|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Ray Gordon, creator of the pivotRay Gordon, creator of the pivot Date: Jul 11, 2007 03:09
The recent changes in Google's USENET archiving may have something to do
with this ruling, which seemed like a win for neither side.
The court kept saying that "Parker had not alleged" various conduct by
Google, rather than endorsing the conduct. They also said amendment to the
complaint would have been "futile," yet those amendments would have include
those very allegations.
I posted a full response to the ruling on my "Write-In Candidate" blog.
While I still post here, I'm posting more and more to my blogs these days
(also in part due to the DMCA protection given to Google).
On the defamation claim, the court reaffirmed Green v. AOL and rejected
distributor immunity. The Supreme Court will have a chance to decide
whether or not to finally resolve the Section 230 issue. It should be noted
that the Panel could not overturn Green, as that would require a rehearing
en banc, for which I will file within two weeks. I also may file a motion
for clarification of the ruling.
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
|
| | 64 Comments |
|
|
Author: ZFORCEZFORCE Date: Jul 11, 2007 04:58
"Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"" cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:-fWdnZa1x9rIMQnbnZ2dnUVZ_hisnZ2d@pghconnect.com...
So how many readers does that blog get, not counting you of course, or your
other personalities.
GAME OVER
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: LawyerkillLawyerkill Date: Jul 11, 2007 06:27
On Jul 11, 6:09?am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:> The recent changes in Google's USENET archiving may have something to do
> with this ruling, which seemed like a win for neither side.
>
> The court kept saying that "Parker had not alleged" various conduct by
> Google, rather than endorsing the conduct. They also said amendment to the
> complaint would have been "futile," yet those amendments would have include
> those very allegations.
>
> I posted a full response to the ruling on my "Write-In Candidate" blog.
> While I still post here, I'm posting more and more to my blogs these days
> (also in part due to the DMCA protection given to Google).
>
> On the defamation claim, the court reaffirmed Green v. AOL and rejected
> distributor immunity. The Supreme Court will have a chance to decide
> whether or not to finally resolve the Section 230 issue. It should be noted
> that the Panel could not overturn Green, as that would require a rehearing
> en banc, for which I will file within two weeks. I also may file a motion
> for clarification of the ruling. ...
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LawyerkillLawyerkill Date: Jul 11, 2007 06:52
On Jul 11, 6:09?am, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:> The recent changes in Google's USENET archiving may have something to do
> with this ruling, which seemed like a win for neither side.
>
> The court kept saying that "Parker had not alleged" various conduct by
> Google, rather than endorsing the conduct. They also said amendment to the
> complaint would have been "futile," yet those amendments would have include
> those very allegations.
>
> I posted a full response to the ruling on my "Write-In Candidate" blog.
> While I still post here, I'm posting more and more to my blogs these days
> (also in part due to the DMCA protection given to Google).
>
> On the defamation claim, the court reaffirmed Green v. AOL and rejected
> distributor immunity. The Supreme Court will have a chance to decide
> whether or not to finally resolve the Section 230 issue. It should be noted
> that the Panel could not overturn Green, as that would require a rehearing
> en banc, for which I will file within two weeks. I also may file a motion
> for clarification of the ruling. ...
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ray Gordon, creator of the pivotRay Gordon, creator of the pivot Date: Jul 11, 2007 11:00
> I did Green v AOL and the Supreme court let Green v >AOL stand.
Years ago. Denying certification is not the same as affirming. The court
is saying "try again later." This is later. Why would a Yale law professor
sue a website for user defamation if Section 230 were so etched in stone?
Some key differences are that AOL could identify its users, while Google
cannot. It is often impossible to sue the author of a message or website
which is archived as a result.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LawyerkillLawyerkill Date: Jul 11, 2007 11:34
On Jul 11, 2:00?pm, "Ray Gordon, creator of the \"pivot\""
cybersheet.com> wrote:>> I did Green v AOL and the Supreme court let Green v >AOL stand.
>
> Years ago. Denying certification is not the same as affirming. The court
> is saying "try again later." This is later. Why would a Yale law professor
> sue a website for user defamation if Section 230 were so etched in stone?
>
> Some key differences are that AOL could identify its users, while Google
> cannot. It is often impossible to sue the author of a message or website
> which is archived as a result.
>
> --
> Ray Gordon
> Foxhunting: The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
>
> FREE e-books on how to get laid!
|
| Show full article (1.89Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: foadfoad Date: Jul 11, 2007 12:02
> I don't know of this Yale professor's pleadings, care to cite? I'm
> willing to bet you have that confused too.
Have a cigar.
Two anonymous female students at Yale Law School have filed a defamation
suit against posters on AutoAdmit, the self-proclaimed "most prestigious
college discussion board" on the Internet. Filed earlier this month, the
suit claims that the defendants infringed the copyrights in certain
photographs of the plaintiffs and made false statements about the plaintiffs
which caused them difficulty in securing employment and which resulted in
other "psychological and economic injury."
http://feeds.feedburner.com/E-commerceLaw
>
> Read Sec 230, you don't understand it, it doesn't say, well if it's
> impossible to sue the author, or you can't find them, or the ISP will
> not cooperate with you, you can sue the website. There...
|
| Show full article (1.61Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LawyerkillLawyerkill Date: Jul 11, 2007 12:16
On Jul 11, 3:02?pm, "foad" once.com> wrote:>> I don't know of this Yale professor's pleadings, care to cite? I'm
>> willing to bet you have that confused too.
>
> Have a cigar.
>
> Two anonymous female students at Yale Law School have filed a defamation
> suit against posters on AutoAdmit, the self-proclaimed "most prestigious
> college discussion board" on the Internet. Filed earlier this month, the
> suit claims that the defendants infringed the copyrights in certain
> photographs of the plaintiffs and made false statements about the plaintiffs
> which caused them difficulty in securing employment and which resulted in
> other "psychological and economic injury."
>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/E-commerceLaw ...
|
| Show full article (1.10Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: JJTjJJTj Date: Jul 11, 2007 12:39
>Some key differences are that AOL could identify its users
Funny, Parker is going after AOL...
AOL has complete records of Parker's Chat room logs..
..where he molested children..for years...
Go for it, Parker. Sould be a hoot...
JJTj
** You admitted (see below) you ".wished."
** a child would die, JUST to get revenge on
** her mother for her crime of ".loving you."
SO, the question is, Mr. Gordon Roy Parker:
".how old was Michelle's daughter Cierra
when you "wished" she would die, and if
your "wish" could come true, what would
you "wish" to happen to her.. ?????? ."
...Usenet records seem to note her age at 6 or 7...
..again..PLEASE..for the record... Tell us all..
Does this refresh your memory, Mr. Parker..?
|
| Show full article (3.30Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ray Gordon, creator of the pivotRay Gordon, creator of the pivot Date: Jul 11, 2007 13:37
> Let me tell you preparing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari is not
> easy. Even if you are a pro-se, put a dot in the wrong place and it
> will be sent back for reprinting.
I prepaerd a petition for an attorney in one case about 10 years ago and it
didn't get sent back, and when I prepared my own a few years ago, it didn't
get sent back either.
Right now Section 230 isn't recognized by the 7th circuit. Unless they want
me filing in Illionois or even moving there for the protection, they'll have
to do something.
The Yale law professor sued autoadmit.com for comments made by posters
there.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
