Two reporters arrested in Ferguson, Mo.
Ferguson,
Mo., police fired tear gas at demonstrators and arrested two reporters
as the St. Louis suburb erupted for a fourth night after a police
officer fatally shot an unarmed teen Saturday...
As
a protest escalated, officers in riot gear moved in to close a
McDonald's restaurant where reporters were writing and charging
cellphones.
Reporters Wesley Lowery of The Washington Post and Ryan Reilly of The Huffington Post said on Twitter that police told them to stop recording the events, then took them into custody...
Lowery tweeted, "Officers slammed me into a fountain soda machine
because I was confused about which door they were asking me to walk out
of."...
Showing posts with label freedom of speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of speech. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
Sunday, May 11, 2014
The San Diego Reader is no longer blocking me from making comments--and the Court of Appeal will hear my free speech case this Friday
I tried once again this morning to correct an error in the San Diego Reader's story about the defamation suit against me by Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. My comment went through! I'm delighted. Thank you, Reader owner Jim Holman. You're a gentleman and a scholar.
The Stutz v. Larkins case has been going on for six-and-a-half years, but the end might be in sight. I'll be presenting my oral arguments this Friday at 9 am to the Court of Appeal at 7th and B in downtown San Diego.
In August 2011 the Court of Appeal found
that Judge Judith Hayes' injunction against me
was a violation of the First Amendment, but
Hayes did not seem to get the message.
On June 21, 2012 Judge Hayes said to me,
“I’m not giving you permission to put anything on.”
(See the transcript HERE.)
In 2010 Hayes sanctioned me $3000 for violating the UNCONSTITUTIONAL INJUNCTION--AND REFUSED TO REVERSE HERSELF AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL RULING! That injunction, which the Court of Appeal called "exceedingly broad", ordered me to never mention the name of Stutz law firm or its attorneys--not even if I wanted to seek legal counsel to defend myself against Stutz law firm's suit against me. Two years later, in 2012, relying on the 2010 contempt motion, Hayes added another $5000 sanction as punishment for my saying "Daniel Shinoff trains school attorneys" and similar statements. I'm not kidding. You can see the courtroom discussion HERE.
Here's my brief for the appeal that will be heard this week.
See all posts on San Diego Education Report about Stutz v. Larkins.
Even the American Bar Association made a big error when it wrote about this case.
THE COMMENT ALLOWED THIS MORNING BY THE READER:
MauraLarkins May 11, 2014 @ 11:45 a.m.
I liked Mr. Hargrove's article about me, but I would like to correct one error. In fact, the comment about Vito Corleone was not written by me, but rather by an anonymous visitor to my website. Mr. Hargrove's mistake can be explained by the fact that Judge Judith Hayes ignored the documentary evidence (exhibits that included printouts of my blog) when she issued a decision saying that I had published the comment!
In fact, I don't believe that Dan Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. I'd say the exact opposite: that Vito Corleone makes Dan Shinoff look like the personification of moral purity.
I bear no malice toward Mr. Shinoff. I simply believe that the public has a right to know what our tax dollars are paying for, and how our schools are being run.
THE READER STORY ABOUT STUTZ V. LARKINS
Blogger vs. behemoths
By Dorian Hargrove
San Diego Reader
June 26, 2013
[Maura Larkins' note about the following story: The story fails to mention that there was no weighing of evidence in this case. There was no trial. There was not even a normal summary adjudication in which the court considers evidence on both sides. Instead, the judge threw out all my evidence and my opposition to summary judgment (because of a slight defect in format). My comments were NOT found to be defamatory in fact, but rather by a technicality. That's not the same as having the statements found to be defamatory at trial.]It’s not David versus Goliath. It’s more David taking on a gang of Goliaths.
David in this instance is former elementary school teacher Maura Larkins. Larkins, a quiet but crotchety, middle-aged resident of Lakeside, runs the relatively unknown education blog called The San Diego Education Report.
Blogger Maura Larkins
Playing Goliath is the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. One of the firm’s chief clients is the San Diego County Office of Education, along with the 65 school districts that make up the agency’s Joint Powers Authority. Since 2009, the firm has earned more than $7.7 million defending both the districts and the San Diego County Office of Education.
The conflict has lasted for six years inside courtrooms at the San Diego Superior Courthouse. For the lawyers, it is a fight to silence an incessant blogger from publishing defamatory comments about the firm on her website. For Larkins, it is a fight for her First Amendment rights to free speech.
So far, Larkins appears to be losing.
“The case has been a huge gray cloud hovering over me,” Larkins says at a coffee house in downtown La Mesa. “It’s limited my freedom to do the other things I want to do. My family has been more severely affected than I have. They see Stutz as powerful and invulnerable and don’t believe I have any chance of prevailing.”
But Larkins remains persistent, much as she was in 2007, when she posted what lawyer Daniel Shinoff claims were personal attacks and defamatory comments about the law firm.
Those comments appeared in a 2007 blog post. In it, Larkins accused the firm of “a culture of misrepresentation and deception,” adding that “the firm clearly suffers from a lack of professionalism or lack of understanding of the law…. My own personal opinion is, if a public entity is doing business with Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff, and Holtz, that public entity is probably involved in dirty business.”
The dispute between Larkins and Shinoff’s law firm goes back to 2002, when Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz defended the Chula Vista Elementary School District in a wrongful-termination lawsuit Larkins had filed.
Larkins lost that case but didn’t forget it. Neither did the firm.
On October 5, 2007, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz filed a defamation complaint against Larkins. The “publications by defendant…were made with malice, hatred, and ill will towards [Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz], with a design and intent to injure [the firm and its] good name, its reputation, employment, and employability in the future,” reads the complaint.
