p2pnet libel case appeal
Please make a donation
help p2pnet take on Sharman Networks and Kazaa
p2pnet.net is one of the few active blogs and dissenting voices focusing on the relentless entertainment and software cartel assault on file sharing, peer-to-peer organizations and individuals using this technology. p2pnet has also provided a venue for ordinary people, including victims of extortion lawsuits, to express themselves without fear.
In an ironic twist of fate, Kazaa owner Sharman Networks, a so-called p2p company, threatens to undermine p2pnet’s mission, my livelihood and the blog concept itself in Canada. Sharman and Kazaa ceo Nikki Hemming have filed a libel lawsuit against p2pnet.
Any blog, blogger or reader could be next. Please help me fight and stop-the-blogsuit from censoring online activism.
Help me beat the lawsuit. Click the PayPal button below to make a donation.
If you’d rather not use PayPal, you can email me here:
Jon Newton
PO Boxs 1532
Lake Cowichan,
British Columbia V0R 2G0
Canada
If you have a web site and want to help get the word out, enter your url into the box below to generate HTML code for your own donation button. Your site will be given credit on Jason Rohrer’s tracker page for all donations drawn through your button. I’ll also be posting them on p2pnet, from time to time.
|
|
Meanwhile, the Sharman / Hemming suit appears to be a straight defamation claim, but what’s really on trial is whether or not an online publication – a blog – can be held responsible for something someone else posts. Or put another way, rather than being a publisher, is it in reality a content filter acting on behalf of persons unknown?
And there’s something else: as far as I’m concerned, an anonymous post is the same as a confidential source. I don’t have to like a post, or even agree with it. But I believe that as an honest and responsible human being, I do have to safeguard the poster, if indeed I know who he or she is which in this cased, I don’t.
If Sharman wins it’ll make life a potential hell for bloggers in Canada, at the least. And you can bet the case will be used as a reference for similar actions around the world.
That’s why I’m going to fight it vigorously in front of a jury, with or without a lawyer.
p2pnet.net went online in August, 2002. It was the first Internet web page to carry daily, frequently updated news stories, features and commentaries discussing developments in the p2p and digital media arenas.
p2pnet’s focus is on digital media and file sharing, but the ultimate goal has always been to help launch a non-profit, collaborative and censor-free international news service through which on- and offline community print and electronic media outlets can access and exchange news which hasn’t been spun, filtered and pre-digested by vested corporate interests.
Because that’s what p2p is really all about – sharing information and data – and it’ll become increasingly important to the way world societies and cultures interact and function with each other.
That’s been p2pnet’s official mission statement for at least a couple of years, if not longer.
So this is more than merely p2pnet, which survives on the breadline, being bullied by Sharman Networks and Nikki Hemming, with millions of dollars behind them.
In the same way that I have faith in my online friends and neighbours, I also have more faith in my fellow Canadians than I do in the ability of Sharman and Hemming’s attempts to stomp p2pnet, in the process stifling freedom of speech here, and gaining a weapon for it and other similar corporations to use elsewhere.
That’s why I’ll be fighting this case before a jury.
And IMHO, I have three edges.
1 There are millions of potential on- and offline sleuths out there with access to a lot of interesting data which could be used as courtroom material;
2 There are also a lot of people who value a free and open internet; and,
3 The Canadian Charter of Rights enshrines freedom of expression, and even the ancient law of defamation needs to be respectful of that fundamental freedom.
And remember: the way in which this case is resolved could have a very serious chilling affect on blogs and bloggers everywhere, not only in Canada. So it doesn’t matter where in the world you are, if you value freedom of expression, please help me to get the best expert legal advice I can —- for all our sakes.
For a lawyer’s analysis of things, go here, or see The Register’s story here.
Cheers! And thanks …
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
itrs interesting how the lamescream media are ignoring this
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:13 pm
People, pass the news on. This isn’t jst about P2PNet. Its about freedom of speech. If you were in Jon’s shoes you would need lots of money to. Don’t think it can’t happen to you. Jon would help anyone of us out if we were in this situation…let’s pay him the same respect.
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:17 pm
“Let’s take a brief look at the basics of Canadian defamation law. A successful plaintiff must prove three essential elements in a libel case: First, that a statement was published and made available to a person other than the plaintiff; next, that the statement referred, directly or indirectly, to the plaintiff; and finally, that the statement was false and would discredit the plaintiff in the eyes of a reasonable person.”
-The Registry
I was reading this very careful. And here is what can really help you. Those last two simple words. “REASONABLE PERSON”. No reasonable person would believe something defamatory from someone just making a dumb comment annonymosly. I’m sure your lawyer has already mentioned those two words to you though.
By the way, you did find a lawyer by now right?
May 23rd, 2006 at 7:49 pm
“you did find a lawyer by now right?”
Not yet. I have someone in mind, and he’s agreed to work at a reduced rate. But I need $ in the bank to be able to retain him and that – plus paying for all the research and documentation that goes with a case such as this – is what the donation appeal is all about.
Cheers!
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:01 pm
I really hope you can get the funding for this Jon. The second I get paid form my boos I’ll be donating as much as I can over the months to you.
Kazaa, Sharmen Networks and the whole bloody lot behind it are IMO selfish bastards who can’t take it when someone mocks them in the slightest…
All they’re doing is trying miserably to protect what little dignity they have left in the online world of P2P, and I really hope they fall flat on their faces in a big puddle of mud!
