N8WWM BUSTED SAYS RAIN REPORT
deck-the-hall
committed several violations over the air at the expense of the Toledo
Amateur Radio Club by utilizing their repeater to break the law. The
amateur club received a warning letter from the FCC concerning Adair's
violations and were told to take steps to make certain the violations
by Adair will not be repeated. Adair not only hurt the entire image of
amateur radio with his inexcusable behavior, but damaged the
reputation of yet another entity trying to further the good of amateur
radio. It's a shame when bad apples like these make it so clubs can't
even trust their own users to abide by the rules they were sworn to
uphold. Adair is also an infamous presence on the internet. A google
search of "N8WWM" reveals a peek into the world of the individual
identified as Adair. In addition to FCC violations, Adair has, in the
past, been accused of being a prolific spammer, breaking several
internet laws and violating several terms of service agreements with
internet providers.
... ... _...
Watch out doug doesn't sue you for libel.
"deck-the-hall" <deckt...@webtv.com> wrote in message
news:dc1baa4a.03022...@posting.google.com...
Krell
>wow pretty neat trick Twistedhed
>Watch out doug doesn't sue you for libel.
This is highly unlikely on Usenet. The burden of proof rests with the
person being libeled. Anyone can sign any name in a Usenet posting.
Even if you prove that a post came from a certain computer via an IP
address, you still have to prove that *that* *person* made the
posting. The only way of defending would be to build a case against
the poster if libelous postings continue. IOW, N8WWN should be patient
and give the poster enough rope to hang themselves with
Dave Hall
> UPON THE CONTENTS OF ONE POST, and have lost the suit. You simply have
> to do a little Google searching to find the cases, so I won't do that
> job for you.
>
> People have even been sued before their names were known (so-called
> "John Doe" filings, complete with subpoenas to the involved ISPs).
Please provide the links. That is totally opposite from accepted
practices and cases to date. Most cases involving libel are simply too hard
for the plaintive to prove. Sueing someone is one thing. Winning the suit is
totally another.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
... ... _...
"Dave Hall" <nojunk...@worldlynx.net> wrote in message
news:3E5677...@worldlynx.net...
> Please provide the links. That is totally opposite from accepted
> practices and cases to date. Most cases involving libel are simply too
hard
> for the plaintive to prove. Sueing someone is one thing. Winning the suit
is
> totally another.
>
> Dave
> "Sandbagger
I agree, as does Nancy, In fact one could use the excuse landshark did, it
was a co worker using a terminal from work. LOL. but hey you may have a
case against twisty, his incessant calling you a liar etc may be libelous
as well. he even made a new email address on account of you,
deckt...@webtv.com
Richard Cranium
Try reading what he posted, Dave. He said he wasn't going to "do that
job for you." Sounds like plain English to me; what's your problem?
Scott
"... ... _..." wrote:
>
> I agree, as does Nancy, In fact one could use the excuse landshark did, it
> was a co worker using a terminal from work. LOL. but hey you may have a
> case against twisty, his incessant calling you a liar etc may be libelous
> as well. he even made a new email address on account of you,
> deckt...@webtv.com
The pathological part kicked in again.
In one post, He's not George.
Here he is George with wife Nancy.
Hmmmm...
(I'm ready for the insult. LOL!)
Krell
wrote:
>> Please provide the links. That is totally opposite from accepted
>> practices and cases to date. Most cases involving libel are simply too hard
>> for the plaintive to prove. Sueing someone is one thing. Winning the suit is
>> totally another.
>>
>> Dave
>> "Sandbagger"
>
>Try reading what he posted, Dave. He said he wasn't going to "do that
>job for you." Sounds like plain English to me; what's your problem?
If Lloyd is going to make a statement, then he should have the
courtesy to provide the link info instead expecting someone else to do
his homework for him.
Krell
>No. You made the original assertion that it is almost impossible to
>lose a defamation suit for making just a few posts. It is up to you
>to support your difficult position (Your position is difficult to
>defend, because it takes just one example of a successful suit to
>prove you wrong).
My opinion is based on experience. I was co-sysop of a BBS that was
online from 1989 to 1996. It handled Fidonet, and later, Usenet
message groups. Users posted with handles to remain (semi)anonymous,
just like today. Two groups of users got into on the board, and
threatened to sue. Now, how do you think a *reputable* lawyer is going
react when a client asks about suing someone only known as "Malignant
Boner" and all you have is an IP address?
>Google is full of examples for anyone who chooses to look, and they
>date back to the late 1990's. Wired Magazine even lamented at that
>time that the existence of Usenet was threatened. When the courts in
>Virginia decided that they could apply Virginia law to any AOL
>subscriber no matter where they reside in the U.S. (the "long arm"
>provision), things got even scarier for AOLers who defame other Usenet
>posters.