The firm asked for a judgment of $100,000, saying that due to Larkins’s commentary, it suffered “embarrassment, humiliation, and significant economic loss in the form of lost wages and future earnings.”
[Maura Larkins comment: In fact, in his deposition, Mr. Artiano said that he did not know of any harm that had come to his law firm.]
In 2009, judge Judith Hayes agreed, ruling in favor of Shinoff and company. Judge Hayes prohibited Larkins from posting negative comments about the law firm. Larkins agreed, while insisting that she would not refrain from publishing facts about the attorneys.
But later that year, Larkins couldn’t hold her tongue, or stop her fingers from typing, when former San Diego County Office of Education employee Rodger Hartnett filed a wrongful-termination lawsuit. Hartnett was fired from his job after accusing his boss, a former attorney at the law firm, of showing preferential treatment to her former colleagues by assigning them the bulk of cases from the San Diego County Office of Education.
In the comments section of her website, in response to an online article on the lawsuit by former Voice of San Diego reporter Emily Alpert, Larkins wrote: “…Shinoff makes Vito Corleone look like an altar boy. Shinoff has destroyed the lives of many individuals and families; only God knows what his body count is.”
Shinoff and his partners filed a motion with the court. Judge Hayes agreed with the lawyers, fining Larkins $3000 and barring her from making any further mention of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz. “And I’m doing that not in an attempt to foreclose or eliminate [Larkins’s] right to free speech,” said the judge, “but because it is crystal clear to me at this point that she is unable or unwilling to modify her [websites] in any good-faith attempt to remove reference to that law firm. So we’re cutting it off at this point. No more reference to the law firm.”
Larkins, however, has not gone this entire time without a few legal victories. In 2011, an appellate court agreed that the earlier judgment violated Larkins’s First Amendment right to free speech. That victory was short-lived, and the case is now back in the hands of Judge Hayes, who was scheduled to hear it sometime this month. Meanwhile, Larkins continues to post articles on her website.
“It upsets my husband every time an envelope comes from Stutz. He doesn’t understand why I don’t just take down my website. But over the past decade I’ve learned that the rule of law is far less secure than I once thought, and if I don’t defend it, then I am guilty of aiding and abetting the elected officials and their associates who want to suspend it whenever it’s in their interest to do so.”
She adds, “The financial costs have been very burdensome. I had to use my credit card to pay for court costs and $3000 [in] sanctions given by judge Judith Hayes. I’m deep in debt, even after breaking into my paltry IRA account.”
Court fees continue to increase without any sign of either side backing down.
Larkins puts court fees (including the judgment) at $43,000, and that’s not counting the money spent on copies and filings.
As for the lawyers, they show no signs of letting Larkins off the hook. In an April 10 email, attorney Ray Artiano wrote: “In the complaint, we set forth a number of the defamatory statements which were made by Ms. Larkins.
“The court agreed, yet Ms. Larkins persisted in making more defamatory comments. When someone makes defamatory comments, and refuses to withdraw those comments, the remedy is to file a lawsuit such as the lawsuit which we filed. This is hardly a case of bullying. [Our law firm] is extremely proud of its reputation, and we will not tolerate the publication of untrue and defamatory comments, nor should we be expected to.”
[Maura Larkins' comment: What Mr. Artiano fails to mention is the fact that there was no weighing of evidence in this case. My comments were NOT found to be defamatory in fact, but rather by a technicality. The judge threw out my opposition to summary judgment because of a slight defect in format. That's not the same as having the statements found to be defamatory at trial. I erased the comments that were adjudicated by a technicality, even though they were true.]
Continued Artiano: “The reason for pursuing this lawsuit is obvious. Why this lawsuit is viewed by you as newsworthy is not. Unless you intend to be less than objective. We have no thought of ‘silencing our detractors.’ Those who want to express opinions are certainly entitled to do so. When comments expressing alleged facts are made, and those comments are untrue and made maliciously, action must be taken.”...
COMMENT BY MAURA LARKINS
There was no trial in this case. In fact, **there was no weighing of evidence by the judge,** either. Judge Judith Hayes made her decision based ONLY on a technicality: that I hadn't used the updated format when I prepared my opposition to summary adjudication.
My statements were NOT found to be defamatory in fact, but only as a matter of law.
The judge could have weighed the evidence, but she chose not to do so. Why not?
To insulate herself even further from the facts of the case, Judge Hayes also threw out all my evidence. That was overkill, of course, since she had thrown out my opposition to summary adjudication.
UPDATE: I added one more comment:
MauraLarkins May 12, 2014 @ 4:33 p.m.
The law does NOT allow prior restraint of speech except for statements found to be defamatory "at trial". Judge Hayes did not have the right to deprive me of my constitutional rights without due process. Obviously, throwing out my evidence and my opposition to summary adjudication does not constitute due process.
Monday, April 07, 2014
Alabama Journalist Tells Us What It Was Like To Spend Five Months In Jail For Reporting A Story
"[The] order included a vague mandate to take down all content related to the alleged affair, without ever deeming which content was actually defamatory."
Alabama Journalist Tells Us What It Was Like To Spend Five Months In Jail For Reporting A Story
By Nicole Flatow
Think Progress
April 7, 2014
“You get down to survival mode.” That was blogger Roger Shuler’s state of mind after being arrested and hauled off to jail for writing about a politically connected Alabama lawyer.
“Once you’re arrested I mean there’s not much you can do,” he told ThinkProgress in a conversation after his release, explaining that he felt powerless to handle the legal defense of his case. “Your hands are tied literally and figuratively and just to try to figure out how to get out was almost impossible … I really was afraid for my life at times.”