Many donations coming your way mate form oevr here in the UK!
huds601
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:10 pm
allahu akbar!!! death to the usa… death to the president of u.s.a.
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
“In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: (a) Freedom of Speech; (b) Freedom of the Press; (c) Freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; (d) Freedom of street processions and demonstrations.”
-Constitution of the U.S.S.R. 1924
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:15 pm
“Don’t think it can’t happen to you.”
Well, it has hapened to me, three time. I have been sued by a local copyright lawyer three times:
1. For saying that the lawyer did a sloppy job in a case where he represented a songwriter who asked 6 million dollars in damages from a record company that allegedly infringed two songs of the songwriter. It turned out that the record company did not infringe the rights of the songwriter and the lawsuit was withdrawn just before the trial. When asked in a deposition why he had asked for damages of 6 million dollars, the lawyer (plaintiff) said that a “paper holds anything you put on it”.
2. The same lawyer saw himself pictured (and defamed) in a work of fiction I wrote and published on the Internet. The work clearly states it is fiction.
3. The same lawyer says I called a television station he represents and while talking to the station’s legal affair’s director (in a private conversation) I defamed him. In a recent deposition the station’s legal affair’s director contradicted the lawyer’s essential claims in the lawsuit.
Surely anyone who is a threat to the vested interests of the copyright cartels becomes a target for defamation, where only a motive is required but not a reason.
So, as a victim of the copyright cartels, I support Jon. If Jon wins, we all win.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.venegas.com
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:33 pm
shill… that’s a new word for me…. blahblah… the truth is that u got no balls to *suffer* and *die* for the freedom of anarchy…
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 pm
u don’t remotely understand how many and how big risks i have taken for *true* cyberanarchist free speech… *LIBEL* … who really gives a f**k ..
… if u want evidence of me .. i’ll show u the evidence but it gets censored right away in this *pussy* “freespeech” -site
May 23rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
so anyone wants the evidence of my **true** free speech activies?
and for you to know i don’t give a f**k on fbi.gov, cybercrime.gov, usdoj.gov, whitehouse.gov and dhs.gov… i advice *everyone* to notify them on my “illegal” activities…
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:24 pm
yaaaaaawn
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
There is a vast difference!
What if some nasty fucking pedophiles start using this site to post nasty pictures of children- should they be protected as free speech? Should their identities be protected?
I dont think so!
Let posters get what they deserve.
You post like a prick, you die like a prick. No protection. Sites like this should be for comments on newsworthy articles- and Jon stop incorporating readeres writes in your articles so you can get away from this crap!
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
that analogy is flawed. Your reasoning contridicts laws of many countries and anything like that would be removed fast.
free speech is different from posting hated and pics of minors.
degrading a race, religion, and spreading hate or other illegal activities is not the same thing as what was posted.
This works well in a moderated board. This is not the only board to allow anon postings.
Besides what stop’s a perv from using a proxy and BS e-mail? It makes no diff.
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:42 pm
this site is just a forum for record company media people having a turn as for this libel nonsense Jon…own up you did the wrong thing as a publisher and now you are doing the worng thing by the rest of us by telling lies about it
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:44 pm
no genuine media people are going to want to get involved in this beat up of Jo’s having been caught mixing a news story with a piece of diatribe that has no support. Isn’t it a little suspicious that Jon wont admit he added a little bit of vilification without support to his story…keep on profiting from your beat up Jon
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Fredom of speech is all about the lawyer you can get someone else to pay for?
Can you tell us all if you got a we are going to sue you letter or the traditional request for assistance letter Jon? Starting to smell something fishy here
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
This site doesn’t seem to be so open anymore…call someone a name then flame them then remove them…this is not what the internet is about. Of course unless Jon this is just about enshrining your right to say what you want for profit but no one else
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Someon needs to put these kids to bed. They’re up WAY too late and they’ll be grumpy in the morning.
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:53 pm
Jon- time to step up to the plate here. You are asking for donations to support a cause that is clearly wrong- whether in error or on purpose- reading all the materials you have screwed up. How about just taking it like a man, stepping up and saying you fucked up, and then getting this board working in the right direction.
Its not that we dont support you man, its that you write articles and we post comments but you shouldnt use our comments to make up stories. You know how loony us posters are at the best of times!
ps- ironic that you are asking people to use PayPal, which is 100% owned by eBay, of which Niklas Zennstrom is the executive! You think they will know who is supporting you????????? You are dragging even more people into this!
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Does anyoje else see the irony here? People like this get to post like rthey have something serious to say.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:01 am
As many of you know I’m a supporter of Jons as well. He’s helped me with my megar contribution and I intend to support him in this matter. Checks on the way Jon.
But this is what I don’t get from polsters on both sides of this issue.
First why is someone a troll when they post their opinions that contrary to ours? what makes them a troll is when they intentionally bait others to provoke a negitive response. many of these are troll posts but others are not. All are getting tagged as troll. this bothers me.
Second to those who think Jon gets what he deserves and don’t think this site cares about free speech. if Jon doesn’t support your right to voice your views, your posts would never see the light of day. what he does is remove highly inflamitory, and profane content which is his right to do so. Keep in mind although this site is a public one, it is privately owned, and the owner has the right to outline the boundreys that govern this site. I own my own business which is public and no customer or visitor has the right to tell me how to run it.
