I wouldn't want to lead you to do
something criminal.<G>
I'm looking forward to hearing more from you.
Take care
Judy :)
PS. It's not Monday yet where I am<GG>
Joel M. Eichen
exemption which allows quoting material for education, for criticism
or for parody.
If it is a public figure, lots of criticism is considered okay.
A private person could sue you for "libel" but they will also need to
prove malicious intent. In other words, I can say some really bad
stuff, providing I believe that it is true.
If it it provable that I am libeling you, then I am in big trouble.
Practically speaking, its pretty tough to prove.
Free speech is great. The only problem is, "Who's listening anyway?"
Cheers,
Joel
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
========
Steven Fawks <tuthj...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>At least this is one subject that everyone here in SMD can agree on!
>This is just another case of government gone beserk. We can all go down
>to coffee shop and name all the names that we want to (and be far less
>polite). That's all we are here...just on a global scale. One big
>coffee house (pub/bar/cafe/park bench/etc).
>*IF* there was a provision stating "for maliscious intent", it could be
>understandable. Just saying *no* names period is absurd.
>On the other side of the coin, I have not used names in this post, and
>I'll bet everyone understands. Names really aren't that important to
>communication if you quote a little text in your reply. It doesn't make
>the law any less stupid, but you can keep on posting without too much
>fear of misunderstanding.
>Does this apply to including quoted text with names in it? After all
>those were not your words.
>SWF DDS
>> > PS: If you think that this is a bad joke or just to hard or to
>> > stupid to believe just take a look at:
>> > http://www.jmk.su.se/global/global98/private/christop/finalpro/pul.htm
>>
>>
>> We have all learned a lot from you and I hope this can continue.
>>
>> I find it hard to picture you as a criminal though for the use of
>> someone's name. But I do understand that a law is a law (whether we like
>> it or not).
>>
>> Can you tell me what other countries this "new law" will affect other
>> than Sw****?
Steven Fawks
Bruce Chang
>Hans Lennros wrote:
>
>Hi you all,
>Today beeing Monday there is a new law passed in this
>country in order to follow the legislation of the European
>Union (EU).
Dear Hans,
I have to tell you that I had to call The Webby about this and
although we are shocked, we're not surprised. It's really the same
censorship that we have been through here, with the San Diego Internet
Service Providers Abuse Registry (SDISPAR), with the exception that
where you are it carries a jail sentence. Down here they just don't
give you access.
If it makes any difference to you, you have my permission, open-ended,
to use my name in any electronic medium.
So Hans does that mean the copy of the TMJ Iatroepidemic you have is
illegal or would be illegal to publish without all the participants
permission? Because I'm sure you know that for the most part the
people in our book never gave us permission of any kind.
So where are we headed with all of this? It seems to me the internet
may be on it's way out. Maybe we should all go back to that old
fashioned FAX machine thats gathering dust?
I haven't gone yet to look at the website you provided but I will.
On a lighter note Hans you could give up your "stinky fish" and
Absolut(we have absolut here, but I'm not sure about stinky fish) and
come practice here... Me and the Webby are thinking about opening the
"Webby & Chang TMJ Clinic", recruitment is slow, but we remain hopeful
;-)
Think about it, under one roof we could have Jim Boyd and his NTI
device, Giuseppe Stradaioli and his A.G.E.LK, you and your Preferred
Treatment, (maybe a combo of both?) and Harry Cooperman and his
Myodontics technique ( Harry is getting up in years but is as sharp as
a tack).
We are currently interviewing applicants for this project, all takers
are welcome to apply but must pass the iatroepidemic exam. The
text-book you already have, the rest is up to you.
Anyway Hans if there is anything any of us can do to make this easier
on you please let us know. It would be a big loss to not have you
around.
Kind regards,
Bruce and the Webby
Joel M. Eichen
I read the article which you listed but I could not find
any reference to your definition of libelous activity.
Perhaps it is somewhere else.
If you choose to say, "that Philadelphia dentist, Joel M.