Until last week, Shuler was the only known journalist in the Western Hemisphere jailed for doing his job. Shuler, a former sports reporter and university editor who developed the political blog Legal Schnauzer, is known as a controversial figure in his community. He has fielded other allegations of falsehoods and has been embroiled in numerous lawsuits over his blogging. But even his critics conceded that a court order banning him from writing anything about the alleged extramarital affair of a man rumored to be running for Congress was likely unconstitutional, and a First Amendment outrage.
First, a Shelby County judge ruled that Shuler could not continue writing about the alleged affair of Robert Riley, Jr., the son of former Gov. Bob Riley rumored to be running for Congress. Then, when Shuler refused to comply with the order, police came to his home one evening and arrested him for contempt of court. Contempt of court is a punishment for failure to comply with a court order. In many instances such as this one, it is a “civil” offense, meaning it doesn’t carry long-term criminal penalties. But officials use jail as a means of forcing compliance with the order. So Shuler sat in jail until he complied.
Shuler was initially resistant to the order. But even when he wanted to comply, he didn’t know how.
“At my Nov. 14 hearing, the only hearing I had in the case, the court gave me no direction on how I could purge myself of contempt,” Shuler told the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I noted that I had no computer or Web access to take down the posts, even though I knew it was unlawful to be forced into taking them down. The court’s response was more or less that I had to resolve that problem myself. With that kind of response from the court I felt caught between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place.’”
Shuler said if he was lucky, he got to make a 15-minute call three or four times a week. “That’s the only communication I had with anybody,” said.
And getting a lawyer wasn’t easy. While defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford a lawyer have a right to court-appointed counsel, the same is not true in civil contempt cases. Shuler called himself middle class, and said he would “really need either pro bono or contingency type of legal representation and I think it’s a possibility but it’s very slow in trying to make it happen.”
Shuler was supported by legal briefs in his case from the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But neither organization was representing him directly, and only he had the power to appeal his own case. Shuler didn’t appeal. He said he spent his time in jail fearing for his life, and figuring out how he could comply with a sweeping contempt order and get out of jail. As the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explained in an October letter, the order included a vague mandate to take down all content related to the alleged affair, without ever deeming which content was actually defamatory.
What ultimately facilitated Shuler’s release was the intervention of his wife, Carol, who drafted an agreement to take down some material that allowed Shuler to be freed at least temporarily. “She was the one that really negotiated getting me out,” he said.
Shuler was perhaps the most prominent inmate in Shelby County jail these last few months, but he says he wasn’t the only one who shouldn’t have been there. Most of the people he met were there for drug and alcohol problems, he said, or for mental health issues the jail didn’t appear suited to handle.
“Jail is I guess by definition a holding facility for people a lot of whom have not yet been found guilty of anything,” he said. (Jails typically hold individuals who have been charged but not yet convicted, or those who receive short sentences, typically less than a year). “I go to bed at night and a lot of times I think there are guys still in there … I get the feeling we’re in a culture right now, it’s sort of like arrest first, and ask questions later.”
Alabama Journalist Tells Us What It Was Like To Spend Five Months In Jail For Reporting A Story
By Nicole Flatow
Think Progress
April 7, 2014
“You get down to survival mode.” That was blogger Roger Shuler’s state of mind after being arrested and hauled off to jail for writing about a politically connected Alabama lawyer.
“Once you’re arrested I mean there’s not much you can do,” he told ThinkProgress in a conversation after his release, explaining that he felt powerless to handle the legal defense of his case. “Your hands are tied literally and figuratively and just to try to figure out how to get out was almost impossible … I really was afraid for my life at times.”
Until last week, Shuler was the only known journalist in the Western Hemisphere jailed for doing his job. Shuler, a former sports reporter and university editor who developed the political blog Legal Schnauzer, is known as a controversial figure in his community. He has fielded other allegations of falsehoods and has been embroiled in numerous lawsuits over his blogging. But even his critics conceded that a court order banning him from writing anything about the alleged extramarital affair of a man rumored to be running for Congress was likely unconstitutional, and a First Amendment outrage.
First, a Shelby County judge ruled that Shuler could not continue writing about the alleged affair of Robert Riley, Jr., the son of former Gov. Bob Riley rumored to be running for Congress. Then, when Shuler refused to comply with the order, police came to his home one evening and arrested him for contempt of court. Contempt of court is a punishment for failure to comply with a court order. In many instances such as this one, it is a “civil” offense, meaning it doesn’t carry long-term criminal penalties. But officials use jail as a means of forcing compliance with the order. So Shuler sat in jail until he complied.
Shuler was initially resistant to the order. But even when he wanted to comply, he didn’t know how.
“At my Nov. 14 hearing, the only hearing I had in the case, the court gave me no direction on how I could purge myself of contempt,” Shuler told the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I noted that I had no computer or Web access to take down the posts, even though I knew it was unlawful to be forced into taking them down. The court’s response was more or less that I had to resolve that problem myself. With that kind of response from the court I felt caught between the proverbial ‘rock and a hard place.’”
Shuler said if he was lucky, he got to make a 15-minute call three or four times a week. “That’s the only communication I had with anybody,” said.
And getting a lawyer wasn’t easy. While defendants in criminal cases who cannot afford a lawyer have a right to court-appointed counsel, the same is not true in civil contempt cases. Shuler called himself middle class, and said he would “really need either pro bono or contingency type of legal representation and I think it’s a possibility but it’s very slow in trying to make it happen.”
Shuler was supported by legal briefs in his case from the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. But neither organization was representing him directly, and only he had the power to appeal his own case. Shuler didn’t appeal. He said he spent his time in jail fearing for his life, and figuring out how he could comply with a sweeping contempt order and get out of jail. As the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explained in an October letter, the order included a vague mandate to take down all content related to the alleged affair, without ever deeming which content was actually defamatory.