Rick
May 24th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Your an idiot!
Please read and inform yourself on the topic at hand before you say something so ignorant.
He has clearly stated that he did not write anything wrong…it was a user the same as you…REMAINING ANONYMOUS. “Reader’s Write”. He never wrote something wrong…it was someone else. HE IS JUST BEING PUNISHED FOR “PUBLISHING” IT. Because Jon has allowed users to remain anonymous he gets the punishment for it.
So next time you choose to post on this website…remember…its only because Jon has allowed you to post and remain anonymous while doing so.
JON HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG. HE IS BEING SUED FOR “PUBLISHING” THOUGH EVERYONE KNOWS THAT A POST IS NOT A ARTICLE AND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS SOMETHING THAT “PUBLISHED”.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:18 am
“. if Jon doesn’t support your right to voice your views, your posts would never see the light of day. what he does is remove highly inflamitory, and profane content which is his right to do so. Keep in mind although this site is a public one, it is privately owned, and the owner has the right to outline the boundreys that govern this site. I own my own business which is public and no customer or visitor has the right to tell me how to run it. ”
EXACTLY! And its because he didn’t censor someone making a dumb/”illegal” comment that he gets his butt in trouble for something someone else has done. It hard to moderate a bunch of posts and be fair about it.
Its the fact that some people don’t seem to understand. He could have packed his bags, closed the site, and moved on! BUT HE DIDN’T, HE’S FIGHTING IT OUT. Now people, help this guy out…he deserves alot of support here!
May 24th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Hey each to their own…
If you don’t like it STFU. State what u have to say and move on u f’n troll. No need to drag on and on and on and on and on and on and on with your boring crap… go clean your room, do something usefull. k?
I on the other hand see broader issues here… I support Jon.
Most Americans even wish they have the privacy and protection afford to us here…
Hence, I will assume you’re not only a troll (ugly word which suites u) but a jealous one at that.
My 2-cents….
May 24th, 2006 at 2:01 am
Added your paypal script to my site and donated what I can at the moment, Jon.
I hope people realize just how much is actually riding on the outcome of this and how it can affect their own online activities as well.
You have always been a staunch supporter of freedom, and a great friend to P2P. To me, that alone deserves our support, but there is much more at stake than just keeping p2pnet alive.
People really need to step up on this, with more than just debate.
Please give.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:38 am
you don’t want people to voice an opposing opinion to yours but you say you believe in Free Speech …..
May 24th, 2006 at 5:21 am
good to see someone’s got the courage to tell it like it is
May 24th, 2006 at 5:25 am
John supports your right to free speech if it concurs with his view of free speech, otherwise you are a troll.
This is not quite right anyway, waht he did was mix a news report with a totally offensive flame, that would get you sued anywhere else, passing it off as news is one thing, lying about it to all an sundry by act or ommission, what a disgrace, shame on you
May 24th, 2006 at 5:26 am
you should have read the disgraceful mix of news and flaming passed off as news carefully, not one supporter of this site would put up with what went on here, that’s why John is spinning so hard on this one, come on John ‘fess up…you done wrong
May 24th, 2006 at 8:11 am
The story which P2PNet is long gone and forgot about ages ago. A
May 24th, 2006 at 8:11 am
The story which P2PNet is long gone and forgot about ages ago. All Nikki Hemming has done is brought it to public view again, so much so that people will not forget these comments.
When will people learn, in the early 80’s the British goverment tryed to get some books baned world wide. Before they tryed to ban the book the sales of these book’s where zipp then because of this actions people started buying the book and it became a best seller. Over good law suits which went wrong is MacLibile http://www.mcspotlight.org/
May 24th, 2006 at 8:14 am
If they did this in Europe they will be breaking Data Protection law. And the FSA could revoke there licence.
May 24th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
I don’t have a site, but I have donated.
When I look at the list of sites on the tracker list, there is only one and there is only $341 donated. This is pathetic and I am ashamed and disgusted.
I remember when Jon put up the Patti Santangelo fund and within a few days I think several thousand dillars had been donated. Thgis is the only site that supported her and look what happens when it needs help.
If I were Jon I would just close it down.
May 24th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I’m all for Free Speech but
Free Speech at any cost can be and is a very dangerous thing.
Since this site is monitored, it’s also possible to monitor and edit where necessary anything detrimental to others.
Just as yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is illegal, there are also situation when irresponsible journalism must be curtailed.
All of us have rights but no one has a right to step on some one else’s!
May 24th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
There was someone who asked a question of online anoniminity in another P2Pnet Vs. Kaza thread here… i couldn’t find it So please excuse me for putting it in this tread.
=====
ie. There is no general right to anonymity in Canada. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has found that individuals have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain contexts, including the publication of photographs taken of individuals in public (Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591)
ie. It should also be noted that s.14.1 of Canada’s Copyright Act gives authors the right to remain anonymous in connection with the publication of their works.
dunno if any of that fits in with libel though… but worth the look at maybe for the anon posters who are worried.. It also states legal obligation of the ISP and of the DOE in situations..
What are your rights as a “John Doe” defendant? The following FAQs are designed to provide some answers.
http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/online-anonymity/
This has cdn legal finding on some doe/roe cases and i think one in regards to doe and defamation.