Eichen, does not know how to do a good composite," that is
not libelous in this country (US). That is, unless I can
prove that you have some malicious intent. Let's say that a
friend tape recorded a conversation or a meeting where you
told others,
"Let's all post to the effect that Philadelphia dentist,
Joel M. Eichen, does not know how to do a good composite
(even though we know this is not true), because he has been
far too annoying with his reports about the entire contents
of the "U.S. Health and Human Services Report: Amalgam
Safety, A Scientific Review and Recommended Public Health
Service Strategy for Research, Education and Regulation,"
then I gotcha!
If you maliciously slander me, then watch out! But as you
can imagine, this is a pretty tough case to prove, as it
well should be. However, if the post is just your opinion
(however misguided) then post away!
Now if I am running for office, if I appear on TV, if I am
interviewed on the radio, and if I have papparazzi chasing
me all week long, then I am a public figure. Then the
above definition of libel does not hold.
It could be that you want to smear me so that I will not
get elected and create a law forcing newspapers to publish
the "U.S. Health and Human Services Report: Amalgam Safety,
A Scientific Review and Recommended Public Health Service
Strategy for Research, Education and Regulation."
In fact, if elected, I have already stated that I will get
this printed in every single newspaper every other Thursday
as a condition for them just to stay in business. In other
words, as a public figure, I can reasonably expect this
kind of activity to be coming my way.
There are already laws on the books to prevent harmful
internet activities. This includes both slander and libel.
Copyright infringement, libel, child pornography, illegal
activities, etc. are already infringements of established
laws and these activities are regularly prosecuted.
Of course, the internet is changing some of the definitions
of what is considered illegal and we do have a ways to go
in developing law. "Is linking to" a photo a copywright
infringement? I have opened your book with your photograph
showing, but I have placed my own page on top with a
rectangle cut out of my page so that your photo shows
through. Your photo is still on your own server. This does
not have a precedent in the analog world.
As a small example of improving the internet, I personally
would like to see a top level domain of XXX for any web
site which contains words or images which might be
objectionable for viewing by anyone under the age of 18,
plus any other web site which links to those pages.
In other words, do it just like we do it in real life.
Segregate the wheat from the chaff, the curds from the
whey, and the silver from the dross.
SCENE ONE: You go to the video store. You rent "The Sound
of Music" or you enter the room in the back which says you
must be 18 to enter. Over the age of 18, then all bets are
off. Wheat from the chaff.
SCENE TWO: You have the October copy of Hustler Magazine in
your magazine rack in your living room. Fine. Try opening
it to page 67, and then taping it to your living room
window with the picture facing outwards and see what
happens. They are pretty much two different activities with
two different intents. Silver from the dross.
Just because you think that something is objectionable, you
do not have the absolute right to censor any one else from
viewing it. That's throwing out the baby with the bath
water, or the curds and the whey. We've already been down
that road, haven't we?
If I remember correctly, the Third Reich outlawed abstract
art because, "How good could Picasso be if he could finish
the whole work of art in 15 minutes or less? This kind of
activity is damaging to our own artists who take longer.
How could this kind of "quickie" work of art be worth any
more than $8.50?" This argument sounds pretty silly,
doesn't it? They also outlawed jazz and scat singing - La-
la-la, doobie- do, for the same reasons! Easier if you do
not have to remember the notes or the words.
Look at "Don Quixote." Its done with a felt tip pen and
contains a couple of dozen pen strokes. Does the paucity of
the medium lessen the impact as a work of art?
Now I imagine that the entire contents of the "U.S. Health
and Human Services Report: Amalgam Safety, A Scientific
Review and Recommended Public Health Service Strategy for
Research, Education and Regulation" would be censored and
blocked right over there in Sweden! After all, you guys
already know how harmful dental amalgam is purported to be.
Its right up there with child pornography, bomb-making, and
racial slurs!
Now over here, if we see some headline like,
"Arthur Summerfield, U.S. Postmaster General Indicted for
Failing to Steam Open All the Envelopes in the U.S. and
Failing to Make Employees Look Inside."
I would be very surprized and pretty annoyed too. Arthur
Summerfield is a pretty good guy.
But you guys already recommend it! You propose to hold the
ISP (the common carrier, just as the post office is!)
responsible and block all of his other mail besides! Very
interesting concept! That's like sealing up the mailbox
with duct tape so nothing else goes in or out!
