Should Shellee Hale Be Protected Under Press Sheild?

[gonzo]

Court case started today conerning some posts Shellee made here concerning TMM/NATS.
The question is do you think she should be covered for those posts here as well as the ones on her blogs to be considered press?

http://www.xbiz.com/news/107439

[softball]

Its an interesting question. My heart says yes, but my instinct says no. Outside of the actual publication that you either publish or work for, you are a private citizen and as such, should enjoy all those rights, protections and responsibilities. However, as someone said in the other thread, the truth is ultimately the best protection and needs no defense.

[bluemoney]

I'm going yes . . . . simple because I feel Oprano Is the "Wall Street Journal of Porn."

[RawAlex]

I am going with yes, mostly because the posts here were extensions of what was on her blogs - if what is on her blogs is protected, what was discussed here is just an extension of that material.

I don't like it, but the logic seems to follow for me.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I am going with yes, mostly because the posts here were extensions of what was on her blogs - if what is on her blogs is protected, what was discussed here is just an extension of that material.

I don't like it, but the logic seems to follow for me.

So what you are saying is that if you have a blog (and any moron can have one...and I am sure you do), you can say what you like, where you like, when you like and you have some kind of immunity. WRONG. Then that moron goes on a libelous jaunt through cyber space ruining businesses, breaking up marriages, bringing down politicians with what would be totally illegal and libelous as fuck but has protection. That is like defending Perez Hilton for stealing pictures. I know, Alex, you don't read my posts....because sometimes you say the dumbest fucking things. This is right up there with your Trixie rants.:whi stling:whi stling:whi stling:whi stling

[Hell Puppy]

I would have to weigh intent.

If the intent is to provide the public with news and information, then I see no difference in the manner of publication or credentials of the writer.

If the intent is other, especially self serving or intending only to damage someone, then it shouldn't be protected.

[RawAlex]

if intent to damage was the standard, then Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report would both have been shut down a long time ago. The standard isn't intent, it hinges on the truth, or at least information from sources that say it is so.

[EmporerEJ]

I think it will be interesting to see how they "prove" libel.
I realize you all want to run for the first amendment, but that's not what we're talking about, except in the abstract. The case is about statements being made that were false. The burden is NOT on the writer to prove the statements true, the burden is on the other side to prove them UNTRUE.
We ARE still living in the USA you know......where Free Speech is rule #1.
THEN, and only THEN do we have a ball game.
Everybody wants to be case law.......

It's a long road to libel, and then civil penalties.

I've noticed our resident attornies have NOT chimed in here.
Boys?

[EmporerEJ]

Oh, and hey Gonzo, how's it feel to be the focus of legal attention?
(pun intended)

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Oh, and hey Gonzo, how's it feel to be the focus of legal attention?
(pun intended)

I havent heard a word from a soul EJ.

As Serge used to say... "Its all about the page views".

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I havent heard a word from a soul EJ.

As Serge used to say... "Its all about the page views".

Well, in regards to this topic, hopefully you won't get subpoenaed to verify your records.

In the past year, I've been subpoenaed 3 times to verify either security footage from our property cams is valid, or news video I shot for an unrelated non-adult community TV channel I shot was "original."

Ain't nobody paying me for my time on those......

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Well, in regards to this topic, hopefully you won't get subpoenaed to verify your records.

In the past year, I've been subpoenaed 3 times to verify either security footage from our property cams is valid, or news video I shot for an unrelated non-adult community TV channel I shot was "original."

Ain't nobody paying me for my time on those......

I guess they can take my deposition over the phone then.

Really though... would you want me on the stand knowing good and well theres no telling what I am going to say?

Add to the issue that they have been asking all sorts of interesting questions and the fact that I have been around long enough to remember a lot of the business history.

It would be fun for me I suppose but Im just a po workin man.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by gonzo

I guess they can take my deposition over the phone then.

Really though... would you want me on the stand knowing good and well theres no telling what I am going to say?

Add to the issue that they have been asking all sorts of interesting questions and the fact that I have been around long enough to remember a lot of the business history.

It would be fun for me I suppose but Im just a po workin man.