Also at the bottom of that link are a couple of interesting links i didn’t know of eather, like: The Canadian File-sharing Legal Information Network: Canadian site aiming to provide information and assistance to Internet users accused of illegal file-sharing online.
Anyways someone should give all these threads to these people at http://www.cippic.ca/ see what they have to say! Would be interesting…
Regards.
May 24th, 2006 at 4:47 pm
Yes but what if the John/Jane Doe were in another country? and what if the Server Jon uses is in another country (which it is)
Rick
May 24th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
“All of us have rights but no one has a right to step on some one else’s!”
Well put. I means no one has the right to tell other what they can and cannot say. Worse yet, no one has the moral right to intimidate other through legal but morally wrong means to induce silence through fear of an arrest or a lawsuit.
May 24th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Ah,
Well if you read the CDN gov site, They have no legal standing to protect someones privacy in the states (if the server is in the states). This would come down to the Hosting site to Volentarly abide by CDN law, Which the privacy commisioner would most likey help with.
If the server were in canada then these laws apply, even if the person were outside canada.
But if the server were in the states its volentary. If you read the gov site on this they even say this is a very frustrating matter. Even with CDN isp’s who out-source services like e-mail to the states, like bell-sympatico does with their e-mail service.
Anyhow, Non-cdn person, non-cdn-server, Its up to the service provider to adhere to cdn law, and weather that hosting service will abide to cdn court order.
In addition to that, I didn’t know the server and doe/roe’s are non-cdn (if they are). There could also be a jurisdiction issue here which could get this tossed. Its very unlikely this would go to court in the states because of the diff in laws with BC and there. Guess thats why they are picking on Jon and holding jon responsible for foreign replies to a BC written article.
Canada can’t infringe on say a US persons 1st amendment right which may be protected better there than in BC in this particular case, and on an american service (host).
Alot of libel cases has been lost or tossed due to jurisdiction (you can google this). The service provider can argue jurisdiction easily. As well as the Doe/Roe’s.
yeah that tosses things around a bit more… Easier to hit jon than them, matter of conveniance and easier libel lawsuits in BC as compared to other CDN prov’s and the US.
But anyhow as an american on an american server your right to privacy is less protected than if the service was in canada. Same is true For a CDN on an american service. The priv Gov site even states this.
Even if kaza were to win, There are many cases of it losing on appeal due to jurisdiction. Hence the reason to drag Jon into it and into an libel friendly prov like BC.
Will the court say its within their jurisdiction to motion for the IP logs from a US server for a possible US person? Or will it say not within jurisdiction? Same is true for an appeal. Will Jon be liable for less freedoms of speech allowed in BC than in the US from a hypotheticle US person to which the laws of libel and speech are not the same?
I would now have to say if Jon wrote the apparant libel himself he would be accountable. But he didn’t. It was uploaded to a foreign server by a foreign person. Makes more scense now as to why they sue him as a publisher. They are trying to get around jurisdiction in my opinion and also get it into BC libel friendly court.
My 2-cents..
I must find case studies now and inform myself…. bbl
May 24th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Again John has not done wrong. Pay attention. It was a “Reader’s Write” like what your writing now that got him in trouble. DAMIT PEOPLE!
May 24th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
Am I missing the mark here. 1ST: WAS IT A READER’S WRITE COMMENT THAT WAS JUST BELOW A NORMAL POST OF NEWS…OR 2ND: WAS IT HIM PASSING OFF A READER’S WRITE AS NEWS. I believe its number one because if you look at the lawsuit it points to a url of a reader’s write…NOT A NEWS POST. So I’m pretty sure yours missing the mark here.
Jon, which is it. Did you publish a Reader’s Write or was it just simply a Reader’s Write that you didn’t delete thats getting you in trouble. Please explain.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Good point. And thats why I believe this smuck is sueing for money and money only. She cares about nothing…you know what…shame on you Nikki.
May 24th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Ok, I’m putting this quote up because I think its something that has connection to this case. In the sense of something being wrong.
“If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.”
-Henry David Thoreau (http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/t/thoreau/henry_david/civil/)
May 24th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Yes, Jon does, doesn’t he.
May 25th, 2006 at 2:51 am
the link in the main story doesnt work. this one should you may have to copy and paste the whole link
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041102.gtkapicablog/BNStory/Technology/
-nope the link is clickable and works………..
May 25th, 2006 at 3:18 am
For those of you who like to donate in even amounts, you can use the PayPal calculator site on the bottom right and enter the intended donation amount so that it works out evenly.
http://www.ppcalc.com/
May 25th, 2006 at 6:47 am
totally out of context, Thoreau didn’t stand for vilifying people for entertainment or pretending to write a news story which was a combination of a offensive flame and an old news story….I don’t thinbk Thoreau would have countenanced a media stunt simply to enrich one’s self
May 25th, 2006 at 9:12 am
Or even you, on grammar lessons. English is a language/nationality, and so the first letter is ALWAYS CAPITALISED/CAPITALIZED.
May 25th, 2006 at 11:55 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
“This is not quite right anyway, waht he did was mix a news report with a totally offensive flame ”
Umm,
Did you actually READ the items referenced in the suit ?
I’ll bet 5 bucks you didn’t.
I’ll bet another 5 you will come back here and say you
did ( when you didn’t ).
In other words … lie.
I did actually read the items.
I took the time to find them in the google cache, and look them
over, you know, see what the fuss was all about. I never read the
article when in was first on the site, would never have cared.
