Comments on: The inalienable right to blog

By: cw

cw — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:25:32 +0000

this is great. GREAT. thank you. i’m dealing with a HORRIBLE former employer. if you are interested in teh skate industry at all you can take a look here:

http://www.supercw.com/phuckphelony.html

i’ll warn you, it’s libelous!

By: Ed

Ed — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:32:36 +0000

Hi–

Did T.M. actually write “heresay”!?

I’d have assumed that, even if a “lawyer” didn’t know how to spell, they could look up the word in Black’s Law Dictionary!

It brings to mind another word: chutzpah!

By: Jeff-PennGrad

Jeff-PennGrad — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:08:05 +0000

Toral is broke. She does not have money to sue you!

By: Fuerza Dulce

Fuerza Dulce — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:59:16 +0000

I bet she’s not even upset. I bet she’s secretly glad that someone actually knew who she was, and happier that she was actually being spoken about. Hey, even bad publicity is good publicity, right? A semi-celebrity threatening legal action is just an attempt to affirm importance that they don’t have but pray every night before drifting off to sleep that they did. Wish hard, my child, wish hard.

By: vurdlife

vurdlife — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:32:23 +0000

Doh!

By: Abhi

Abhi — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:03:54 +0000

Abhi, can I ask, why are you a Constitutional Originalist?

Satire, my friend satire. For the record, I am NOT an originalist.

By: vurdlife

vurdlife — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 18:44:49 +0000

Abhi, can I ask, why are you a Constitutional Originalist? The standard that is protecting Sepia Mutiny here is from the 1970s I think (NY Times case...didn't google it so forgive if i'm wrong)...the fact that this semi-celeb is in the public limelight means you would have to have re-published with "actual malice" (knowledge of falseness with intent). And thats tough to prove.

None of this is in that dusty old document! If anything, slander and libel standards were much lower back then. Free speech as we know it is a relatively modern trend...see for instance the Alien and Sedition Act (overturned I know, but nothing like that could be passed today).

I just think that whole strict constructionist, Originalist biship is played out.

By: Sakshi

Sakshi — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 08:39:52 +0000

Well in India things all seem to get worse. Read the article in Hindustan Times, init the lawyer states that "blogging rules" should be applied. WTF !!! were is FREEDOM OF SPEECH heading in our country.

Day in and Day out we have political parties...and news channels insulting other members of the society, BUT we see no action against them. What Gaurav did was simply expressed his views and that too in his own space...so why shud he suffer???

It just further proves that IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE BIG GUYS IN THE INDIAN SOCIETY...then you will always land-up on the winning side.

By: Abhi

Abhi — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:14:46 +0000

1. Who are we here ? I am curious because I’d like to know the resources that you had to apply in this case.

Actually I’d rather not say. It is best to keep your legal opponent guessing about the finer points of your strategery.

2. Is there is a compilation of the Â“relevant precedentsÂ” on the net ? It would be nice to have such thing and I’d volunteer towards the effort to compile one. ( I am not a legal mind though)

http://www.eff.org/

By: KIT

KIT — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 07:10:38 +0000

KIT I think by your wording you answered your own question. You feel it too, huh?

You bet. Although I feel it for the whole NPR cast. I live in the mountains and NPR is my main source of "culture"

Care to respond about my Qs about the "legal precedents".