Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[childoftheking]

Interesting to see what some others are saying about the lawsuit and freedom of speech:

http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2009/04/16/defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies/

[Johann]

Amazing!!! to say the least. Here is a website claiming to be "recognized by the American Bar Association as a select legal resource..."

On April 16, 2009 it refers to Goliaths, like 3ABN, fighting a critical website, "save-3anbn.com".

Other critical bloggers usually "balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble..." so it seem likely that the 3abn lawyers thought it would be easy to get the men here involved to balk too "against corporate bullies" to cite the MEDIA LAW site.

It is interesting that this document states "additional Davids are needed. It’s going to take more than one stone thrower to bring this legal tactic to its knees."

So it appears like somebody is watching.

[quaddie47]

Amazing!!! to say the least. Here is a website claiming to be "recognized by the American Bar Association as a select legal resource..."

On April 16, 2009 it refers to Goliaths, like 3ABN, fighting a critical website, "save-3anbn.com".

Other critical bloggers usually "balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble..." so it seem likely that the 3abn lawyers thought it would be easy to get the men here involved to balk too "against corporate bullies" to cite the MEDIA LAW site.

It is interesting that this document states "additional Davids are needed. It’s going to take more than one stone thrower to bring this legal tactic to its knees."

So it appears like somebody is watching.

Are you saying that a blog by a 3rd year law student that drew one response in a year is impressive? 

What do you think it means that the originating post on another forum has not been updated in two years (including any of the filings)?

[childoftheking]

If what the article was saying supported your bias you would be praising it to the heavens. Its logic is self evident. And your characterization of the writer suggest that your customary answer to anything that doesn't suit you is "if you can't refute the argument, attack and belittle the speaker."

[anyman]

Amazing!!! to say the least. Here is a website claiming to be "recognized by the American Bar Association as a select legal resource..."

On April 16, 2009 it refers to Goliaths, like 3ABN, fighting a critical website, "save-3anbn.com".

Other critical bloggers usually "balk at the first sign of potential legal trouble..." so it seem likely that the 3abn lawyers thought it would be easy to get the men here involved to balk too "against corporate bullies" to cite the MEDIA LAW site.

It is interesting that this document states "additional Davids are needed. It’s going to take more than one stone thrower to bring this legal tactic to its knees."

So it appears like somebody is watching.

Are you saying that a blog by a 3rd year law student that drew one response in a year is impressive?  

What do you think it means that the originating post on another forum has not been updated in two years (including any of the filings)?

Not to mention, Quaddie,  that the RJP/GAJ case only gets cursory mention.

No Johann, the author of this blog doesn't call 3ABN a Goliath and those with a modicum of knowledge about 3ABN know that in the grand scheme of television media, it isn't anywhere near being a Goliath. He does use the David/Goliath story as a metaphor to set up his paper. He is also focused on blogging which is not what RJP/GAJ engaged in. Bloggers rights are a completely different issue. As far as it being "amazing" it has become a rather mundane legal reality, happening all the time. People in cyberspace feel empowered by the quasi-anonymity that comes from being able to post whatever you want to on the Internet. It also allows for a wealth of false or misleading information to be passed off as true (ala RJP/GAJ).

In this country Trademark/Patent law is well established and has the backing of a majority of politicians and legal experts. Copyright law is a much murkier area, but still carries tremendous weight. This blog is focused on media law where these three areas of law regularly play out. From their "About" page:

Suffolk Media Law is a Suffolk University Law School student organization, entirely student-run and created in 2009 in accordance with the school’s regulations and those of the Student Bar Association. The purpose of Suffolk Media Law is to provide all Suffolk University Law School students an opportunity to discuss and learn of topics related to communications law and media policy. Through dialogue and sponsorship of relevant events, Suffolk Media Law intends to help further the school community’s understanding of this growing and changing body of law. It is also the intent of Suffolk Media Law to help students with professional interest in this field by creating networking and career advancement opportunities.

As to your final point Johann, this post is a year old, the author is probably preparing to sit for the bar. The linked information, which is nothing more than an entry at a clearinghouse site for such information is almost two full years old, with, as Q pointed out, no updates - even they appear to have forgotten about it. Your finally statement appears ridiculous when measured against the realities. At best someone "took a peek" at the RJP/GAJ case . . . You can stop with the hyperbole.

[Bob Pickle]

Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm.

[anyman]

Now at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies.htm.

Your linked page contains one of your patented gross inaccuracies or outright lie, depending on how one wants to classify it. On that page you say:

The following article by Justin Silverman likens Save-3ABN.com to David and 3ABN to Goliath, with the battle being over free speech.