Then, the suit. Nikki Hemming made absolutely sure that as many
eyes as possible would read all of the stuff she wanted hidden.
Anyway,
Big offensive flame ???
Nope.
Someones opinion.
an opinion she might not like, but just that, an opinion.
Jon trying to pass off a comment as news ?
Nope.
Clearly stated as “here’s what our readers are saying”.
Basically,
What you are doing here is what you are accusing Jon of doing.
You are making misleading statements, either deliberately ( troll )
or out of ignorance ( too lazy to check your facts ).
I think you are .. lying about it to all and sundry by act or ommission.
Yes you are … a disgrace.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
“Jon, which is it. Did you publish a Reader’s Write or was it just simply a Reader’s Write that you didn’t delete thats getting you in trouble. Please explain. ”
The court documents are clearly referenced.
It has been stated, many times, that Jon cannot talk
here about specifics. If you want to know, read the PDF
document that contains the complaint. It is VERY specific.
I have to wonder about so many posts ( from what appears
to be the SAME poster ) trying to badger Jon into posting
details. You KNOW that answering you with more details will
cause more trouble, yet you persist.
Why, I wonder ?
Look up the information.
It’s all out there, and easy to get.
But, please, before you post about it, be sure you have read it.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
“write a news story which was a combination of a offensive flame and an old news story ”
Which,
If you actually read the items referenced in the court document,
isn’t what Jon did at all.
You’re lying again. Why ?
“I don’t think Thoreau would have countenanced a media stunt simply to enrich one’s self ”
No he probably wouldn’t.
He would probably be really disgusted with Nikki and Sharman.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
“Good point. And thats why I believe this smuck is sueing for money and money only. She cares about nothing…you know what…shame on you Nikki. ”
I knid of doubt that.
Usually if you want to sue for money, you sue someone that
actually HAS some.
It seems much more likely that they are using their own
financial weight to MISUSE existing law, to extort the identity
of an anonymous poster. That’s why it’s so important for
EVERYONE that this is fought.
May 25th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Funny,
The crap you are posting is still here, isn’t it ?
May 25th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
“p2pnet.net went online in August, 2002. It was the first Internet web page to carry daily, frequently updated news stories, features and commentaries discussing developments in the p2p and digital media arenas.”
Love ya Jon, (and support ya in this case) …but Boycott-Riaa has been around longer.
May 25th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
Fess up,
Your lying and you know it.
Step 1. Read the PDF document about the suit, find the line items
that Sharman is suing over.
Step 2. Research. They are not available here anymore, but they
CAN be found. Find them. READ them.
After READING them, I think you’ll see whats really going on.
Hard to spin that.
I KNOW how much you’d really like me to post the proof here, troll,
But that IS what you’re after, isn’t it ? Someone to slip and post
something to add to the suit, right ?
Not gonna happen.
The readership here is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than your micro-mind
can comprehend.
May 25th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
the publisher of this site is the only one who seems to be gaining any benefit from not confirming or deying what he did. Check it out lies can occur by act or omission, Thoreau would have been more disgusted with your inability to grasp the issues here
May 25th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
the publisher of this site is the only one who seems to be gaining any benefit from not confirming or deying what he did. Check it out lies can occur by act or omission, Thoreau would have been more disgusted with your inability to grasp the issues here
May 25th, 2006 at 9:06 pm
and Boycott Riaa doesn’t allow record company posts
May 25th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Jon canot discuss t but he can whip up his readers and enjoy the profit that follows. Congratulations John, you must be at about minute ten of your fame on this one
May 25th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
How rude… I hope u get sued to potential bankruptcy one day so i can torment u too
May 25th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
I’m sure once all is said and done he will speak….
How many speak during lawsuits?
What benifit??? The benifit of look down the barrel of bankruptcy?
U sir are not too damn intelligent.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:02 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
hmm,
Precisely how does Jon whip anyone into a “frenzy” by saying
nothing ?
But indeed, SOMEONE is trying to whip up a frenzy.
I have to wonder why ?
Paid shill ?
Jealous site op ?
Vindictive EX site op ?
Lonely bored “dork” living in momma’s basement with nothing
better to do than slap hatred out at any available target, to
make up for all the beatings he got in High school ?
Who knows ?
No one knows the mind of a socially deficient troll.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:07 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
I wish you could,
But Trolls like this RELY on the very anonymity that a
lawsuit like this is trying to destroy for EVERYONE.
That, to me, means one of two things …
1. This troll is too stupid to know that he will lose his anonymous
shield along with the rest of us, so he will no longer be able
to hate speak either, thus losing his only means of bolstering
his low self-esteem.
2. This person knows EXACTLY what he is doing and is deliberately
using half truths and misinformation, on behalf of someone who
stands to benefit directly from the suit.
The fake poor spelling and grammar trick leads me to believe
more in 2.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:09 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Interesting,
your choice of the word “publisher”
I wonder who you REALLY represent ?
May 26th, 2006 at 1:10 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
We understand the REAL issues quite thoroughly.
It is you that hopes desperately that we don’t
Why is that, I wonder ?
May 26th, 2006 at 3:12 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
huh ?