What ultimately facilitated Shuler’s release was the intervention of his wife, Carol, who drafted an agreement to take down some material that allowed Shuler to be freed at least temporarily. “She was the one that really negotiated getting me out,” he said.
Shuler was perhaps the most prominent inmate in Shelby County jail these last few months, but he says he wasn’t the only one who shouldn’t have been there. Most of the people he met were there for drug and alcohol problems, he said, or for mental health issues the jail didn’t appear suited to handle.
“Jail is I guess by definition a holding facility for people a lot of whom have not yet been found guilty of anything,” he said. (Jails typically hold individuals who have been charged but not yet convicted, or those who receive short sentences, typically less than a year). “I go to bed at night and a lot of times I think there are guys still in there … I get the feeling we’re in a culture right now, it’s sort of like arrest first, and ask questions later.”
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Shannon Lopez of the San Diego Union Tribune is my journalistic hero of the month
See all Sally Smith posts from San Diego Education Report blog.
Ever since Sally Smith got ousted from the Serra High School site council, I've been trying to find a story I read a few months ago about a woman who was ousted from a planning board, and reinstated by a judge.
I searched the SDUT archives and Google, all to no avail.
But today Shannon Lopez, Assistant to the Editor, answered my request for help.
HERE'S THE STORY I COULDN'T FIND:
Veterinarian kicked off panel prevails in court
by Greg Moran
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Sep 27, 2009
Dr. Almeda Starkey of Pine Valley sued to regain her seat on a county conservation program committee after county officials ousted her.
Ever since Sally Smith got ousted from the Serra High School site council, I've been trying to find a story I read a few months ago about a woman who was ousted from a planning board, and reinstated by a judge.
I searched the SDUT archives and Google, all to no avail.
But today Shannon Lopez, Assistant to the Editor, answered my request for help.
HERE'S THE STORY I COULDN'T FIND:
Veterinarian kicked off panel prevails in court
by Greg Moran
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Sep 27, 2009
Dr. Almeda Starkey of Pine Valley sued to regain her seat on a county conservation program committee after county officials ousted her.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Attorney Bradley Marshall tries to intimidate Seattle Blogger
Apparently a lot of lawyers think that bloggers are easy to intimidate. I also have had the honor of having an eminent lawyer (actually, a whole firm of them) try to intimidate me into silence.
Lawyer Tries to Intimidate Seattle Blogger
From Hominid Views: People, politics, science and whatnot
July 31, 2008
What is this world coming to when a high-powered attorney to sports stars (and a now-deceased famous talk-radio host) goes on the attack against a lowly blogger?
You see, Bradley Marshall, attorney extraordinaire (well… if you don’t count the recent 18 month suspension of his license) just sent a letter to Seattle liberal blogger and journalist (and friend of mine) Michael Hood at Blatherwatch requesting that Michael yank some old blog posts and cease writing about him.
Michael is certainly not the first blogger to get such requests, but it must be quite the honor for Michael to get a letter from a lawyer of such stature...
Lawyer Tries to Intimidate Seattle Blogger
From Hominid Views: People, politics, science and whatnot
July 31, 2008
What is this world coming to when a high-powered attorney to sports stars (and a now-deceased famous talk-radio host) goes on the attack against a lowly blogger?
You see, Bradley Marshall, attorney extraordinaire (well… if you don’t count the recent 18 month suspension of his license) just sent a letter to Seattle liberal blogger and journalist (and friend of mine) Michael Hood at Blatherwatch requesting that Michael yank some old blog posts and cease writing about him.
Michael is certainly not the first blogger to get such requests, but it must be quite the honor for Michael to get a letter from a lawyer of such stature...
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Columbus Dispatch on the story that the San Diego Union Tribune covers up
The San Diego Union Tribune has a habit of killing stories that embarrass school districts--unless the story is too big to cover up, or some editor has a personal ax to grind.
I have experience with the antics of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, where board members Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, Larry Cunningham, Bertha Lopez and Cheryl Cox/David Bejarano have received reports of possible teacher misconduct, including a possible Columbine-style shooting by a teacher, and then decided that the safest course of action to ensure their re-election would be NOT TO INVESTIGATE.
Fortunately, the Columbus Dispatch has taken the issue of school district cover-ups head-on.
"[The system] puts the rights of teachers before those of students. It hides information from parents and potential employers. It allows secret deals with troubled teachers. A 10-month Dispatch investigation, a first-of-its-kind analysis of the system, found that 1,722 educators have been disciplined since 2000 for everything from shoplifting to murder. Two-thirds were allowed to return to the classroom or start school jobs..."
The newspaper was attacked for reporting these problems.
"Reporters Jennifer Smith Richards and Jill Riepenhoff were accused of "doing this to ruin my life" and "doing this to drag my name through the mud."
Those words are strikingly similar to what public entity attorneys Daniel Shinoff, Lesley Devaney, and Ray Artiano are saying in their defamation lawsuit against me regarding my website.
I have experience with the antics of the Chula Vista Elementary School District, where board members Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, Larry Cunningham, Bertha Lopez and Cheryl Cox/David Bejarano have received reports of possible teacher misconduct, including a possible Columbine-style shooting by a teacher, and then decided that the safest course of action to ensure their re-election would be NOT TO INVESTIGATE.
Fortunately, the Columbus Dispatch has taken the issue of school district cover-ups head-on.
"[The system] puts the rights of teachers before those of students. It hides information from parents and potential employers. It allows secret deals with troubled teachers. A 10-month Dispatch investigation, a first-of-its-kind analysis of the system, found that 1,722 educators have been disciplined since 2000 for everything from shoplifting to murder. Two-thirds were allowed to return to the classroom or start school jobs..."