================================================
[copied from web page]
iv) Blocking access at the level of access providers
If the illegal content cannot be removed from the host
server, for instance because the server is situated in a
country where the authorities are not willing to co-
operate, or because the content is not illegal in that
country, an alternative might be to block access at the
level of access providers.
[snip]
iii) Removal of files from the servers
Once a host service provider becomes aware of the prima
facie illegality of content hosted on his server, in
principle the legislation in the Member States foresee that
he must clearly take steps to remove the content in
question. This information might be received from the
national self-regulatory body set up to identify illegal
content or from an equivalent body in another country. Since
content can easily be copied to other servers, this approach
needs to be followed by other host service providers not
just in the country involved, but world-wide. An
international network of self-regulatory bodies would
greatly assist this process, although it will no doubt take
time for such a network to be put into place.
[snip]
RE: Compuserve
In the CompuServe case the public prosecutors considered
that certain items available on newsgroups were illegal, and
requested CompuServe (11) to block access to these
newsgroups. Since CompuServe's software did not initially
make it possible to differentiate between German subscribers
and others for access to newsgroups, CompuServe suspended
access to a number of newsgroups to all its subscribers
world-wide, which created wide-spread protests that German
standards of morality were being exported. Subsequently,
CompuServe restored access to most of these newsgroups
except to its German subscribers. No action was apparently
taken against other access providers based in Germany, so
their subscribers could continue to consult this content, if
the access provider chose to carry the newsgroup in
question.
================================================
"Authorities are not willing to cooperate." God, that
sounds like something from 50 years ago, doesn't it? "Verk
Makht Frei!"
In other words, Sweden and other European countries are
about to censor the content coming from the United States!
Ahhhhh, memories of Kristalnacht! Seems just like
yesterday.
With all due respect, most of the immigrants came to our
country seeking political and intellectual freedom. I live
in the same country where creativity and ingenuity springs
right out of the soil. Everyone already knows that. It is
called, "the land of opportunity." I guess that this is
still the best place in the world for human rights, too.
Cheers,
Joel
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
==============
PS- Send me any messages that you want by e-mail. I will
repost them right here at sci.med.dentistry, right under
the noses of the Gestapo. I got no censorship software at
all on my machine. Except the censorship between my brain
and my keyboard!
Sorry for sounding so damned jingoistic about this stuff
but I'm really proud to be a U.S. citizen. By the way, this
post might be censored in Sweden for the totally gratuitous
and uncalled for use of the word "damned" which is profane
and a Little Libelous Too.
By the way, the U.S. really is a downright puritanical
society. You'd be quite surprized. Sweden, by contrast, is
noted for being a fairly open society. What's going on with
this stuff anyway? You guys still got too much amalgam
diffusing inwards?
John de Rivaz
> I find it hard to picture you as a criminal though for the use of
> someone's name. But I do understand that a law is a law (whether we like
> it or not).
A law cannot be enforced if no one follows it. There has to be public
consent. Look how the Community Charge (Poll Tax) failed in England.
Hilter got a great deal of satisfaction from introducing unpopular laws -
but as his area of conquest expanded, it became increasingly difficult to
enforce them on an unwilling population.
--
***************** Homepage:http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR
* Sincerely, * Longevity Report: http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/lr.htm
* John de Rivaz * Fractal Report: http://www.longevb.demon.co.uk/fr.htm
* * PCS - a Singles listing sheet for people in Cornwall
***************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JohndeR/pcs.htm
In the information age, sharing can increase world wealth enormously,
because giving information does not decrease your information.
Roy Brown
I hope I have not just broken your new laws, and that "BIG
BROTHER" is not watching ;-)
Just a thought, but is it possible to post in the manner
that I have just responded to you. I have seen this used in
a
variety of proceedings and presentations where the
individual is identified by first name and last initial.
This concept has been used by many throughout the world,
perhaps foremost are those involved in 12 step groups. This
method provides a mode of identity while protecting through
anonymity the individual. Another example might be when you
attend a dental seminar, the presenter may ID an individual
in a slide as Mary K. while the next slide is Jane D. The
press does this at times when quoting minors; e.g. John D.
said "this", while Johnny T. said "that". I have also seen
this in "public inquiries" of professionals etc., where they
want
to protect the ID of the "victims" in question.
