- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

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

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

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

Passphrase Online...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, I have a question reg. passphrases: If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? If so, how would that be done? Also, if I am online, is it possible for somebody to access my hard drive? Thanks in advance for your help... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMucA7jltEBIEF0MBAQFdewf/Q74ATvi+OZzSCdyFrIRQ5aRjychCd6hO DbfM+/NQ6EcZseKp30JyjmV2VW4Y+HrxIYPtFKii4XzOJ8YCE2Cvtvn9gP8mAntY oIgsUZG36t+L4nmANpsiEHyzEIMlhjcgW7alKTr+hFbnRjlPwX8W0gdEIXAgIl2k 4uYEB+P+cfUhy1xPQgWfAk6VFspNIHIlFJ3mUqEIJTAOguV//UfIjyNFoGrZhiG7 ocy6YaQ2LiNpoh5xHBIvMf8YSz+FJORVLTucsmA0DYSHMKatNNutXGHoEI5kW1Ww 1O5YAoIuvCLyg/4AEgPBVeU2ClJjARmKrzBcw1bMZDp3wv/DkZdoEQ== =Xtu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

RE: Jim Choate Speaks Out on My Part of the Net
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Jim Choate wrote: > For instance, since Toto pays for the hardware and software that comprises > his part of the net, he is free to limit, control, and edit for content, > anything that passes through his part of the net. > Although I sometimes disagree with Toto because of my limited ability to > understand things on a conceptual level, his rugged good looks, charm, > and superior intelligence show that he should be allowed to control his > own privately owned part of the net and anything that passes through it. .......................................................... I believe it, Jim. .. Blanc

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

1 0

Passphrase Online...
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there, I have a question reg. passphrases: If I am connected to the Internet via a SLIP/PPP connection and I type my passphrase while being online (for example, in Private Idaho, after getting my mail), could that passphrase be compromised? If so, how would that be done? Also, if I am online, is it possible for somebody to access my hard drive? Thanks in advance for your help... Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka(a)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMucA7jltEBIEF0MBAQFdewf/Q74ATvi+OZzSCdyFrIRQ5aRjychCd6hO DbfM+/NQ6EcZseKp30JyjmV2VW4Y+HrxIYPtFKii4XzOJ8YCE2Cvtvn9gP8mAntY oIgsUZG36t+L4nmANpsiEHyzEIMlhjcgW7alKTr+hFbnRjlPwX8W0gdEIXAgIl2k 4uYEB+P+cfUhy1xPQgWfAk6VFspNIHIlFJ3mUqEIJTAOguV//UfIjyNFoGrZhiG7 ocy6YaQ2LiNpoh5xHBIvMf8YSz+FJORVLTucsmA0DYSHMKatNNutXGHoEI5kW1Ww 1O5YAoIuvCLyg/4AEgPBVeU2ClJjARmKrzBcw1bMZDp3wv/DkZdoEQ== =Xtu7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Cypher-Apology
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I seem to have posted one of my private emails to the conference by mistake. It was in regard to a lady whose son is going to court in the morning and has nothing to do with crypto. (unless I try to make a supremely long leap in relating Tourette Syndrome to the Timmy May 'cocksucker' postings) My first instinct was to blame Bill Gates for holding me hostage and forcing me to use Win95. My second instinct was to try to excuse my error by blaming the ingestion of large amounts of drugs and alcohol for my misdirection of my email. However, after consultation with the space aliens who speak to me through the mercury filling in my teeth, I have come to the realization that the error was the result of the fact that I am a fucking idiot. I imagine that my apology will not be received by those on the censored list, as I have just 'flamed' myself. I would apologize for this, as well, but I am still sober enough to realize that this could quite possibly result in an endless-apology-loop which would interfere with the rights of those on the cypherpunks-uncensored list to receive the "Make $$Money$$ Fast" postings that Sandy has been so kind to forward to those who oppose censorship of list subscribers. Toto

1 0