December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

Re: Internet, Countries, Nationalism, etc.
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > You can take a horse to water, you can't make him drink. You can drown him > however. Then you are walking, not riding. Thanks for clearing this up for us, Jim. I know that a lot of CypherPunks have been wondering about this, and many others as well. Hopefully, it will be posted on many conferences to enlighted others, as well. Toto

1 0

cc.300.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PUNISHMENT OF LIBEL KNOWN TO BE FALSE. 300. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. [R.S., c.C-34, s.264.] _________________________________________________________________ Next, Section 301 ...

1 0

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

libsln.htm
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Landskroner, LTD. [INLINE] Libel / Slander Libel / Slander is an area that involves defamatory oral or written statements containing false and misleading material which causes damage or injury to reputation and/or monetary loss. We provide a quick review of their success stories , some media and newspaper articles about what they've been able to do for their clients, and published articles about this topic. Please e-mail us with questions about our service! Landskroner and Phillips [INLINE] Nationally Recognized Consumer Trial Advocates. Over 100 Years combined experience in both State and Federal Courts. 55 Public Square, Tenth Floor, Cleveland Ohio 44113-1904 Phone: (216) 241-7000 Fax: (216) 241-3135 Toll Free: (888) 241-7001 [INLINE]

1 0

1a_c7p4.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] Chapter VII: Libel Identification _________________________________________________________________ A plaintiff must prove that the alleged defamatory publication refers to him or her. Relatives cannot sue on behalf of a deceased person. Governmental entities cannot bring libel claims, nor can members of large groups (usually 25 or more). However, if the statement can be interpreted as referring to a particular person in a group, that person can sue. Also, if the offending information pertains to a majority of the members of a small group, any member of the group has standing to sue. A corporation may bring a libel claim if the alleged defamatory statement raises doubts about the honesty, credit, efficiency or prestige of that business. However, if the statements refer only to corporate officers, the corporation cannot litigate on their behalf. _________________________________________________________________ [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

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

libel.html
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[IMAGE] [IMAGE] Libel and Slander "Libel" involves the publishing of a falsehood that harms someone. Slander is the same doctrine applied to the spoken word. Collectively, they are referred to as "defamation". Both are a matter of state laws, which usually (not always) require that the falsehood be intentional. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.

1 0