May 26th, 2006 at 3:24 am
or perhaps your good self. when in the conversational mode of a posting on an ‘inofrmal’ open site and when referring to the braod varfiety of language references that might be called or described as ‘english’ the lower case is appropriate. Perhaps what is necessary here is a style manual for the site…as hypocrisy reigns supreme
May 26th, 2006 at 3:29 am
I think we’re starting to see the real nature of free speech, it only comes for free if the one in control of the site is dishing it up. There is not a person on the planet who doesn’t know that you added a flame to a news report. You seem to have culled a large number of incovenient postings e.g. you seem to have been offended a a reference to an absence of wieght however you are happy to post assertions about somebody elses weight as free speech.
HOW ABOUT HONEST SPEECH?
And of courwse the old favourite, if you disagree with apost you start name calling, time for some honesty
May 26th, 2006 at 3:31 am
Yes John does make a profit from adding a flame to a news report in the hope it will make him famous without the need for micro minds to analyze what he’s done
May 26th, 2006 at 5:12 am
Great! good for him.
Glad he has your attention and its making you insane with jealousy, which it obviously is!
Hope Jon milks it for all its worth and at the same time stand up for what he believes in and what others believe in.
May 26th, 2006 at 5:14 am
so listen… gimme your phone number. Its about time some one called your mommy to let her know you are playing on her computer while she’s asleep.
May 26th, 2006 at 5:16 am
ah shadup a u face
May 26th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Boycott-RIAA is a DCIA member, like Sharman Networks.
The anti-RIAA hype coming from the DCIA was not for the benevolence and freedom of filesharers, but for the hopes of them replacing the RIAA and becoming the new slave masters.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
” think we’re starting to see the real nature of free speech, it only comes for free if the one in control of the site is dishing it up. ”
Lie # 1.
Proof … all of your posts are still here, stupid
“There is not a person on the planet who doesn’t know that you added a flame to a news report. ”
Lie # 2
Actually, everyone that has actually READ the referenced items
knows your full of .. well .. shit
“You seem to have culled a large number of incovenient postings e.g. ”
Lie # 3
Can’t prove a negative.
Example …. You told me yesterday that you like “TeaBagging”.
No one saw you say it, but .. no one saw you NOT say it either
I can go to any board and “claim” they have censored 50 posts.
That board can never “prove” they didn’t, although you can never prove they did either. It all goes down to credibility.
You have none.
That’s why you are sooo pissed.
All of your screaming.
All of your hard work pretending to be multiple posters.
Still,
No one …
Absolutely no one,
believes you or has ANY respect for what you have to say.
I am sorry you feel so lousy about yourself that this is
the only thing you can do to feel better.
“HOW ABOUT HONEST SPEECH? ”
Yes, HEAR HEAR !!!
Tell the truth …..
Who do you work for ?
Why are you REALLY doing this ??
You value honesty so much … be honest ?
c’mon .. time for some honesty ..
May 26th, 2006 at 1:15 pm
I didn’t know it was a member. Veeeeeery Interestink.
Actually, Sharman isn’t a member: I understand it got the DCIA started and may still be backing it
This is, of course, not a statement of fact and anyway, as I now say in the preamble to commment posts, “p2pnet is an open content news site. We allow anonymous comments, but we don’t in any way accept responsiblity for them.”
Cheers!
May 26th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
Really ….
Been a member of Boycott-RIAA as long as I have been a regular
here ( which is for as long as “here” has been here ).
“The anti-RIAA hype coming from the DCIA was not for the benevolence and freedom of filesharers, but for the hopes of them replacing the RIAA and becoming the new slave masters. ”
While I know little of the DCIA I know this ……
Boycott-RIAA and it’s members have NEVER been for replacing
the RIAA and taking it’s place.
The OVERWHELMING message has always been to completely
ELIMINATE the RIAA , and make it easy for the ARTIST to stand on
their own, completely.
Sites like DMusic are a way for that to happen.
That Sharman Networks, however, wished to be the RIAA means
of control ….. well, their actions always seemed to show that this
is true.
Eclectica,
We came here to support Jon.
What is being done to him is crap.
Crap that will ultimately effect all of us.
We did NOT come here to get into a .. contest .. with you.
We are NOT the enemy, or the competition.
Come over and spend some time TALKING to us.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
” I didn’t know it was a member. Veeeeeery Interestink. ”
I honestly don’t know if that is true or not.
I have been a member there for at least two years,
a lurker for even longer. Was a regular there before HERE
existed.
I am not sure why that should be an issue either.
Especially now.
I have been trying to rally support for Jon ( in many different
venues ) because I am aware of how this will hurt us all.
I don’t think slapping each other around will help, regardless
of past differences ( which I have no knowledge of ).
May 26th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
“Boycott-RIAA is a DCIA member, like Sharman Networks.”
Been poking around, and NOW I remember the DCIA crap.
Read about it here and on boycott-riaa. It was Sharman’s
way of trying to legitimize itself with the P2P community.
No one fell for it.
Now,
Please show me your reference that says Boycott-RIAA is a member.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
– As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following -
– this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale -
– and nothing I say should be taken seriously. -
http://www.dcia.info/Join/index.php
The member list of the DCIA is on the left of this page.
Boycott-RIAA is not on it, nor is any of it’s sister sites.
Now,
can we stop fighting each other and get back to supporting each other ?
May 26th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Hey dreddsneck ( I know I spelled that wrong) send me a dmusic note and I’ll reply.
