Bill targets libel on blogs

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

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.

Looks like a stretch to me. Many of these blogs don't get many hits. And then many of us who participate in these blogs are weird to begin with. So with weird people writing this stuff and weird people reading this stuff, what's the big deal. And then we got RTB correcting our errors when we overstep the boundary to the bad place.

I'll test this law.... Bring it on. Try and find a DA in this state who wants to become the subject of thousands if not millions of blogs for trying to take away an American's freedom of speach. You are a Bone Head.

The ball is in your court.

"Extremism flows through many streams, but never finds the river of reason." -- Steve Goss (he quotes himself on his own website! [Snicker!])

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" -- Barry Goldwater

"4 of the 6 co-sponsors of this bill are Republicans"

Odd that a Democrock is walking point on this one, tho.

I'm not a reptillican. I say they're all pigs.

-- You, know, In my opinion, that's true to the best of my knowledge.

Can we plug the budget hole with these guys? Is this realllly such a crushing issue? I guess if your career consists of running for office, and you reallly want to stifle free-expression it is.

"Now WHO would've guessed, a Democrat would come out in favor of limiting, rather than expanding freedoms???"

Um, 4 of the 6 co-sponsors of this bill are Republicans...

I wonder if he is authouring this bill for special interest reasons or if its because he really looks like the jackbutt in that picture above? Maybe its for both reasons. I'd even bet on it.

Comment deleted for violating policy on reposting. Seriously, that's why we have links.

— RTB

Stinkin' control freaks can't handle the truth and want to keep the peasantry silent. What has happened to our "free" country?

fire Uncle Scam
TriangleFreeForum.com

Now WHO would've guessed, a Democrat would come out in favor of limiting, rather than expanding freedoms???

Wow. Never coulda seen that coming.

Be thankful we still have a first amendment at all.

PS
In my opinion,
to the best of my knowledge,
'It wasn't me, you can't prove anything' - Bart Simpson

For any actually worried (the desired effect)
/it's my understanding/ that successfully prosecuting a libel suit is damn near impossible.
/it's my understanding/ that the libelee has to prove that you knew that what you said was inaccurate. Blah-blah.
/it's my understanding/ too, that Public 'servants' have a particularly tough time being successful stifling free speech. something about serving our interests before their own, or something.

To the best of my knowledge, it's my opinion that politicians who seek to intimidate the public who pays their salaries and stifle free speech are PIGS.

How can the inclusion of criminal penalties be an oversight? I can understand leaving something out that you intended to put in as an oversight, but how can the inclusion of specific criminal provisions be "an oversight"?

"Goss said that was a mistake."

If he means that having the word, "Criminal" in the title was a mistake, then what are these parts about:

(b) Offense. – It is unlawful for any person to communicate by transmission through an electronic medium any false, defamatory statement that is libelous or slanderous.

(c) Penalty. – A person convicted of an offense under this section is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.

If the action is a criminal proceeding on which a verdict of guilty is rendered, then notwithstanding G.S. 15A‑1340.23, the defendant shall be fined a penny and costs, and no more.

Ah. I see you've updated your post, Ryan. But since I already wrote this...click

I do not believe that blogs as a whole favors anyone view point. I do not understand why he is wasting time in this fragile economy.

To my knowledge that is.....

"I believe these blogs are getting out of control."

Huh?

Blogging is speech. Speech is protected. Libelous speech is not. Why do you need to single blogs out and specifically define them? This sounds like it was dreamed up and concocted by the department of redundancy department.

Senator Goss might not like the tone of this post.

Does NC now have more blogs than churches, houses of worship or other cult-gathering facilities?

Some enterprising researcher or businessperson should look into it, then tell the Chamber's chamber what to do with the bill.

These blogs are getting out of control? Harrumpfff. Does the N&O have a position on the proposed legislation?

James

PS One attorney told me that I should be adding "to my knowledge" at the end of every post. Isn't that something witnesses are coached to say in courtrooms in order to avoid perjuring themselves?

PPS To my knowledge.