more usenet implications from court case

"Susan Walker" wrote in message
...

Please, LEARN (your newsreader) TO GODDAMN QUOTE CORRECTLY! Look at what

It's a bug in Outlook Express. When people post with html instead of
straight ASCII text it screws up.

William Mattil wrote:

Quit using Outhouse to post with or at least take the time to
configure it properly. And while we're at it - quit trying to
justify your lame posts.

Have you ever added anything to this group?

On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
KG wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla

Longo sued people before for defamation and libel.

The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive.
I'm not sure there is libel there.

Dumbass -

The case isn't about libel. There were no damages.

The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as
purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely
ordered that Google ID the blogger.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements
were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters..

Educate yourself:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387




Dumbass -

That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the
stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and
companies' products.

The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in
common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of
a company's product.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

KG wrote:

On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
KG wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla

Longo sued people before for defamation and libel.

The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive.
I'm not sure there is libel there.

Dumbass -

The case isn't about libel. There were no damages.

The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as
purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely
ordered that Google ID the blogger.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements
were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters.

Educate yourself:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387

Dumbass -

That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the
stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and
companies' products.

The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in
common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of
a company's product.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Maybe, bitch.

Magilla

On Aug 24, 2:00*am, KG wrote:
On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
KG wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla

Longo sued people before for defamation and libel.

The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive.
I'm not sure there is libel there.

Dumbass -

The case isn't about libel. There were no damages.

The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as
purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely
ordered that Google ID the blogger.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements
were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters.

Educate yourself:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387

Dumbass -

That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the
stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and
companies' products.

The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in
common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of
a company's product.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Dumbass,

I sort of agree with Magilla. I suspect that you can't
just sue to reveal a blogger's identity. You probably
have to justify it by showing that you have grounds
for pursuing a suit against the blogger on some charge.
In the Cohen case, she was threatening to bring a defamation
suit (but from news articles, I think she's since dropped it).

Where I disagree with Magilla is the idea that the judge
found the underlying statements to be defamatory or
injurious. The judge probably did not make a finding of
fact. The judge merely has to agree that the plaintiff
has reasonable grounds for a suit. So a completely
frivolous case would probably get thrown out. But if
a good lawyer can persuade the judge that the plaintiff
_might_ win a defamation case, then the judge could
let the case go forward, which will generally require
compelling the ISP to give up the identity.

Disclaimer: After genetic testing, the IAAF
has determined that I am not a lawyer.

Ben

wrote:


Disclaimer: After genetic testing, the IAAF
has determined that I am not a lawyer.



Just having two working brain cells automatically disqualifies you.

Bill


--
William R. Mattil

http://www.celestial-images.com

On Aug 24, 10:48*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:00*am, KG wrote:





On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
KG wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla

Longo sued people before for defamation and libel.

The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive.
I'm not sure there is libel there.

Dumbass -

The case isn't about libel. There were no damages.

The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as
purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely
ordered that Google ID the blogger.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements
were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters.

Educate yourself:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387

Dumbass -

That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the
stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and
companies' products.

The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in
common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of
a company's product.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Dumbass,

I sort of agree with Magilla. *I suspect that you can't
just sue to reveal a blogger's identity. *

snip


Dumbass -

I never wrote that.

All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet.

I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to
that case.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Aug 24, 11:58*am, KG wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:48*am, "
wrote:





On Aug 24, 2:00*am, KG wrote:

On Aug 22, 12:51*pm, MagillaGorilla wrote:
KG wrote:
On Aug 21, 8:48*am, Bob Schwartz
wrote:
GoneBeforeMyTime wrote:
liz hatch will soon sue to unmask magilla

Longo sued people before for defamation and libel.

The ape feels that Hatch isn't that good or attractive.
I'm not sure there is libel there.

Dumbass -

The case isn't about libel. There were no damages.

The term "Biggest skank in New York" could be easily interpreted as
purely subjective. The judge didn't award money. The judge merely
ordered that Google ID the blogger.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

The judge based his decision on the fact that the underlying statements
were defamatory and injuriour and likely not true. *The content matters.

Educate yourself:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1144067964387

Dumbass -

That looks like it was written before this latest case. Most of the
stuff in the article you reference has to do with bloggers and
companies' products.

The case referenced in the first post in this thread has a lot more in
common with postings on rbr and the rest of usenet than criticisms of
a company's product.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Dumbass,

I sort of agree with Magilla. *I suspect that you can't
just sue to reveal a blogger's identity. *

snip

Dumbass -

I never wrote that.

All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet.

I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to
that case.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.



Let me rephrase:

I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to
what was written in the blog in that case.

KG wrote:
On Aug 24, 11:58 am, KG wrote:
All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet.

I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to
what was written in the blog in that case.

But why would someone sue only to obtain the true identity of Magilla?
Wouldn't it be easier to just friend one of us on Facebook and ask? Like
Carl or Ryan, because I think they use their real names on here so they
would be easy to find on there, plus they seem nice.

Susan Walker wrote:

KG wrote:
On Aug 24, 11:58 am, KG wrote:
All I ever said was that case has implications for usenet.

I can think of several running threads that are close analogies to
what was written in the blog in that case.

But why would someone sue only to obtain the true identity of Magilla?
Wouldn't it be easier to just friend one of us on Facebook and ask? Like
Carl or Ryan, because I think they use their real names on here so they
would be easy to find on there, plus they seem nice.


Yeah. And they don't remove hysterically funny posts from their wall like
some of the douches on fb.

But I've been asking and asking them to give me MG's name so I can contact
him and get Hatch's cell # since I'm pretty sure he has it from when she
dumped him, and they won't. It isn't clear if they are simply being
selfish and keeping Hatch's number for themselves, or protecting Hatch
and/or Magilla from me, or me from myself.

--
Bill Asher