Telephone deposition? Yea, I gotta try that one next time. See how that works. I'm thinkin'..........not so much.

[pornlaw]

Actually, in most states (26) this would be a very risky proposition for NATS and Co. In California we have Anti-SLAPP laws that would allow her to hit NATS with a counter claim, even before she has to answer their complaint indicating that their lawsuit is an attempt to prevent her from exercising her constitutionally protected free speech rights.

If she wins, they pay her attorney's fees. It also stays the underlaying action until the Judge assigned rules on the Anti-SLAPP motion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg..._participation

[softball]

New Jersey courts have not yet applied the malicious use of process claim to SLAPPs brought against bloggers or non-traditional journalists. Given the language the courts have used in describing the threat of SLAPPs to citizens' rights of petition and free speech, however, it seems entirely possible that the courts would be willing to extend the claim to these types of SLAPPs.

Could be a precedent....

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...law-new-jersey

[TheEnforcer]

Hmm.. interesting law there pornlaw.

[gonzo]

This is far from over I think as an observer.

Interesting points have been brought up. My favorite question is why sue the messenger instead of the hacker?

And then there is the issue of discovery. If they dont grant her shield then discovery on this is going to be a major eyeopener.

I cant say that Id want anyone in my affairs. Jon has proven many times over he has bigger balls than I dream of.

[gonzo]

"New Jersey courts have not yet applied the malicious use of process claim to SLAPPs brought against bloggers or non-traditional journalists. Given the language the courts have used in describing the threat of SLAPPs to citizens' rights of petition and free speech, however, it seems entirely possible that the courts would be willing to extend the claim to these types of SLAPPs"

New Jersey: New Jersey does not have an anti-SLAP statute, although there were bills introduced in 1998 (Senate Bill No. 745) and in 1996 (Assembly Bill 1545). However, the New Jersey Courts have been sympathetic to those impacted by SLAPPs. As a result, the courts have allowed a defendant who successfully defeats a SLAPP-type suit to seek damages from the SLAPP filer on a claim of malicious use of process.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-gui...law-new-jersey


I know people are missing the point on this one. It could be a landmark case.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by gonzo

This is far from over I think as an observer.

Interesting points have been brought up. My favorite question is why sue the messenger instead of the hacker?

And then there is the issue of discovery. If they dont grant her shield then discovery on this is going to be a major eyeopener.

I cant say that Id want anyone in my affairs. Jon has proven many times over he has bigger balls than I dream of.

This is why I think this is all a little odd: 1st off, why would you want to bring it all back up? Unless TMM is suffering some overwhelming loss of credibility or losing buisness because of these "lies" (in their opinion), this is one of those things where you should just let it blow over. If Shellee is right, then they should be asking her for more info so they can follow it up and take appropriate action against the hacker, and working to secure whatever might have been lost, etc - acts that would go a long way to fixing whatever credibility they have lost along the way.

2nd, they face a double or nothing deal here: They have to get past the shield law before they can even start to look at the actual "facts" of the case. So they have to win the shield law action before they can even start on the meat, and there they could end up losing as well. So they need to make two victories to come out ahead, Shellee only has to win one or the other.

I just don't understand it at all, I think that the vast majority of people had already let this one blow past and was forgotten in internet time. They have just served to remind us all of what happened.

[lovisca]

i agree with "bluemoney"

[gonzo]

Seems to be taking on a life of its own
http://mntech.typepad.com/msba/2009/...st-status.html

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Seems to be taking on a life of its own
http://mntech.typepad.com/msba/2009/...st-status.html

Interesting. IMHO, if you are a serious blogger and want legal protection and status, then you should also be prepared to accept legal responsibility. Along with that comes the burden of insurance, expensive research, and liability issues.
Perez Hilton is a good example. He is kinda like the Somali pirates. He based his entire business on stolen products and his only defense is that "everyone" does it.
Should he be entitled to any extra ordinary legal protection? I think not. He has shunned the responsibility required to gain that privilege.
I expect Shelee is legit and deserves protection. But this case could resonate whichever way the cards fall.

[RawAlex]

Picking up steam, rounding the second turn...

