December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

cc.317.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

VERDICTS IN CASES OF DEFAMATORY LIBEL. 317. Where, on the trial of an indictment for publishing a defamatory libel, a plea of not guilty is pleaded, the jury that is sworn to try the issue may give a general verdict of guilty or not guilty on the whole matter put in issue on the indictment, and shall not be required or directed by the judge to find the defendant guilty merely on proof of publication by the defendant of the alleged defamatory libel, and of the sense ascribed thereto in the indictment, but the judge may, in his discretion, give a direction or opinion to the jury on the matter in issue as in other criminal proceedings, and the jury may, on the issue, find a special verdict. [R.S., c.C-34, s.281.] _________________________________________________________________ Next, Section 318 ...

1 0

PublicF_j385.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Libel Plaintiffs - Public or Private Person Status Recent Examples PUBLIC OFFICIALS: * High School Teacher, Elstrom v. Independent Sch. District (Minn. 1995) * Elementary School Principal, 20 MLR 1640 (VT.) * Former County Employee w/ Financial Responsiblity, 20 MLR 2159 (Tenn.) * Police Officer, 21 MLR 1588 (Az.) * Federal Strike Force Attorney, 20 MLR 1649 (Az.) * TVA Official, 20 MLR 1873 (6th) * Athletic Director/Football Coach, 21 MLR 1746 (Tx.) * Special-Agent-In-Charge of President Ford's Secret Service Detail, 21 MLR 1842 (D.D.C.) * Mississippi Public Defender, 22 MLR 1413 (DC S. Miss. 1994) * Former Deputy Sheriff, 22 MLR 2013 (Fla CirCt. 1994) * Commissioned National Guard Officers, 22 MLR 2046 (Ga. SuperCt 1994) * Police Lieutenant, 22 MLR 2129 (NJ SupCt 1994) * President of State Troopers' association, 22 MLR (NY SupCt AppDiv. 1993) NOT PUBLIC OFFICIALS: High School Principal, 20 MLR 2095 (GA.) Deputy Public Defender, 21 MLR 1624 (CA) Street & Traffic Supervisor, LeDoux v. Northstar Pub., 521 N.W. 2d (Mn. 1994) LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURES: * Charity seeking donations and organizer, 21 MLR 1449 (4th Cir.) * Attorney in private practice representing several school districts, 20 MLR 1992 (NJ) * Physician who sought media attention for practice and technique, 20 MLR 1613 (NY) * Star Witness in Jim Garrison case who "sought limelight", 20 MLR 2113 (La.) * Lawn Mower Repair Co., 22 MLR 1461 (NJ SuperCt. AppDiv. 1994)* * Police Officer/Subject of Book, 22 MLR 1385 (5th Cir. 1994)* * Paycologists/authors, 22 MLR 1852 (7th Cir. 1994) * Convicted Murderer, 22 MLR 2239 (DC Sind. 1994)* * Actress/Model, 22 MLR 2147 (DC E Wis. 1994) * * Appointed tax collector who never took office, 22 MLR 2157 (Ariz SuperCt 1994) * Brother who "voluntarily thrust himself" into controversy surrounding his brothers arrest, 22 MLR 1434 (Ca Ct App 1994) *Note: It is not clear that these individuals would be limited public figures in Oregon. NOT PUBLIC FIGURES: * Host of a loud party, 21 MLR 1378 (Pa.) * Woman at home where MLK had dinner night before shot who was alledged to have had extramarital affair with King, 21 MLR 1353 (S.D.N.Y) * Person accused of of sexual misconduct, 22 MLR 2353 (4th Cir. 1994) Return to J385 Home page

1 0

1a_c7p6.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Fault _________________________________________________________________ The Supreme Court has recognized different standards for different types of libel plaintiffs, with public officials and public figures required to show a high degree of fault. Celebrities and others with power in a community are usually considered public figures. Politicians and high-ranking government personnel are public officials. Courts generally consider public officials to include public employees who have substantial responsibility for or control over the conduct of governmental affairs. Some courts have found that public school teachers and police officers are public officials. But determining if other people are private or public figures is not always easy. In some instances, there may be overlapping in the private and public category. For example, a businessperson who has high visibility because of fundraising efforts in a community may or may not be a public figure for all purposes. A plaintiff who is considered a public figure or official must prove that the publisher or broadcaster acted with "actual malice" in reporting derogatory information. "Actual malice" does not mean ill will or intent to harm. Instead, the term applies to whether the defendant knew that the challenged statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. Courts may examine reporting procedures in testing for actual malice. While carelessness is not usually considered reckless disregard, ignoring obvious ways of substantiating allegations could be considered reckless. In Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, the Supreme Court held that even an extreme deviation from professional standards, or the publication of a story to increase circulation, do not in themselves prove actual malice. The Court also said that while failure to investigate facts does not necessarily prove actual malice, a "purposeful avoidance of the truth" may. Use of quotations that are not literally accurate will not necessarily be considered proof of actual malice as long as the altered quotes do not materially change the meaning of the words the speaker used. In Masson v. The New Yorker Magazine, the Supreme Court acknowledged that some editing of quotations is often necessary, but refused to extend protection to all edits that are at least a "rational interpretation" of what the speaker said. If the plaintiff is a private litigant, he or she must at least prove that the publisher or broadcaster was negligent in failing to ascertain that the statement was false and defamatory. Some states may impose a higher burden on private-figure litigants, especially if the story in question concerns a matter of public importance. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

