🚀 go-pugleaf

On 2009-12-30, Albert Ekman <atlasbuggedbyspam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
> anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him.  The perpetrators
> posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
> lies.  Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.
>
> Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
> in Ocean County, New Jersey,

He also appears to have friends who are spammers.

> The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
> meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
> Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm.  It
> immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
> spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
> essentially amounts to stealing.

typical right-tard  knee-jerk-off  "it's stealing"

Bullshit.

> Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
> law is changed.

Then the guy is an idiot.  A law change is most unlikely to give him
redress against past wrongs.

> The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
> utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
> happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
> of recourse.

Insanity apparently.

> Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
> Trade Commission prosecutions.  But it's a stretch, legally.  Some
> balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
> freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
> a vehicle for justice.

sounds like he doesn't understand the internet.

> The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
> same way.  Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
> information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
> providing information about some perpetrators.  It's a serious uphill
> battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
> several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.
>
> These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
> original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
> reporting of this matter here.

I don't recall reading it, but anonymous posts are worth about as
much as anonymous IOUs. (It was 5 months ago, someone is a little slow!)

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

In article <61ae869c-ff64-475a-a5e3-f4c7ac3ca7ec@d7g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
Albert Ekman  <atlasbuggedbyspam@gmail.com> wrote:
>Atty Charles Novins Seeks Changes In Law to Protect Innocents From
>Internet Vandals
>
>Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
>anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him.  The perpetrators
>posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
>lies.  Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.
>
>Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
>in Ocean County, New Jersey,
>
>Of course, the ability to post anonymously to the internet in such a
>way that it is impossible to be traced is now trivially easy, so it is
>likely further libel will appear.  The only way this will ever be
>addressed is to hold the "publishers" - online services ranging from
>Google all the way down to bedroom-based chat-room providers -
>responsible, just as was done in the days of print publishing.
>
>The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
>meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
>Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm.  It
>immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
>spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
>essentially amounts to stealing.
>
>Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
>law is changed.  The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
>utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
>happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
>of recourse.
>
>Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
>Trade Commission prosecutions.  But it's a stretch, legally.  Some
>balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
>freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
>a vehicle for justice.
>
>The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
>same way.  Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
>information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
>providing information about some perpetrators.  It's a serious uphill
>battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
>several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.
>
>These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
>original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
>reporting of this matter here.


BRAVO!!!


-- 
Master of Puppets                 Direct line and fax:   206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement �          Am I the only one with half a brain?

On Dec 29, 7:19 pm, Albert Ekman <atlasbuggedbys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Atty Charles Novins Seeks Changes In Law to Protect Innocents From
> Internet Vandals
>
> Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
> anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him.  The perpetrators
> posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
> lies.  Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.
>
> Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
> in Ocean County, New Jersey,
>
> Of course, the ability to post anonymously to the internet in such a
> way that it is impossible to be traced is now trivially easy, so it is
> likely further libel will appear.  The only way this will ever be
> addressed is to hold the "publishers" - online services ranging from
> Google all the way down to bedroom-based chat-room providers -
> responsible, just as was done in the days of print publishing.
>
> The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
> meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
> Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm.  It
> immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
> spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
> essentially amounts to stealing.
>
> Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
> law is changed.  The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
> utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
> happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
> of recourse.
>
> Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
> Trade Commission prosecutions.  But it's a stretch, legally.  Some
> balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
> freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
> a vehicle for justice.
>
> The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
> same way.  Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
> information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
> providing information about some perpetrators.  It's a serious uphill
> battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
> several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.
>
> These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
> original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
> reporting of this matter here.

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
responsible?  Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
tracking capability.  Guess that won't work all the time either, since
there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
brings that truth forward should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention?  Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Robert Macy <macy@california.com> got double secret probation for
writing:

>Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
>review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
>responsible?  Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
>tracking capability.  Guess that won't work all the time either, since
>there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
>brings that truth forward should be protected.
>
>Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention?  Else,
>there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.
>
>
How about we do it the easy way:

1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
upsets them, leave the interwebs.

2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
moderated web board.

3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, fuck
themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.

The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

"Aratzio" <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:fdcnj5dns6nunamjk4mia4mu3funkb1m7a@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
> Robert Macy <macy@california.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
> 
> >Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
> >review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
> >responsible?  Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
> >tracking capability.  Guess that won't work all the time either, since
> >there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
> >brings that truth forward should be protected.
> >
> >Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention?  Else,
> >there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.
> >
> >
> How about we do it the easy way:
> 
> 1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
> upsets them, leave the interwebs.
> 
> 2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
> moderated web board.
> 
> 3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, fuck
> themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.
> 
> The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

That surely includes "you" leaving as you're almost as dumb as "Fat-Boi" Plow !!

No body could be dumber that the "Twinkie-Boi" !!
--
HJ

In article <fdcnj5dns6nunamjk4mia4mu3funkb1m7a@4ax.com>,
Aratzio  <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
>Robert Macy <macy@california.com> got double secret probation for
>writing:
>
>>Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
>>review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
>>responsible?  Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
>>tracking capability.  Guess that won't work all the time either, since
>>there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
>>brings that truth forward should be protected.
>>
>>Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention?  Else,
>>there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.
>>
>>
>How about we do it the easy way:
>
>1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
>upsets them, leave the interwebs.
>
>2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
>moderated web board.
>
>3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, fuck
>themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.
>
>The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.


Although no sign of Kebbie Cannon for miles.

-- 
Master of Puppets                 Direct line and fax:   206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement �          Am I the only one with half a brain?

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:05:49 -0800, Aratzio wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
> Robert Macy <macy@california.com> got double secret probation for
> writing:
> 
>>Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
>>review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS responsible?
>> Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete tracking capability. 
>>Guess that won't work all the time either, since there are situations
>>where truth should surface and the person who brings that truth forward
>>should be protected.
>>
>>Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention?  Else,
>>there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.
>>
>>
> How about we do it the easy way:
> 
> 1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which upsets
> them, leave the interwebs.
> 
> 2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
> moderated web board.
> 
> 3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, fuck
> themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.
> 
> The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

IAWTP.