newsobserver.com projects - SB46-09 - Comments

Michael Roberts of Rexxfield.com writes:

Rexxfield — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:15:26 -0400

I applaud this politicians commonsense approach to the problem of online defamation and Internet libel. However, and unfortunately, federal supremacy will overrule what he wants to do. Specifically, section 230 C. of the information communications decency act. I have written extensively on this at the following url:

http://www.rexxfield.com/abuseofintenetfreespeech.php

Re: Three problems with blog libel bill

cdtew — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:39:41 -0500

About jurisdiction, I would like to know whether Mr. Zimmerman believes that the NC Supreme Court would merely read into the statute the limits of Due Process under the 14th Amendment, in effect giving it a sliding scale such as in Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com (W.D. Penn 1997).

Thanks for this summary

James_Protzman — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:52:48 -0500

Very helpful.

Re: Three problems with blog libel bill

rubyji — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:40:51 -0500

As a political blogger I also think the bill is written such that it would have no effect on what I do. If anyone ever points out corrected information, bloggers tend to lift it up rather than suppress the new info.

http://www.wchl1360.com/details.html?id=9331

Re: Criminal libel statute unused

GrayJ — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:21:42 -0500

Your legal counsel's full name according to the Everett Gaskins' website is actually Ashley Matlock Perkinson. Sorry I could not resist posting this.

Re: In regards to Goss's crazy scheme

domewatcher — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:33:03 -0500

This site that Goss is after is a little more "lively" than the Dome. I don't know if Goss will be able to throttle them or not. He would be better off forgetting about doing it through legislation and letting RTB censor their posts. That would tame them down and lead them into a life of hope, growth and opportunity.

Re: In regards to Goss's crazy scheme

j1c2kp — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:43:20 -0500

ohmygosh Goss is a baptist minister

In regards to Goss's crazy scheme

PoliticalJunkie — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:52:13 -0500

Southeastern North Carolina's Crooked Senators

This is the blog Goss is after. He ought to know nothing good comes of doing the dirty work of his two disgraced colleagues from SE NC.

Copays

domewatcher — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:13:23 -0500

Reducing the copay on chiropractic vists is probably a good idea. And I wish they would add palm readers. My palm reader, Madame King, is excellent and is descended from European royalty. My insurance company does not recognize her yet but maybe the legislature will change that.

Re: Quick Hits: Blog libel

PoliticalJunkie — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:34:37 -0500

http://wilmingtonshame.blogspot.com/

This the blog Goss is after. He ought to know nothing good comes of doing the dirty work of his two disgraced colleagues from SE NC.

Re: Quick Hits: Blog libel

scharrison — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:34:54 -0500

I think Laura's got it right too, especially the part about the fear of torts thing. But unless the criminal (Class II Misdemeanor) aspects of this bill are removed, there's even more at stake here. The fine of one penny might sound like the intent is a "harmless lesson", but the criminal record itself will follow the person forever. Future employment (or advancement) problems, other subsequent civil/criminal proceedings tainted (child custody, etc.), and even aspirations for public office can be snuffed during an ugly campaign.

The best solution to reign in blogs that are "out of control" is total transparency by public officials. When you close the door to that backroom, people are forced to speculate based on limited information. When that speculation is wrong, part of the responsibility lies with those who keep the truth close to their vests.

Re: Bill targets libel on blogs

DrMaryJohnson — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:23:03 -0500

This was posted at Doug Clark's (The N&R)

Since I'm likely one of those bloggers that the idiot (my opinion/he's a public figure) Steve Goss (a good NC Democrat) would like to silence, let me add my two cents (I would appreciate it if you did not delete the comment -as I've signed my name and stand by everything I say):

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's only Amendment Number One. And I have news for Mr. Goss: The Constitution is NOT just "a goddamned piece of paper". The Dems in Raleigh would like to shut some of us up or down - NOT because we are lying - but because we are telling the truth about the way they've conducted the people's business.

For instance, here: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2009/02/change-progressive-blogosphere-nc-state.html

And Doug, if our newspapers would stop fretting over their futures long enough to get off their lazy/agendized butts to actually do some investigative reporting, they might (1) save themselves, and (2) know what is true and what is false.

Skeet, I too have been banned at JR's (in my case, for questioning his job performance . . . never mind that any anonymous, threat-spewing cretin can libel mine - over and over again - at Cone's). And I've got to tell you, I wear it as a badge of honor.

I've also been sued for "libel". The thing about that was the people who sued me had to run from the Courtroom with their tails tucked because I was telling the truth - and had the proof. The supreme irony in their retreat (so far, well-covered-up by all the local newspapers) is that THEY REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH - A CRIMINAL OFFENSE - in order save money in the deal.

I've been in the GSO blogs, jumping up and down screaming about it for four years (after being invited here by JR) . . . signing my damned name to everything I post. And for my trouble, I've been publicly eviscerated over and over again.

Yet the people I openly accuse ("non-profit" executives, no less - propped up by tax dollars and charged with the public welfare) can get by taking the Fifth - nobody asks them a single question. And OBTW, they have not sued me.

I wonder why?

If only we had some journalists around here to ask.

Thanks for covering this.

James_Protzman — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:11:40 -0500

I wish I understood the actual proposed legislation better, but since by the sponsor's admission, a big chunk of the draft was a "mistake," it's kind of hard to make sense of it.

I agree that Laura probably has it right. Hard to explain otherwise.

Re: Quick Hits: Blog libel

j1c2kp — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:48:36 -0500

Laura Leslie probably has that one right.

Re: Quick Hits: Blog libel

ryanteaguebeckwith — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:38:03 -0500

Missed that one. Added.

— RTB