...and what was the outcome of these suits? Settled out of Court?
Dropped? Dismissed by the Judge?
Like I said, either post the link or shut up. I'm not doing your damn
homework.
Dave Hall
>
> On 23 Feb 2003 17:27:34 GMT, Ll...@no.spammmmm (Lloyd) wrote:
>
> >No. You made the original assertion that it is almost impossible to
> >lose a defamation suit for making just a few posts. It is up to you
> >to support your difficult position (Your position is difficult to
> >defend, because it takes just one example of a successful suit to
> >prove you wrong).
>
> My opinion is based on experience. I was co-sysop of a BBS that was
> online from 1989 to 1996. It handled Fidonet, and later, Usenet
> message groups. Users posted with handles to remain (semi)anonymous,
> just like today. Two groups of users got into on the board, and
> threatened to sue. Now, how do you think a *reputable* lawyer is going
> react when a client asks about suing someone only known as "Malignant
> Boner" and all you have is an IP address?
I was also sysop of both a land-line and ham radio packet BBSes back
between 1990 and 1995, and I had to deal with similar issues. One of the
most famous issues had to deal with a ham in my area (WA3QNS) sending a
message that denounced the gulf war (Actually it was a poll), and
included a 1-900 number to call. Someone got the bright idea that this
post facilitated business use of ham radio, and the FCC got involved. To
make a long story short, the rules were subsequently changed so that BBS
operators were not held responsible for the content of messages posted
by their members. To view otherwise would've placed a great deal of
pressure on sysops, to constantly monitor traffic. A daunting task, to
say the least.
>
> >Google is full of examples for anyone who chooses to look, and they
> >date back to the late 1990's. Wired Magazine even lamented at that
> >time that the existence of Usenet was threatened. When the courts in
> >Virginia decided that they could apply Virginia law to any AOL
> >subscriber no matter where they reside in the U.S. (the "long arm"
> >provision), things got even scarier for AOLers who defame other Usenet
> >posters.
>
> ...and what was the outcome of these suits? Settled out of Court?
> Dropped? Dismissed by the Judge?
There have been some successful suits. The vast majority never make it
to court though, as there are just too many obsticles in the way, and
it's generally not worth the effort. Plaintiffs, in libel cases, still
have the burden of proof to show damages, and that is often not
quantifiable. It's also hard to draw the line between statement of fact
and the expression of an opinion, the latter being protected under the
1st amendment.
> Like I said, either post the link or shut up. I'm not doing your damn
> homework.
It's just hot air. Like the frivilous lawsuits where a criminal breaks
into a house and injures himself in the process, and sues the homeowner.
No one with any sense would even consider such a case.....
Dave
"Sandbagger"
Krell
>On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:05:04 -0500, Dave Hall <nojunk...@worldlynx.net> wrote:
>(snip)
>
>[It's really easy stuff to find. Now let's see you rationalize this away,
>based upon both of your ancient and therefore irrelevant BBS experience.]
>
>In http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9927/features-gunn.shtml:
>
>"ISPs have themselves been the target of an increasing number of "John
>Doe" lawsuits, which hamstring individual users' attempts to shield
>their identity. A John Doe suit is filed before the names of the
>defendants are actually known; the complainants' lawyer can then
>subpoena an ISP or online service for the real name and personal
>information of the user they claim has done them wrong. (In fact, in
>some cases an actual lawsuit is overkill; the Digital Millennium
>Copyright Act makes it possible to issue subpoenas to get such
>information without any suit being filed.) Many of these suits have
>been filed by companies hunting down online detractors, but at least
>one has been filed by the Church of Scientology to obtain the identity
>of a former church member who has posted copyrighted Church texts in
>the past."
>
>
>In http://www.businessknowhow.com/money/legalreach.htm:
>
>"The long arm of the law got a little longer this spring for people who
>participate in Internet discussion groups.
>
>"In the case of Bochan v. La Fontaine, a federal district court in
>Alexandria, ruled that a Texas resident could be sued in Virginia
>because he allegedly used his AOL account to post a defamatory message
>to a USEnet newsgroup. According to the ruling, such use of an email
>account gives the state jurisdiction because the message was initially
>stored and published on a computer server located in Virginia.
>
>"Due to the high costs and inconvenience of defending oneself in an
>out-of-state law suit, the ruling should be an important reminder that
>"free" speech means responsible speech. You can get sued for what you
>say on the Internet and as a result, and if you do get sued - you
>could possibly lose everything you own."
In neither of these cases was there any mention of a precedent being
set, or what the outcome of the case was. Anyone can sue for anything.
Wining the suit is quite different. Even if a subpoena were obtained,
all you have is the holder of the account. Do you have any idea how
common it is for multiple users to post using one account?