-comp-
It is correct we need to band together for Jon. Jon has done more for me personally and more for the movement then many other sites. He is a private individual that runs the site out of love for the movement. it’s not a business for him. that makes a big difference and tells you where his heart is.
reguardless There is no sense to be nit picking different sites as most of them have a simular agenda. Nor should we air dirty laundry publicly.
Rick
May 26th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
amen brother. Jon needs support not eveyrone arguing over stupid stuff, IMHO.
BTW: the site with the complaint on it keeps coming up 404, so here’s a link to another online copy:
http://www.gofreespeech.info/p2pnetsuit.pdf
May 26th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
I agree, the Boycott Riaa site at least takes the difference between a personal post and new seriously. They really got their act together on the whole anti big music thing.
You wouldn’t have seen a n ews story mixed with flame and passed off as news over there
May 26th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Fess up,
Your lying and you know it.
Step 1. Read the PDF document about the suit, find the line items
that Sharman is suing over.
Step 2. Research. They are not available here anymore, but they
CAN be found. Find them. READ them.
After READING them, I think you’ll see whats really going on.
Hard to spin that.
The readership here is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than your micro-mind
can comprehend.
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 27th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Go-Kart records is a DCIA member. I confused them with DMusic which is affiliated with Boycott-RIAA.
May 27th, 2006 at 12:39 am
somewon found the link to anbther copy of that complaint && put in another post. here it is so U dont have to go back…
http://gofreespeech.info/p2pnetsuit.pdf
Regs
May 27th, 2006 at 12:58 am
“You wouldn’t have seen a n ews story mixed with flame and passed off as news over there”
You’ve gotta be kidding. is there another boycottriaa.com website I’m not aware of? They do have their stuff together about the big music. and they are passionate about it just as Jon is. I am a member of their site as well as this one and there’s a lot of common ground. but flaming not combined with news??? HAHA.
P2Pnet is mild (at least when it comes to overall user participation and comments) compared to what goes on over there.
perhaps you’re clicking on the fox news link by mistake or something.
Rick
May 27th, 2006 at 2:10 am
-= Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment -
- following this preface is true.In fact -
- I live in a fairy-tale and nothing I -
- say should be taken seriously. -
Thank you very much for clearing that up Eclectica.
I really do appreciate it.
May 27th, 2006 at 2:19 am
-= Disclaimer: This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment -
- following this preface is true.In fact -
- I live in a fairy-tale and nothing I -
- say should be taken seriously. -
” P2Pnet is mild (at least when it comes to overall user participation and comments) compared to what goes on over there. ”
ROFL.
Oh yes, some of the flame wars there have indeed been spectacular.
Whomever posted this …
“”You wouldn’t have seen a n ews story mixed with flame and passed off as news over there” ”
has obviously never visited there.
They are just trying to fan the flames.
Musicians, Artists .. well .. they, WE, are very passionate people.
We feel strongly, and sometimes speak loudly. Anywhere the passionate gather, there will be friction.
Now we need to focus that passion in one concentrated direction.
not at each other.
“perhaps you’re clicking on the fox news link by mistake or something. ”
now THAT’S fuk’n funny
May 27th, 2006 at 6:37 am
Many people sue because they are the victims of an injustice, no denials coming fromt he publisher of this site, he simply wants this to go away or make some money by fanning the mob mentality for profit, free speech hey?
May 27th, 2006 at 11:06 am
yes the irony here is that anyone that doesn’t agree with a position has to be somehow vilified…so much for free speech. The irony is no-one wants to take you to task for not respecting the opinion of others but then this site is getting a rep for that
May 27th, 2006 at 11:08 am
you are making money from this site John why don’t you spend your own money instead of bleeding dupes who’ve bought you martyr gig
May 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Fess up,
Your lying and you know it.
Step 1. Read the PDF document about the suit, find the line items
that Sharman is suing over.
Step 2. Research. They are not available here anymore, but they
CAN be found. Find them. READ them.
After READING them, I think you’ll see whats really going on.
Hard to spin that.
The readership here is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than your micro-mind
can comprehend.
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Fess up,
Your lying and you know it.
Step 1. Read the PDF document about the suit, find the line items
that Sharman is suing over.
Step 2. Research. They are not available here anymore, but they
CAN be found. Find them. READ them.
After READING them, I think you’ll see whats really going on.
Hard to spin that.
The readership here is a WHOLE LOT SMARTER than your micro-mind
can comprehend.
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 27th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
However there is no need for personal attacks which the troll is doing.
An opinion is an opinion… but no need for personal attacks.
That is the difference with the troll. It can’t state an opinion w/o attacking or trying to sully a person.
May 28th, 2006 at 12:43 am
You cannot be serious about wanting to settle this hen you keep on fanning the flames and other diatribe Jon. Is it profit, it sure aint free speech because we’ve all seen how sectivley posts disappear ere when they ae about someone closer to you. Here you seem to be promoting free speech if its directed towards some and freedom of speech for the chosen ones to vilify others. Its really disappointing we thought you’d were aove this crap
May 28th, 2006 at 1:03 am
“we thought you’d were aove this crap”
He is, you’re not.
“Is it profit,”
Lets see…. a site that sells nothing, advertising hasn’t increased and is just enough to cover expenses, hmmm how clever to notice all his profit.
“it sure aint free speech because we’ve all seen how sectivley posts disappear ere when they ae about someone closer to you.”