First, the author doesn't liken you to David other than by insinuation at best - and your case only receives a cursory mention. Second, Silverman makes no mention of "free speech" in his post, that would be your fabrication/manipulation/manufacturing of a point you will now attempt to pass off as truth. His point is entirely dealing with trademark infringement. In the case he focuses on in his post, free speech isn't an issue, isn't even mentioned:

Goldman Sachs' letter alleges that the sites' domain names and content infringe the "Goldman Sachs" mark, violate other intellectual property rights, and constitute unfair competition.  The letter also alleges that Morgan's use of the mark gives the false impression that Morgan has an affiliation or commercial relationship with Goldman Sachs. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

And the defendant in the case doesn't raise the specter of free speech either:

In response, Morgan filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in Florida federal court.  Morgan asked the court to declare that Morgan's websites and domain names did not infringe Goldman Sachs' trademark rights.  Morgan's Complaint also asked for declaratory judgment on Goldman Sachs' other claims. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

Unlike the RJP/GAJ case, mentioned at the same clearinghouse site, this one has been updated:

7/17/09 - MediaPost reported that the parties settled, with Morgan agreeing to withdraw his lawsuit and Goldman Sachs promising not to sue, provided that Morgan continues to run a disclaimer on the site. http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/goldman-sachs-v-morgan#description

Back to your statement, you are the one insinuating "free speech" into the context of the blog post. This is disingenuous a best, completely dishonest at worst. I don't expect that you will make this right, rather you will rationalize it and afford yourself a sufficient amount of dispensation to ease your conscious.

[quaddie47]

If what the article was saying supported your bias you would be praising it to the heavens. Its logic is self evident. And your characterization of the writer suggest that your customary answer to anything that doesn't suit you is "if you can't refute the argument, attack and belittle the speaker."

COTK,

Did my post attack either you or Johann personally contrary to your personal attack on me claiming you know what i think about the article's content or opinions and claiming i am biased?   Have I ever once praised any opinion expressed on this board by either side although it is possible i have agreed with one and stated the same? 

Pointing out the credentials of the author does not demonstrate bias nor does it belittle him.  It is part of the critical thinking and analysis that iMO is so often lacking here. 

How many times has Bob called for the troops to contact the media?  I presume that many did.  Since I have never seen one post that there was any interest, I think it is reasonable to assume there was not. *****************************************************

It is your opinion that "its logic is self-evident".  Your opinion and not a fact.  Again, you have not a clue my opinion about the content of the blog from my post.  It was a suggestion that before you hail the article as proving anything, you look at a few more facts.

And do not accuse me of bias.  Just because i refuse to live in the "world according to bob" and accept all he writes in briefs or puts in affidavits as logical and a dozen other adjectives i can think of and IMO most likely causes law clerks to have to pick themselves up of the floor before their hysterical laughter can be heard pealing through the halls of justice, you have no idea what any personal bias i have is. 

I do have one question for you though.  Now that Bob has admitted he found the post and obviously passed it on to you to post, do you think starting a new thread as if you had found the blog and wanted to share it is just a tad deceptive?  Why is Bob unwilling to start the thread himself?

The difference between you and I COTK is that I respect your right to have an opinion different than my own as well as your right to post it.  Your post speaks for itself.


Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.

[Nosir Myzing]

Interesting to see what some others are saying about the lawsuit and freedom of speech:

http://suffolkmedialaw.com/2009/04/16/defending-blogger-rights-against-corporate-bullies/

And more interesting to me is the fact that you actually posted this. It turns out your "some others" is just one person from a year ago, who seemed to think Pickle and Joy were "bloggers" and barely mentioned the lawsuit, a lawsuit which has been dismissed for almost 18 mos  now.

Moving on.

[childoftheking]

WOW! I must have hit a nerve. Everybody is biased in one way or another. You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN. And this article went against that. I am biased in favor of openness and transparency and the right of donors to know the facts. I felt that you were attacking and belittling the ability of the writer of the article to comment objectively. Can you not tolerate any dissent or open mindedness? Must you crush any other opinion than your own? If the author were the only one still discussing the lawsuit I wouldn't have said "others" I didn't say that it was broadly discussed online.

I found the article myself, kept it in my "favorite links" and decided to post it here today. I felt the time was right simply because of the lawsuit having been dismissed as long as it has been and because of the appeal process. Bob obviously read it soon after I posted it here and decided to use it. He did not give it to me to post. I don't know if he knew about it but I have known for some time about the article. He did not discuss it with me. I didn't know he was going to post anything at all on the other site.

Look, I personally have hoped and still hope that the usefullness to the church of 3ABN will still not ultimately be outweighed by bad publicity. I have done a lot of investigating myself and it has been a continual challenge to know which things to keep to myself and which things others have a right to know and to consider.

[Bob Pickle]

childoftheking,

You are right about bringing up bias. Anyman has to be extremely biased to deny that "Defending Blogger Rights" is about free speech. Bloggers by definition produce "speech."

[anyman]

childoftheking,

You are right about bringing up bias. Anyman has to be extremely biased to deny that "Defending Blogger Rights" is about free speech. Bloggers by definition produce "speech."

Thank you for substantiating my point. You're not, nor have you ever been, a blogger. The semantics here are not subtle, they are obvious. The point of the post is far removed from the reality of your situation. Again, try to focus, the blogger's "speech" was <never> at issue in the case focused on. Thus the falsehood of the statement you make on your web site.

Sure I am biased. So what?

[anyman]

You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN.

If only you knew how humorous this accusation is. It removes any potential credibility to the remainder of your comment.

[childoftheking]

Please explain how you welcome questioning loyalty to 3ABN. I love a good joke.

[anyman]

Simple. There is zero truth to your statement:

You have been quite clear that you are biased in favor of unquestioning loyalty to 3ABN.