The newspaper was attacked for reporting these problems.
"Reporters Jennifer Smith Richards and Jill Riepenhoff were accused of "doing this to ruin my life" and "doing this to drag my name through the mud."
Those words are strikingly similar to what public entity attorneys Daniel Shinoff, Lesley Devaney, and Ray Artiano are saying in their defamation lawsuit against me regarding my website.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Ninth Circuit Denies Full Immunity for Web Service
Ninth Circuit Denies Full Immunity for Web Service in Roommates.com Case
April 10, 2008
On April 3, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al., v. Roommates.com, LLC that merits consideration by online services generally. Roommates.com (Roommates) was sued by the housing council for violating fair housing laws, but the company had successfully argued at the district court level that, as an interactive computer service, it should be immune from liability for the content posted by its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The Ninth Circuit, en banc, held that the website was not entitled to this immunity because it "materially contributed" to the "development" of unlawful content. Most notably, as a condition to registering for the site, users were required to create a profile by selecting from pre-populated answers to various unlawful, discriminatory questions about their housing preferences.
Under Section 230(c), "[n]o provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute makes clear, however, that immunity does not apply if the service provider also participated as an "information content provider," that is, a party "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development" of the offending content.
April 10, 2008
On April 3, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al., v. Roommates.com, LLC that merits consideration by online services generally. Roommates.com (Roommates) was sued by the housing council for violating fair housing laws, but the company had successfully argued at the district court level that, as an interactive computer service, it should be immune from liability for the content posted by its users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The Ninth Circuit, en banc, held that the website was not entitled to this immunity because it "materially contributed" to the "development" of unlawful content. Most notably, as a condition to registering for the site, users were required to create a profile by selecting from pre-populated answers to various unlawful, discriminatory questions about their housing preferences.
Under Section 230(c), "[n]o provider . . . of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The statute makes clear, however, that immunity does not apply if the service provider also participated as an "information content provider," that is, a party "responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development" of the offending content.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Court Shuts Down Whistleblower Site
Switched.com published the following article:
Court Shuts Down Whistleblower Site
Feb 20th 2008
by Tim Stevens
http://www.switched.com/2008/02/20/court-ruling-shuts-down-online-whistleblower-site/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Nobody likes a snitch, but the whistleblower, someone who exposes corruption, is often held in quite high regard. There's a fine line between the two types of tattletales, but most everyone is almost always happy to see shady and illegal back room dealings exposed.
Everyone, it seems, except the American courts. The U.S. Supreme Court made exposing misdeeds a little more dangerous last year when it ruled that whistleblowing employees had no protection against retaliation from employers. Now, a California District Court judge has ordered the online anonymous whistleblowing site, Wikileaks.org, to shut down.
Wikileaks, which is currently available at the address Wikileaks.be, launched in December of 2006 as a place for the anonymous posting of information by whistleblowers. It was responsible for the revealing of the controversial "Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta" at Guantanamo Bay, which exposed some potential civil rights violations. The site hosts thousands of other posted documents, which range from supposed e-mails from U.S. Ambassadors to videos showing a nuclear accident in Japan.
Last week's ruling from the California judge is in response to a lawsuit by the Julius Baer Group, a Swiss bank that was alleged to be involved in money laundering. The allegations were backed up by documents posted -- illegally, according to the bank -- to Wikileaks. The judge ruled that the Wikileaks.org domain name could no longer be renewed or resolved.
Given that the site is mirrored in many countries around the world with suffixes besides ".org," however, it's likely that Wikileaks won't be affected too much by this immediate ruling. All that said, we expect a more concerted effort against this site in the not too distant future, given that the site's main purpose of exposing secrets more less always creates enemies.
From Computerworld and Wikipedia
Scott says:
Speaking of "concerted efforts", the injunction was preceded several hours earlier by both a 500Mbps distributed denial of service attack and a fire at the website's ISP.
02/20/08 11:37 AM
Keith J. Mohrhoff says:
This is ridiculous!! What ever happened to freedom of speech? That aside, by not protecting whistleblowers, we are forcing ordinary working people to become part of the crime by continuing to protect their employers interests regardless of their legality!!
02/20/08 11:57 AM
Kate says:
"Freedom of speech" sometimes actually means "libel". There's no proof of anything these people have written or put up (plus it doesn't sound as though this is a solely US site, and our constitutional freedoms do not protect us against a foreign government) - if they want to be real whistleblowers and not just disgruntled employees they should contact the appropriate authorities, not post anonymously on a website.
02/20/08 12:05 PM
warren garrison says:
Naturally they don't want anyone blowing the whistle, they might be targeted themselves. It's like the sorry ass Pima County Attorneys office in Tucson Arizona. A disgruntled mother who worked at a convenienct store falsely accused me of things I did not do because I had called the cops on her two boys vandalizing first the local laundry, and then the car wash so this was a chance to get even with me rather than thanking me. As I began to gather up my disclosures to defend myself I made the mistake of saying to a prosecutor, "when you see the tape you'll see I did nothing and was falsely arrested", my first arrest in 54 years, and then I added that I was going to sue the county because of how they treated me. Guess what? Before one of the receptionist realized what was going on she told me she had the tape and if I would bring $10 and a blank she would make me a copy, but by the time I got down to the county attorneys office, it had disappeared. BUT, you have to understand that Barbara LaWall's office has pulled some pret-ty shady and underhanded things in this town and yet they continue to get away with it. And if you want to take a shot at me bitch, this is Warren Garrison writing this, come on!!!!!!
