[There now are two lawsuits: One filed by censorhappy local politicians who can't stand criticism against Stephen Moldow, who edits the Eye on Emerson site. The second is what Stephen filed against these aggrieved politicos -- and some anonymous posters -- in response. I sympathize with Stephen's plight, but I think suing people who patronize your publication's discussion forums is entirely bad form. Background at: http://www.politechbot.com/p-02480.html --Declan] ********** From: Jmoldowat_private Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.97]) by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP id NAA00149 for <declanat_private>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:58:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Jmoldowat_private by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.16d.80613b (3968); Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <16d.80613b.28ca8f02at_private> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:42 EDT Subject: Reply to Politech: NJ editor sues anonymous posters for disrupting site To: declanat_private, Politechat_private CC: rickat_private, PLEVYat_private, aalayaat_private MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_16d.80613b.28ca8f02_boundary" My posting/ reply will be extremely relevant, and for Politech not to give equal weight (with it's own headline/ link) would be unfair, and since we're dealing with First Amendment / Free Speech issues, here, for you not to post my reply would be grossly unfair, and hypocritical. Jim Moldow ********** From: Jmoldowat_private Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:53:42 EDT Subject: REPLY TO "New Jersey editor sues anonymous posters for disrupting site" To: declanat_private, politechat_private CC: rickat_private, PLEVYat_private, aalayaat_private Dear Politech, I'm writing in response to Paul Levy's posting, "New Jersey editor sues anonymous posters for disrupting site." First, I'm glad that Mr. Levy admits that it was Government officials who brought suit against my brother, Stephen Moldow, webmaster of <http://www.geocities.com/emersoneye>www.geocities.com/emersoneye. The point is that two elected officials, the husband of the Council President (who is the Chair of the Reform Party) and a council candidate filed suit in an attempt to force him to shut the community website down after public opinions turned against them this past January. They did not sue prior to that when the community supported their policies, nor did they complain over other postings which might have criticized their opponents. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, well over a dozen states have passed ANTI-SLAPP legislation to protect defendants against frivolous lawsuits filed by elected or governing officials. New Jersey has not passed such a law, but what is curious is that we have proposed legislation (Senate bill S-2175), and one of the litigants is politically aligned with this particular Senator. So, it's interesting to note that he wrote me about the bill, but indicated my brother would not be afforded protection under the ANTI-SLAPP law (if passed) since the suit was filed by private individuals. So, why does Mr. Levy bash my brother and his attorney's legal strategy when he's being victimized here? Who is protecting his constitutional rights? From a quick cursory glance, Mr. Levy, who has filed an Amicus Brief with the the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No. BER-L-6214-01 - Civil Action on behalf of the 60 anonymous "Jane and John Does," offers his legal opinions with regards to the merits of my brother's answer and counter-complaint. His legal comments/criticism is unfair to my brother, who could be perceived as a "pawn" in both a local political battle, but in a much larger area with regard to the Internet and Free Speech issues. The defendant/ webmaster is embroiled in a Free Speech and First Amendment issue, but it's not his objective to be a martyr or "flag-bearer," nor run up legal fees which may approach over six figures in the long run. For what, to protect the community bulletin board? His objective was open government, so at he setup the site as a hobby and as a community service (providing minutes, local web links, budget information, real estate data, test scores, etc.) If the legal scholars out there don't support his position, then walk a mile in his shoes. Or step up to the plate and offer your services - PRO BONO - as Mr. Levy has to protect the rights of John and Jane Doe. Again, let's suppose the alleged slanderous emails were posted by the plaintiffs, then he's simply a tool for those who DON'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH. Public Citizen could have offered to represent both the webmaster and anonymous posters to the site, yet they only offered to protect the rights of the 60 posters. In the real world, who would not consider the fact that perhaps the alleged slanderous, defamatory postings were not sent by the plaintiffs, who maybe wanted to coerce the defendant into closing his community website and bulletin board down? So, let's not judge Mr. Moldow so harshly without comprehending the big picture here. And, would you personally mortgage your financial future, and your children's college funds, to fight a legal battle which has the makings of a national "test case?" Mr. Levy has no understanding of the big picture regarding the website's history, the cast of characters, the political issues, the level of community support for the website (and the webmaster), etc. The vile postings, the implied threats received by the webmaster, the political pressure, etc. Instead, he feels the need to "attack" the webmaster and his attorney for their legal strategy. This is uncalled for, and hurtful, and is a direct attack on weakening his defense position. So, let's not be so hypocritical and judgmental of their position, unless you want to FUND his legal defense fund. Additionally, members of the public have not been allowed to discuss issues opening at Emerson Borough Council meetings. So, the very politicians who filed suit to "expose" the identities of the anonymous 60 posters to the Eye on Emerson website, hid behind their positions as elected officials, and silence the First Amendment rights of the public to exercise their unalienable rights under the U.S. Constitution. Shame on Mr. Levy, for his harsh criticism. Jim Moldow Hillsdale, NJ ********** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 14:35:36 PDT