🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 14:37:25 -0500, James Riske
<apathy1@earthstink.net> wrote:

>>He will...Directv DSL already has a letter from my attorney
>>requesting his identity.
>
>You need a court order, and even with a court order it could take
>years to get any info out of them because they could make endless
>appeals..
>
>Didn't you see what happened with aol?
>Even after aol lost their court case they still refused to hand over
>any personal info about one of their members:
>
>AOL forced to reveal member's identity:
>
>State supreme court throws out first amendment defence
>By Paul Hales: Wednesday 04 December 2002, 16:55
>
>AOL IS TO BE FORCED to reveal the name of one of its subscribers
>following a ruling by the Virginia State Supreme court, reports state.
>
>AOL was asked to court to reconsider its findings, claiming the right
>to free speech was the real issue at stake, the Reporters Committee
>for the Freedom of Speech says.
>
>Hong Kong-based Nam Tai Electronics has sought to discover the
>identity of an individual who posted a message on a Yahoo! board which
>the company claims is libelous. The company is seeking compensation
>and punitive damages against the individual who it says was part of a
>plot to persuade investors away from the company.
>
>Nam Tai initially sought damages from Yahoo! in relation to the
>posting by scovey2 and 51 other individuals. Scovey2 called the
>company�s products "crap" in the posting. In the course of its
>investigations Nam Tai discovered that scovey2 is an AOL member and
>therefore asked the Virginia court � where AOL is based � to force it
>to disclose the posters� identity.
>
>The Virginia Supreme Court ruled at the beginning of November that AOL
>must disclose the identity of the poster, upholding an earlier circuit
>court decision.
>
>AOL spokesperson Nicholas Graham said AOL believes "very strongly
>[that its] members have protected free speech rights on an online
>media."
>
>Yet the lower court concluded in June 2001 that "the First Amendment
>privacy concerns of the anonymous defendant are outweighed by the
>State of California's interest in the ability of its litigants to
>conduct out-of-state discovery." In August, 2001 a Virginia court
>Chief Judge said that the First Amendment concerns did not apply to
>Nam Tai's claims of unfair business practices.
>
>AOL may yet take to case to the US Supreme court. "The information was
>not being supplied to them because we felt that the subscriber in
>question had a right to free speech on the service," Graham said. "We
>were going to court in order to ensure that our members had a right to
>free speech and right to privacy," he said. � 
>============================================
>Nobody ever defended anything successfully,
>there is only attack and attack and attack some more.
>--Gen George S. Patton




What's even funnier is that they don't even have my real name and/or
location.  

hahaha!~

Tom Shelly, Undefeated White God