02/20/08 12:11 PM
Ann says:
THIS IS "KING GEORGE" AND "UNCLE DICK'S" AMERICA FOR YOU; CALIFORNIA USED TO BE OK, BUT NOW WE SEE THIS HALF-WIT REPUBLICAN GOVERNING IT WHO SITS SO PRETTILY EMBROIDERED IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC FAMILY; ENOUGH OF THIS B*****IT!!!!!!!DOWN WITH THIS MOCKERY!!!!!!!!
IT'S OBAMA 2008!!!!!!!!!
GO OBAMA, GO,GO,GO!!!!!!!!!
02/20/08 12:21 PM
Carol Levy says:
Whistleblowing is necessary and so is protection.
In my medical malpractice against Dr, Peter J. Jannetta nurses told me they would not testify against him because they were afraid for their jobs. Doctors said they would not testify because he is so big in the neurosurgery world.
The Pa. Superior Court called Dr. Jannetta's testmony re: the risks of the surgery, an MVD or 'Jannetta Procedure', perjurioous * yet no one cared that he committed a felony by lying under oath. The Court did not sanction him nor did the state or medical societies. (In fact my lawyer forced me, literally, to settle out of court for a pittance that does not even cover my lifetime medical expenses. The lawyer, Michael Fishbein, as an offcer of the court, should have made a criminal complaint for perjury.)
Maybe if people felt safe coming forward when they see illegal or unethical prosecutable acts the court systems would not be so clogged up - the proof would be out there. The guilty would be pleading guilty.
* "We have little difficulty in concluding that Dr. Jannetta's testimony at deposition was different than, or inconsistent with, the testimony at trial." Levy v Jannetta, CCP Allegheny County, GD 81-7689; appeal -J. A370017/92 Levy v Jannetta et al, No. 00150 Pittsburgh, 1992. settled, 1995
02/20/08 12:23 PM
nationalsecuritymatters says:
If this site is posting material that would directly impact United States national security, it should be shut down in a heartbeat.
02/20/08 12:28 PM
Keith J. Mohrhoff says:
Kate: the problem is that since the Supreme Court denies any protection to whistleblowers, "Going to the authorities" is impossible! It is now to the point where the only people who can afford to do the right thing are those with enough financial resources to whether the fallout.
Hence, anonymity is necessary and may serve a useful purpose. If an employee can go on-line and post anonymously about the illegal actions of their employer, then maybe, someone from the authorities can investigate and discover the proof.
02/20/08 12:42 PM
PG says:
Another example of the Bush Adminstration and the GOP ruining this country. This Supreme Court is a disgrace. Thomas is an embarrasment, and Scalia, Alito, and Roberts should be nowhere near the Court. Bush goes in less than a year, but we'll be stuck with these losers for years.
02/20/08 12:48 PM
Joe Alt says:
I can't believe that there are so many people out there who THINK that there is still free speech in The United States.
02/20/08 1:00 PM
Jim from Michigan says:
We need to discuus issues like this (and many others) and have a mechanism nationally to use our collective ideas to "reinvent and actually implement" some forward thinking. Thsis and antithesis on many issues like this.
What if a standing committee of congressmen/women (and their humongous staff) reviewed anonymous whistleblowing cases without publication to see if a basis of truth exists?
02/20/08 1:02 PM
Bob says:
While this ruling makes me a bit uncomfortable as well, people have brought this upon themselves. People have abused the whistleblowing system as a tool of retaliation and political smear. To make it legal to leak sensitive information about our country just for selfish political motivations is wrong and I've seen too much of this. Furthermore in our country we have a right to see who our accuser is, and for someone to be able to just throw something out there to destroy somebody without having to respond to is wrong. Think about this, if you are an employer and you have a disgrutled employee who decides to go on a site like this and falsely name you as a child molester, there is nothing you can do. Even though there is no proof, the very suggestion has ruined your repution and your life and there's nothing you can do because this person would be hiding behind some whistleblower law.
02/20/08 1:02 PM
Joe Alt says:
"Free Speech" vanished along with our Right to Vote way back in 2000.
02/20/08 1:04 PM
Joe Alt says:
"Free Speech" vanished along with our Right to Vote way back in 2000.
02/20/08 1:05 PM
TIM says:
nationalsecuritymatters
Do you shake in your pants when someone on TV speaks the word Terroist or maybe believe in the fairy tale (The sky is falling ) that is what the Repubican party is trying to do to americans is take away there rights and say everything is nationalsecurity so they bring out the BOGGYMAN talk every other week to scare your simple minded people.
02/20/08 1:06 PM
Jim says:
So let's see...Supreme Court allows domestic spying to go on unabated but shuts down a snitch site that PROTECTS PEOPLE. We the people are keeping score of the parasitic LEETCH known as "our" so-called government. Like every other government before it that played the same game, it too shall someday fall.
02/20/08 1:12 PM
Kate says:
First off, you don't need a website aimed at whistleblowers to go online and post whatever you want about whomever you want. So the judge's decision is really moot.
Secondly, if you don't protect whistleblower's from retaliation, either from their company or coworkers, we will no longer find out about tainted beef like the story in the news now.
How much protection do you want to give companies that routinely lie and cheat?
02/20/08 1:34 PM
Carol Levy says:
To Bob, a few bad apples does not mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. If whistleblowers had not, and continue to be retaliated against for telling the truth, for exposing $100.00 toilet seats paid for by our tac dollars there would be no need for sites where they can go. My name has been sullied by some people without any proof. I on;t like it but I am not going to shut them up. It's their right to be liars but there must nbe recourse to prove accusations to be false. If no one listens then a website may well be the only answer.