If you REALLY need my permission to use my name send me an
e-mail with the request and I will reply after I have spoken
to my lawyer to get direction on how to word my permission
to suit the needs of the "international" legal circles. You
know how we Canadians really hate to disrupt the political
world by being politically incorrect. :-)
I have made various comments and suggest workarounds
throughout the quotes of an ILLEGAL post by a KNOWN CRIMINAL
below. I cannot identify this individual, but their initials
are Hans Lennros. OOPS must have been a Freudian Slip, or
was that an Orwellian Slip? Like they say in Hong Kong, you
have the wrong Wong.
BTW How was your vacation with the beach, drinks and
umbrellas?
Hans L. wrote in message ...
>Hi you all,
>
>Today beeing Monday there is a new law passed in this
>country in order to follow the legislation of the European
>Union (EU).
>
>Would I ever mention e.g. Stan Goloskov or Joel M Eichen
>or James P. Boyd or Bruce Chang or Steven Fawks or
>Annette C. Hollmann or Steven B Harris or Charlie Ruff or
>Roy Brown or Eric M. O'Brien or David DiBenedetto or
>Giuseppe Stradaioli or even "Dental Girl" or "El Jimno"
>let alone the name of some newcomer ... I would commit
>a criminal act. It may render me two years in prison.
>
>This law makes it illegal to write names public on the net
>without the mentioned persons written consent (which I
>must be able to prove I have got each time I say the name).
>
>The law makes it for me illegal to meet any comment from
>anybody here if I mention their name without their concent.
>
>Today, as a matter of fact, it is Monday and the law has
>become effective.
>
>From what I have written above (mentioning names) anyone
>can now report me to the police and I would be convicted.
>
Am I breaking the law, by quoting an *illegal* quote?
Do I perceive the suggestion of Civil Disobedience in your
comments? Perhaps all those in the European Union (EU) might
want to chain themselves to their keyboards and start an
international hunger strike.
>So gang, if you from now on will find my posts a bit weird,
>avoiding any attempt to mention you, or anyone, by your
>name or nickname or anything that you can be identified
>by (I cannot even write "the dentist in Philadelphia") you
>will know why. It will be hard for me to make any relevant
>comments to posts in the future. All must addressed:
>"Hi X" without any possibility to identify who is behind
that
>"X". Therefore it will be hard for me to make any posts at
all.
>
Well "H", I have always thought your posts to be a bit
weird, but enjoyable for the most part. Intelligent with a
slightly bent sense of humour; analogous to "Q" on the Star
Trek (The Next Generation) series on television. Perhaps we
can call U Q now, since U2 is already in use by a musical
ensemble. (Eye presume Eye cannot use "Ewe" as it might
identify who Ewe actually are)
>I am not even allowed to write "the President" about that
>guy in the White House since I do not have Bill Clintons'
>unmistaken consent (shit...now I did it again!).
>From now on - NO MORE NAMES!
>
Can U hint at the identity by saying something like " el
presidento, with an elliptical office in a very large light
coloured building, potentially affectionate to cigars,
younger women - especially the submissive subordinate type?
;~}
>Bye for now and thank you all for the time we have had,
>Hans ( I am allowed to mention my own name though ! )
>
Well at least we will know, who to report to the "e"-police!
Ironic that it cannot be reported via e-mail. Silly, but the
law is an ass.
>PS: If you think that this is a bad joke or just to hard or
to
>stupid to believe just take a look at:
>http://www.jmk.su.se/global/global98/private/christop/final
pro/pul.htm
>
Well H, I visited this site and found out something even
more interesting, I quote "The law will make it illegal to
critique people on trade union or other organisations home-
and chatpages. The punishment: Up to two years in prison."
What I find hard to believe is that you are being denied the
opportunity to engage in debate or discussion on any given
matter. Freedom of speech is a Civil Liberty throughout the
much of the CIVILIZED world. Don't tell me that the 2 years
in prison is going to end up as being 2 years in a
concentration camp, or 2 years in a bamboo cage next to the
killing fields with water torture and electric shocks and
brainwashing and........
Good God Eye may Have BROKEN your laws by even commenting on
this concept in public forum, with recycled electrons. Help
me repent my sins....