Only those that are vlugar and inflamitory. It’s his site, and his right. Lets see if the Kazaa web site or any of the entertainment cartel sites offer viewers to express oposing views as openly as Jon allows you to spout this rethoric.
Rick
May 28th, 2006 at 2:25 am
Never mind as long as we are all posting John is making mopney so keep it up John the longer you can keep the storm in the tea cup whipped up you on a winner money wise
May 28th, 2006 at 2:27 am
This site and its publisher are no more content filters than the editor at the NY Post. If that’s the new defence you are adding to the list John we all done for.
You never did let us all know wasn’t the the first approach the stlandard remove and apologise or was it an invitation to whip up a mob frenzy leaking out all the salacious stuff you could think of and re-cycle old stories to reinforce the original anonymous flame you passed off as news?
May 28th, 2006 at 7:53 am
good to see that you are going out of your way to vilify your victim John, is that what this is about who has the power to libel who, this used to be the way that the record companies treated people, really
May 28th, 2006 at 7:54 am
no insanity or jealousy just a real concern for the truth, we need sites like this but when they abandon the truth or adopt the behaviour of our enemies then its all over
May 28th, 2006 at 7:55 am
even if there is no merit in thie case against you John how long are you going to allow all of this flaming and focus on the original victim of the libel? Do you think all the additional material proves some point other than your power to denigrate some victim?
May 28th, 2006 at 8:04 am
Jeez, pal
I think you’re just trying too hard to “try” jon in the court of public opinion…which matters not a whit to a Canadian court, nor to anyone else.
May 28th, 2006 at 11:25 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/kazaa_sues_p2pnet/
The UK Register.
They have a link to the complaint.
Don’t like it, sue the Register.
Oh WAIT , can’t do that .. They can afford to fight.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 28th, 2006 at 11:26 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
For “The Truth”
Start here ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/kazaa_sues_p2pnet/
The UK Register.
They have a link to the complaint.
Don’t like it, sue the Register.
Oh WAIT , can’t do that .. They can afford to fight.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 28th, 2006 at 11:27 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/kazaa_sues_p2pnet/
The UK Register.
They have a link to the complaint.
Don’t like it, sue the Register.
Oh WAIT , can’t do that .. They can afford to fight.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 28th, 2006 at 11:27 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/kazaa_sues_p2pnet/
The UK Register.
They have a link to the complaint.
Don’t like it, sue the Register.
Oh WAIT , can’t do that .. They can afford to fight.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 28th, 2006 at 11:28 am
-= Disclaimer:This is just my opinion. =-
- As such I’m NOT suggesting any comment following –
- this preface is true. In fact I live in a fairy-tale –
- and nothing I say should be taken seriously. –
Anyone who wants to know the situation can …
Start here ..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/05/18/kazaa_sues_p2pnet/
The UK Register.
They have a link to the complaint.
Don’t like it, sue the Register.
Oh WAIT , can’t do that .. They can afford to fight.
Next,
Find the line items.
They are NOT available on this site any more, but Google is
magic, is it not ?
-= This is a stock response to our pet troll =-
-= Since it repeats the same drivel =-
-= It deserves nothing more =-
May 28th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Right the troll obviously has a gripe with Jon, now I am all for free speach and everyone is entitled to thier point of view but I think we all realise you don’t like Jon but please don’t keep posting the same stuff.
It’s very annoying to keep reading the same old stuff.
May 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
“I think you’re just trying too hard to “try” jon in the court of public opinion…”
Maybe he’s been watching too much Fox News.
May 29th, 2006 at 8:28 am
Yes, its going to be pretty easy for John to prove the truth of the allegations he published on his site, the site he operates as a business and makes money from. He wont even need a lawyer, just turn up with the proof that what you published is the truth and not anonymous unsupported flaming and its over for them. Unfortunately it is apparent from all the wriggling that you will not be going out to prove the truth of what you published rather that you are not responsible for it…telling indeed
May 29th, 2006 at 8:30 am
John no gripe its just clear that you could blow all of this out of the water by just turning up at tyhe first court appearance with proof that you were telling or reporting the truth rather than just having posted some anonymous flame as news. Look forward to you proving that however its apparent that you are only trying to prove that you are not responsible for the libel
May 31st, 2006 at 4:59 am
Jon does not have to prove the truth or falsehood of anything. This is about freedom of speech. Even if that speech is a blatant lie, you are still free to make that screw-up, and because Jon is not responsible for what someone else does with their freedom of speech, he cannot morally be held responsible for whatever was posted as a response. There will always be errors in how the legal system(s) are constructed, and that provides loopholes that can be exploited by the rich to shut up the average Joe (or Jon in this case). Jon did not publish those comments. He allowed someone else to publish them on a public message board. There is a big difference, and Sharman is trying to pin it to him legally by saying “YOU published that material and it is B.S.” Unfortunately for them, the cork board analogy is pretty solid. Jon put up the digital analog of a publicly populatable cork board, and someone tacked a message to it, and someone else didn’t like that message, and thus decided to sue the person who made that outlet for free speech available in the first place.
In other words, you’re a fucking moron.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:00 am
How many times are you going to say that, you damned broken record?
May 31st, 2006 at 5:12 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:13 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:14 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:15 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:16 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:16 am
Broken record.
May 31st, 2006 at 5:17 am
Broken record.