02/20/08 1:35 PM
Earl Bailey says:
Before retirement I worked in manufacturing. A defect in the product was detected but, having been unsure of it's effect on performance, I needed access to testing equipment that was locked up on the off shifts. The shift supervisor would only allow me access if I agreed not to devulge the test results until the following day. I refused, and, as a result, the factory manufactured defective product for 24 hrs. "Boy was he holding his breath to find out if I'd told the truth the next day. (All involved were called in )
02/20/08 1:35 PM
djknugget says:
Has anyone ever considered:
A. The fact that the constitution clearly states that if we are not happy with the government we can dismantle it. Right now it seems like people are so fed up with the government that we should just go ahead and scrap it, and make a new one.
B. Sueing the supreme court for failing to obey the constitution.
C. That Ron Paul is a republican who voted against illegal wiretapping, the patriot act, raising taxes, against the war in Iraq, and has never voted for anything that is protected by the constitution.
Sorry to put in my little political add, but for all of the republican bashers, keep him in mind! He actually stands for what the republicans are supposed to stand for: small government and the freedoms gaurenteed by our constitution. There is always the write-in. www.RonPaul2008.com
02/20/08 1:40 PM
Court Shuts Down Whistleblower Site
Feb 20th 2008
by Tim Stevens
http://www.switched.com/2008/02/20/court-ruling-shuts-down-online-whistleblower-site/?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Nobody likes a snitch, but the whistleblower, someone who exposes corruption, is often held in quite high regard. There's a fine line between the two types of tattletales, but most everyone is almost always happy to see shady and illegal back room dealings exposed.
Everyone, it seems, except the American courts. The U.S. Supreme Court made exposing misdeeds a little more dangerous last year when it ruled that whistleblowing employees had no protection against retaliation from employers. Now, a California District Court judge has ordered the online anonymous whistleblowing site, Wikileaks.org, to shut down.
Wikileaks, which is currently available at the address Wikileaks.be, launched in December of 2006 as a place for the anonymous posting of information by whistleblowers. It was responsible for the revealing of the controversial "Standard Operating Procedures for Camp Delta" at Guantanamo Bay, which exposed some potential civil rights violations. The site hosts thousands of other posted documents, which range from supposed e-mails from U.S. Ambassadors to videos showing a nuclear accident in Japan.
Last week's ruling from the California judge is in response to a lawsuit by the Julius Baer Group, a Swiss bank that was alleged to be involved in money laundering. The allegations were backed up by documents posted -- illegally, according to the bank -- to Wikileaks. The judge ruled that the Wikileaks.org domain name could no longer be renewed or resolved.
Given that the site is mirrored in many countries around the world with suffixes besides ".org," however, it's likely that Wikileaks won't be affected too much by this immediate ruling. All that said, we expect a more concerted effort against this site in the not too distant future, given that the site's main purpose of exposing secrets more less always creates enemies.
From Computerworld and Wikipedia
Scott says:
Speaking of "concerted efforts", the injunction was preceded several hours earlier by both a 500Mbps distributed denial of service attack and a fire at the website's ISP.
02/20/08 11:37 AM
Keith J. Mohrhoff says:
This is ridiculous!! What ever happened to freedom of speech? That aside, by not protecting whistleblowers, we are forcing ordinary working people to become part of the crime by continuing to protect their employers interests regardless of their legality!!
02/20/08 11:57 AM
Kate says:
"Freedom of speech" sometimes actually means "libel". There's no proof of anything these people have written or put up (plus it doesn't sound as though this is a solely US site, and our constitutional freedoms do not protect us against a foreign government) - if they want to be real whistleblowers and not just disgruntled employees they should contact the appropriate authorities, not post anonymously on a website.
02/20/08 12:05 PM
warren garrison says:
Naturally they don't want anyone blowing the whistle, they might be targeted themselves. It's like the sorry ass Pima County Attorneys office in Tucson Arizona. A disgruntled mother who worked at a convenienct store falsely accused me of things I did not do because I had called the cops on her two boys vandalizing first the local laundry, and then the car wash so this was a chance to get even with me rather than thanking me. As I began to gather up my disclosures to defend myself I made the mistake of saying to a prosecutor, "when you see the tape you'll see I did nothing and was falsely arrested", my first arrest in 54 years, and then I added that I was going to sue the county because of how they treated me. Guess what? Before one of the receptionist realized what was going on she told me she had the tape and if I would bring $10 and a blank she would make me a copy, but by the time I got down to the county attorneys office, it had disappeared. BUT, you have to understand that Barbara LaWall's office has pulled some pret-ty shady and underhanded things in this town and yet they continue to get away with it. And if you want to take a shot at me bitch, this is Warren Garrison writing this, come on!!!!!!
02/20/08 12:11 PM
Ann says:
THIS IS "KING GEORGE" AND "UNCLE DICK'S" AMERICA FOR YOU; CALIFORNIA USED TO BE OK, BUT NOW WE SEE THIS HALF-WIT REPUBLICAN GOVERNING IT WHO SITS SO PRETTILY EMBROIDERED IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC FAMILY; ENOUGH OF THIS B*****IT!!!!!!!DOWN WITH THIS MOCKERY!!!!!!!!
IT'S OBAMA 2008!!!!!!!!!
GO OBAMA, GO,GO,GO!!!!!!!!!
02/20/08 12:21 PM
Carol Levy says:
Whistleblowing is necessary and so is protection.
In my medical malpractice against Dr, Peter J. Jannetta nurses told me they would not testify against him because they were afraid for their jobs. Doctors said they would not testify because he is so big in the neurosurgery world.
The Pa. Superior Court called Dr. Jannetta's testmony re: the risks of the surgery, an MVD or 'Jannetta Procedure', perjurioous * yet no one cared that he committed a felony by lying under oath. The Court did not sanction him nor did the state or medical societies. (In fact my lawyer forced me, literally, to settle out of court for a pittance that does not even cover my lifetime medical expenses. The lawyer, Michael Fishbein, as an offcer of the court, should have made a criminal complaint for perjury.)
