Comments on: Massive win for online journalists

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 31 May 2006 10:08:11 +0000

Broken record.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 31 May 2006 10:07:13 +0000

Broken record.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 31 May 2006 10:06:39 +0000

Broken record.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 22:05:53 +0000

Thank you for pointing that out.

Whether I like this site or not is entirely secondary to the fact that I wholeheartedly support Jon’s right to enjoy journalistic privilege.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 19:18:46 +0000

-= 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. –

Very nice to hear from you on this Mr. McOrmond.

You are someone that would take the time to read
and examine, before making a statement.

I am hanging up my Hammer of Troll-Bashing +2

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 19:11:43 +0000

psssssst …
it’s the same troll, wearing a “groucho”

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 18:59:26 +0000

As an anonymous posting, this article should be taken with the same grain of salt that the article under review with the lawsuit would be. I for one don’t believe that anyone has received threats (death threats or otherwise) based on disagreeing with Jon’s style of journalism.

I do agree that our belief in free speech is not tested by protecting speech we agree with, but the willingness to protect speech that we find appalling. I personally wouldn’t use Jon’s style in my own communications (trying to attract a mildly different audience), but I haven’t found anything I’ve personally read to cross any lines (moral or legal).

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 18:51:55 +0000

That didn’t really deserve the troll response. The guy made a fair point – you don’t have to like this site to support it in the libel suit.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 18:51:37 +0000

Why the assumption that it is Jon? Do you really believe he would bother being anonymous on his own site?

I’ve read some of what was posted, and to be honest don’t see the problem. The articles were not flattering, but the subjects of the messages are “famous” persons within the p2p community and didn’t seem any more defamatory than the average episode of CBC’s “This Hour Hast 22 Minutes” is towards Canadian politicians. Both may be on the edge, and both may be uncomfortable if you are the subject of what is being said, but that is a far cry from saying that a court should silence this speech.

This case is not about Jon’s “version of free speech”, but trying to ensure that Jon as a private blogger is offered at least the same level of free speech protection as a large broadcaster.

BTW: I’m not anonymous. If you want to verify that I wrote this, just ask at http://flora.ca/

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 17:35:18 +0000

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 =-

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 17:35:00 +0000

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 =-

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 17:33:47 +0000

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 =-

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 17:04:00 +0000

Of course not everybody supports the way Jon has gone about things.

In many ways the kind of fanatical support that he has attracted – arguably encouraged – has resulted in other news writers receiving death threats if they continue to voice opinions that are seen to be unkind to Jon and his various campaigns (I have received several). So it gets personal, some good writers even stop writing, and that means that their freedom of speech has been eroded.

Why are our rights worth any less than Jon’s? They’re not, we have equal rights yet many are too frightened of these threats to carry on writing because of all this.

Hopefully Jon will read this, and realise the harm that has been caused, and perhaps take steps to distance himself from such juvenile fanaticism in the future.

But Jon himself has never ever intentionally set out to harm people’s freedom of self expression, quite the opposite. Now his freedom to speak has been attacked, and no right thinking person could ever accept the things that are happening.

I think it was Gladstone (the former English prime minister) who once said “I may not agree with what you’re saying, but I will fight to the death for your right to express your own opinion”. And that’s how many people feel about Jon’s situation. I am one of Jon’s fiercest critics in the past, and probably will continue to be so in the future, but I will fight tooth and nail for his right to express his opinions.

And if people don’t believe that, then tough. But remember that this is a time when Jon needs all the freinds he can get. And not all true friends agree with everything that their friends say

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 11:32:06 +0000

nice one John, am I getting your version of free speech, vilify who you chose and feign outrage when the medicine is yours to take. When you take the stand I’ll be the one grinning from the bleechers

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 10:36:10 +0000

Its pretty clear that not ALL news sites support what John has done, bend every other truth including the one about who deserves free speech here but come on, do you want the full monty or what???

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 07:36:32 +0000

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 =-

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 06:14:23 +0000

no would they care to deal with a good old fashion breach of the libel laws John. You mixed a flame with a news story, the only thing in your favor is that you have mended your ways in recent posts.

the decision here in no way protects someone who has done what the publisher here has done, get back to fighting the good fight not flaming people gratuitiously in the guise of news

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 05:42:29 +0000

I think this is extremely positive news, at least inasmuch that it recognises the rights of a blogger to be treated as a journalist. And journalists are entitled to some privilege when reporting news already in the public domain.

Good luck Jon, there are many things we don’t agree on, and some of the more juvenile flamings on this site keep many of us away, but this is one thing that all the other news sites support you on

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 02:41:50 +0000

… and in fact, the EFF was the first organization I went to. None of their lawyers are licensed to practice in Canada, they tell me.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 27 May 2006 02:27:39 +0000

This is good news indeed. Apple just seemed to want that leaker’s head(s?) on a platter so bad that they did not care what kind of collateral damage they caused in the process. It was a meritless, stupid case. I’m happy to see the US legal system worked the way it’s supposed to (for a change?).