>
>
Your Good Friend "anonymous",
PS. If U look at the "From" on the Heading U might be able
to determine this "anonymous" author. I hope I have not
broken your laws, because I might like to visit Sw*d*n one
day. I don't want to step off an airplane only to end up in
jail for 2 years with all them stinky fish.
R** B***** D*
Sabra Broock
wrote:
>Hi Hans L.:
>
>I hope I have not just broken your new laws, and that "BIG
>BROTHER" is not watching ;-)
>
[clipped all excellent material -- Big Brother will have to look for
it "himself".
>
>What I find hard to believe is that you are being denied the
>opportunity to engage in debate or discussion on any given
>matter. Freedom of speech is a Civil Liberty throughout the
>much of the CIVILIZED world. Don't tell me that the 2 years
>in prison is going to end up as being 2 years in a
>concentration camp, or 2 years in a bamboo cage next to the
>killing fields with water torture and electric shocks and
>brainwashing and........
>
>Good God Eye may Have BROKEN your laws by even commenting on
>this concept in public forum, with recycled electrons. Help
>me repent my sins....
>
>>
>>
>Your Good Friend "anonymous",
>
>
>PS. If U look at the "From" on the Heading U might be able
>to determine this "anonymous" author. I hope I have not
>broken your laws, because I might like to visit Sw*d*n one
>day. I don't want to step off an airplane only to end up in
>jail for 2 years with all them stinky fish.
>
>R** B***** D*
>
Hello R.
As BC wrote (maybe your server hasn't served it yet), the way Big
Brother has handled some of this problem (their idea of a problem) is
to label accused as a spammer, try the party at the local ISP level,
find the accused guilty, and then place the person on the SDISPAR so
that all the ISPs can have reason to "monitor" the suspected
violator's activities on the net. This is how my civil liberty of
freedom of speech has been controlled over and over.
What you must wonder in all of this is why would anyone be so
concerned about what I, SB-W. would write on the net that they would
go to the extremes which they have gone to with me since 1995.
Now my own newspaper, the San Diego Union Tribune, (published in the
5th or 6th largest city in the USA) simply refuses to return my phone
calls about problems which are serious. They refused to respond to
emails by sbr...@utm.net and their solution was to have the ISP
disable mag...@utm.net from using that box and BUT making it
otherwise available for anyone to use. Now -- the important part:
If anyone uses sbr...@utm.net there will be those who will have
reason to believe the sbroock (like the example of initials you've
used) is actually Sabra Broock. To write Sabra B. would help to
confuse people with my identity if they've never heard of me. But to
write S. Broock or Sabra B. in the dental world might not be such an
anonymous way to talk about me. It's a bit like Webby in smd. There
are others who have decided to call themselves Webby out on the net...
but I am the only one here in smd or in the archives of the deadlike
atl.support,jaw-disorders. Anyway, I am as willing as any to chain
myself to my keyboard for a good cause. I fear that the ethics of
using this technology are not taken into consideration by the vast
majority of users. This is not like the television. This is a
communication system that is Big Brother as far as I am concerned.
When you realize that ISPs can and do deliver child pornography and
beastiality images to their clients and families -- something which is
illegal for anyone in the USA to have, to sell, to purchase ... and
keeping in mind that there isn't any legal way a citizen of this
country can obtain such material... BUT... the ISPs can sell it...
they can hold it... they can request more of it... and then the huge
newspaper companies can join forces with those very ISPs distributing
this garbage... and there is NO ONE AT THE newspaper or the ISP who
will respond to the question of WHY ARE YOU HOSTING THOSE
NEWSGROUPS??? well, I guess they are just above the law. The FBI has
been notified of this... and still, nothing changes except that they
shut down the email box of sbr...@utm.net (a whistleblower??) and
let someone else snatch it up for themselves... and do whatever damage
they might need to do to my reputation online and offline.
So Roy B. and Hans L., I think you both probably read a chapter in a
book "What is netcanting?" ... I've thought a great deal about all of
this for a very long time now. And I know that many people need to
also think long and hard if we are to salvage this technology as a
voice of the people... as it is, it is okay to speak so long as Big
Brother doesn't want you to be quiet.
So why hasn't Millennianet shut down this account? I think it is
because someone thought they'd do something with that sbroock box and
if the actual main account isn't running, they wouldn't be able to
"prove" that sbroock did whatever it is they have planned for me to do
online.