Maybe if people felt safe coming forward when they see illegal or unethical prosecutable acts the court systems would not be so clogged up - the proof would be out there. The guilty would be pleading guilty.
* "We have little difficulty in concluding that Dr. Jannetta's testimony at deposition was different than, or inconsistent with, the testimony at trial." Levy v Jannetta, CCP Allegheny County, GD 81-7689; appeal -J. A370017/92 Levy v Jannetta et al, No. 00150 Pittsburgh, 1992. settled, 1995
02/20/08 12:23 PM
nationalsecuritymatters says:
If this site is posting material that would directly impact United States national security, it should be shut down in a heartbeat.
02/20/08 12:28 PM
Keith J. Mohrhoff says:
Kate: the problem is that since the Supreme Court denies any protection to whistleblowers, "Going to the authorities" is impossible! It is now to the point where the only people who can afford to do the right thing are those with enough financial resources to whether the fallout.
Hence, anonymity is necessary and may serve a useful purpose. If an employee can go on-line and post anonymously about the illegal actions of their employer, then maybe, someone from the authorities can investigate and discover the proof.
02/20/08 12:42 PM
PG says:
Another example of the Bush Adminstration and the GOP ruining this country. This Supreme Court is a disgrace. Thomas is an embarrasment, and Scalia, Alito, and Roberts should be nowhere near the Court. Bush goes in less than a year, but we'll be stuck with these losers for years.
02/20/08 12:48 PM
Joe Alt says:
I can't believe that there are so many people out there who THINK that there is still free speech in The United States.
02/20/08 1:00 PM
Jim from Michigan says:
We need to discuus issues like this (and many others) and have a mechanism nationally to use our collective ideas to "reinvent and actually implement" some forward thinking. Thsis and antithesis on many issues like this.
What if a standing committee of congressmen/women (and their humongous staff) reviewed anonymous whistleblowing cases without publication to see if a basis of truth exists?
02/20/08 1:02 PM
Bob says:
While this ruling makes me a bit uncomfortable as well, people have brought this upon themselves. People have abused the whistleblowing system as a tool of retaliation and political smear. To make it legal to leak sensitive information about our country just for selfish political motivations is wrong and I've seen too much of this. Furthermore in our country we have a right to see who our accuser is, and for someone to be able to just throw something out there to destroy somebody without having to respond to is wrong. Think about this, if you are an employer and you have a disgrutled employee who decides to go on a site like this and falsely name you as a child molester, there is nothing you can do. Even though there is no proof, the very suggestion has ruined your repution and your life and there's nothing you can do because this person would be hiding behind some whistleblower law.
02/20/08 1:02 PM
Joe Alt says:
"Free Speech" vanished along with our Right to Vote way back in 2000.
02/20/08 1:04 PM
Joe Alt says:
"Free Speech" vanished along with our Right to Vote way back in 2000.
02/20/08 1:05 PM
TIM says:
nationalsecuritymatters
Do you shake in your pants when someone on TV speaks the word Terroist or maybe believe in the fairy tale (The sky is falling ) that is what the Repubican party is trying to do to americans is take away there rights and say everything is nationalsecurity so they bring out the BOGGYMAN talk every other week to scare your simple minded people.
02/20/08 1:06 PM
Jim says:
So let's see...Supreme Court allows domestic spying to go on unabated but shuts down a snitch site that PROTECTS PEOPLE. We the people are keeping score of the parasitic LEETCH known as "our" so-called government. Like every other government before it that played the same game, it too shall someday fall.
02/20/08 1:12 PM
Kate says:
First off, you don't need a website aimed at whistleblowers to go online and post whatever you want about whomever you want. So the judge's decision is really moot.
Secondly, if you don't protect whistleblower's from retaliation, either from their company or coworkers, we will no longer find out about tainted beef like the story in the news now.
How much protection do you want to give companies that routinely lie and cheat?
02/20/08 1:34 PM
Carol Levy says:
To Bob, a few bad apples does not mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. If whistleblowers had not, and continue to be retaliated against for telling the truth, for exposing $100.00 toilet seats paid for by our tac dollars there would be no need for sites where they can go. My name has been sullied by some people without any proof. I on;t like it but I am not going to shut them up. It's their right to be liars but there must nbe recourse to prove accusations to be false. If no one listens then a website may well be the only answer.
02/20/08 1:35 PM
Earl Bailey says:
Before retirement I worked in manufacturing. A defect in the product was detected but, having been unsure of it's effect on performance, I needed access to testing equipment that was locked up on the off shifts. The shift supervisor would only allow me access if I agreed not to devulge the test results until the following day. I refused, and, as a result, the factory manufactured defective product for 24 hrs. "Boy was he holding his breath to find out if I'd told the truth the next day. (All involved were called in )
02/20/08 1:35 PM
djknugget says:
Has anyone ever considered:
A. The fact that the constitution clearly states that if we are not happy with the government we can dismantle it. Right now it seems like people are so fed up with the government that we should just go ahead and scrap it, and make a new one.
B. Sueing the supreme court for failing to obey the constitution.
C. That Ron Paul is a republican who voted against illegal wiretapping, the patriot act, raising taxes, against the war in Iraq, and has never voted for anything that is protected by the constitution.
Sorry to put in my little political add, but for all of the republican bashers, keep him in mind! He actually stands for what the republicans are supposed to stand for: small government and the freedoms gaurenteed by our constitution. There is always the write-in. www.RonPaul2008.com
02/20/08 1:40 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)