1a_c7p7.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Defenses _________________________________________________________________ Truth is generally a complete bar to recovery by any plaintiff who sues for libel. Making sure that any potentially libelous material can be proven true can avoid needless litigation. Fair Report. Libelous statements made by others in certain settings are often conditionally privileged if the reporter, in good faith, accurately reports information of public interest. This privilege usually applies to official meetings such as judicial proceedings, legislative hearings and grand jury deliberations. Opinion is still protected speech under the First Amendment, although the Supreme Court limited the formerly broad reach of opinion protection in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal. The court ruled that there is no separate opinion privilege, but because factual truth is a defense to a libel claim an opinion with no "provably false factual connotation" is still protected. As a result of this decision, courts will examine statements of opinion to see if they are based on or presume underlying facts. If these facts are false or defamatory, the "opinion" statements will not be protected. Consent. If a person gives permission for the publication of the information, that person cannot later sue for libel. However, denial, refusal to answer or silence concerning the statement do not constitute consent. The statute of limitations for bringing libel suits varies from state to state. Generally the time limit for filing a libel lawsuit starts at the time of the first publication of the alleged defamation. If the plaintiff does not sue within the statutory time period, the litigation can be barred. Although a retraction is not usually considered a defense to a libel claim, it may reduce the damages a defendant must pay if found liable for defamation. Before agreeing to publish a retraction, consult an attorney. _________________________________________________________________ [INLINE] Back to Table of Contents [INLINE] Jump to next section in this chapter

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Nurdane Oksas wrote: > > California is know for very beautiful girls ... > > wrong. well, seems D. Thorn agrees with the song: 'california girls'

1 0

Xerox is watching you
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You'll find an article worth a visit to the dentist in the January 1997 issue of Popular Science. It tells a story from the 1960's cold war era. It seems that the only American who could get into the Soviet Embassy was the Xerox repairman. So the CIA and Xerox built a camera that took a picture of every copy that could be installed inside the 914 cabinet (where it would be invisble). Once a month, the repairman came by to do the ordinary cleaning and repair (those things broke down a lot). Part of the repair process exchanged the camera for a fresh load. The CIA could then read everything that was copied. The article suggests that other Xerox models had their own cameras. My back of the envelope (literally) computation suggests that one roll of 8-millimeter film would hold about 30,000 images. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

2 1

Re: Happy birthday to Oksas
by Nurdane Oksas 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you Dr. Vulis ! :) oksas

1 0

Fantasy quotes & libel
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, After review of the material I forwarded by request it is clear that 'fantasy' quotes are libel provided: * the person being quoted is not a public figure. On a 'private' mailing list like the cypherpunks this is a given unless similar statements can be found in the public records. * the section added to the original quote is not clearly seperated or otherwise dilineated such that a reader will be able to tell what the original quote was and the extrapolation by the 'editor' is. * there is clear intent to effect the perception of the original authors reputation in a negative or otherwise harmful manner. * the 'fantasy' quote is not clearly marked as the opinion of the editor. While quoting persons with editing is allowed under the 1st Amendment as understood by the courts the attributation of extrapolations by a third party (meaning a party other than the original author and the reader) as 'true' quotes of the original author is not. 'Truth' is usually ascribed as protection against libel, however, opinions are not 'true', they are opinions not facts as accepted by a court. With the current 'editorial control' as provided by the cypherpunks mailing list the mailing list operator/censor may also be held in some situations accountable as well. This occurs because the relationship between list operator and the quoter is similar to that of editor and reporter in a newspaper. For the quoter to get his quote distributed the list operator must ok it. The reasoning used is that the editor 'should have known' the boundaries and applied them. Not only is ignorance not an excuse but neither is negligence. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

re: fighting the cybercensor
by Howard Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A recent publication "The Sovereign Individual"('97) discusses many of the issues discussed on Cypherpunks. The authors, James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, sketch the likely totalitarian scenarios that will emerge in the coming years. Just as we see every day in the media, they predict that we ain't seen nothing yet when it comes to the attempts to regulate cyberspace, cryptography, and the content of online information. Portraying cellular phone triangulation as a public health concern, etc., are just the beginning. The authors also paint a bleak picture for blanc's 'True Believer' types. They will continue to be milked "as a farmer milks his cows" while those with techno-savvy and 'extranational' savoir faire will grow wings and take their wealth and marketable skills to other jurisdictions where predatory taxmen and arbitrary civil forfeiture laws don't exist. The book is sort of Toffleresque, but written better and full of historical parallels that help the reader to understand social upheavals of the past and how the demise of failing contemporary institutions are likely to affect Joe windowz95. Example: chapter 4- "The Last Days of Politics: Parallels Betwen the Senile Decline of the Holy Mother Church and the Nanny State". aloha, wc

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > BTW, if y'all can't stay away, I have a list of So. Cal. nude beaches, > approx. 3 years old. I don't go in for that sick, perverted stuff, myself, but I have a friend...

1 0