Scarey? As I wrote, I'm plenty frightened by all of this but that
doesn't mean for a millisecond that they have scared me off. I hope
you understand why I have written this rather disjointed article in
reply to this thread. I am typing as quickly as I can so that I can
get this out before it is discovered. I actually think they don't
realize these posts are going out. I have tried to tell them but they
don't want to listen. In the eyes of the ISPs, I am surely a
criminal.
A few will know me as,
WWW
J K Rigney
Joel M. Eichen wrote in message
<7130b9$h7q$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Hey Hans,
>
>I read the article which you listed but I could not find
>any reference to your definition of libelous activity.
>Perhaps it is somewhere else.
>
>If you choose to say, "that Philadelphia dentist, Joel M.
>Eichen, does not know how to do a good composite," that is
>not libelous in this country (US). That is, unless I can
>prove that you have some malicious intent.
Not entirely so!
In most jurisdictions in the U.S., if the statement were false, and Hans
knew it and stated it intentionally, he would be defaming you. If it were in
writing, it would be libel; spoken, it would be slander.
Some false utterances are presumed to be defamatory. False statements about
professional competence, criminal activity and sexual conduct generally fit
in that category.
If you knowingly utter a defamatory statement concerning a private person,
you libel or slander him/her. Proof of intent to do harm (malice) is not
necessary.
If you maliciously (false statement intended to do harm) utter a defamatory
statement concerning a PUBLIC FIGURE, you libel or slander him/her.
The addition of the malice requirement for public figures seems to be as
much based on the desire of the courts to keep celebrity/politician
libel/slander suits from clogging their dockets as it is a recognition that
public figures should have thicker hides. It also serves to prevent the use
of such lawsuits by public officials to stifle free speech, unless the
speech is both false and intended to do harm.
The crucial thing to remember is that you can indeed libel a private person
even if your statement is not intended to do harm. Of course, to be awarded
any sort of monetary judgment, the plaintiff must prove that harm was done.
The real question here is whether the (in)famous Dr. Joel M. Eichen, by
becoming a fixture in sci.med.dentistry, has become a public figure. If so,
he may have made it all the more difficult for himself to get hypothetically
rich off the equally hypothetical calumnies of Hans Lennros.
Cheers,
JKR
Joel M. Eichen
This really explains the fine points which I did not know. By the way,
when I said,
>> "that Philadelphia dentist, Joel M.
>>Eichen, does not know how to do a good composite,"
my intention was that the person really believes that this is so. I
believe that this is not libelous, if my interpretation is correct. In
other words, the person saying it believes (erroneously!) that this is
true.
If the person says this with intent to malign, (and knows it to be
false) then this might be actionable.
Is this correct?
Cheers,
Joel
-------------------------
"J K Rigney" <jkri...@msn.removethis.com> wrote:
>Joel M. Eichen wrote in message
><7130b9$h7q$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>Hey Hans,
>>
>>I read the article which you listed but I could not find
>>any reference to your definition of libelous activity.
>>Perhaps it is somewhere else.
>>
>>If you choose to say, "that Philadelphia dentist, Joel M.
>>Eichen, does not know how to do a good composite," that is
>>not libelous in this country (US). That is, unless I can
>>prove that you have some malicious intent.
>Not entirely so!
Robert Suzuki
According to my computer you posted this message Dec. 26, 1999.
Once again you are ahead of all of us here.
(Might want to check your clock)
Cheers.
Rob.
J K Rigney
Joel M. Eichen wrote in message <71b8iq$ell$1...@fir.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>Thanks,
>
>my intention was that the person really believes that this is so. I
>believe that this is not libelous, if my interpretation is correct. In
>other words, the person saying it believes (erroneously!) that this is
>true.
>
>If the person says this with intent to malign, (and knows it to be
>false) then this might be actionable.
>
In most cases, one must know that the information is untrue in order to
libel or slander another. In some areas, it may be enough to show that one
was reckless in that regard. The "public figure" exception is that one must
not only know that the statements are false, but one must also specifically
intend for them to do harm.
BTW, some of the mudslinging that I have seen in the recent political
campaigns seems to fit the bill, although these cases are generally not
worth pursuing.
Cheers,
JKR