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/200...nline_por.html

[softball]

I think its ironic, that those who make a living from the privilege of free speech are viciously fighting it. TMM is sucking wind in this case. "IMHO" (qualifier to keep tmm from suing me for speaking my mind). Fuck them.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I think its ironic, that those who make a living from the privilege of free speech are viciously fighting it. TMM is sucking wind in this case. "IMHO" (qualifier to keep tmm from suing me for speaking my mind). Fuck them.

Even if TMM ultimately wins the case, I don't think they really gain anything.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Toby

Even if TMM ultimately wins the case, I don't think they really gain anything.

They are morons.....a waste of money and they look like assholes. Anyone from TMM care to step up to the plate, or are you guys just hiding behind your lawyers and being ladyboys? I just can't believe these guys spend so much money to beat up a mom from Seattle. I bet they don't have the balls to come here and make excuses. They are an embarrassment to men.
Even mainstream media thinks they are bullies...

A Washington State hockey mom who accused a N.J.-based web firm that serves the pornography industry of a security breach that may have exposed customers' private information to hackers faces a hearing Thursday alleging she slandered the company.

Read between the lines....soccer mom....TMM has already lost the battle for public opinion. A major fucking cock up on their part. Everyone knows about NATS so why publicize their mess?

http://www.toomuchmedia.com/

for obvious reasons....just an invitation for a response. This should either be...ignored because they have no balls....or prolly damage control 101 which will be instantly recognized.


tick tick tick

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by Toby

Even if TMM ultimately wins the case, I don't think they really gain anything.

They gain fear from people who might say something negative about them in public.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

They gain fear from people who might say something negative about them in public.

That, I am sure, is true. Then someone, someday, with more money drops a load from a very great height on them and they will prolly hide behind freedom of something or other themselves.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

They gain fear from people who might say something negative about them in public.

...if they win.

If the lose, well, they will have helped create a legal precedent and at the same time turned themselves into an open target. This whole deal makes absolutely no sense end to end.

[softball]

Hey...Too Much Media....stop fucking with the first amendment. Without it, you wouldn't have the currency to fight this case.

[Mediaguy]

First, I think blogs could be considered authentic journalistic sources; not forums.

Second, I just want to say that I don't represent or speak for TooMuchMedia, despite Shellee's own confused references to "2 Much Media" and "2Much media". I'm just following the case since I was there and posted in the initial thread, http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=89612.

In my opinion, evoking the shield law is a stalling tactic... there are other charges in contention that can't be addressed until this point of law is settled, unfortunately.

The main question is, basically, should the shield laws regarding Hale's sources stating that TMM John had physically threatened someone's life apply?

Initially she had flatly stated that TMM had threatened someone's life (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showp...45&postcount=2). Hale later amended her statement, and that "a reliable source" had made this claim (http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showp...92&postcount=3).

TMM, beyond the slander charges, want to know who (if it wasn't Hale), began propagating what they claim is a false threat.

This wasn't in a journalistic context, nor a credibly referenced blog context (Hale wasn't blogging at the time, nor writing a book about our industry and organized crime; these came after, maybe to bolster her shield law requests, though I think her soccer-mom-investigates-porn idea came about to make something out of her abject failure in our field).

The claim wasn't anywhere that could be referred to as a source of objective or subjective reporting. It was on this board (among others).

This and any other public forum or BBS or whatever you want to call it can't be considered a journalistic context. The only one here who could be covered under the journalist or reporter umbrella would be Gonzo, and any other who moderates the information disseminated here.

A blog, though, isn't a public arena, and neither is a news site/source/paper whatever.

Here, you stand or fall on your statements. The only journalist, or "editor", would be Gonzo or whoever is moderator of the forum where she made the claims. Not that Gonzo or anyone here is responsible; allowing people to stick their own foots in their mouths is their decision.

I thought Shellee had made some sort of apology since her post was a reactionary, ill-informed prophecy of the end of affiliate marketing, inspired by a combination of two out-of-date issues or actual news stories which had been settled or were in process at the time of her post.

Maybe that she's being sued for slander means her apologies weren't found or produced, or that they were lost?

What's up with that?

[softball]

Are we to assume you are speaking for TMM? Do you work for them or do you profit in anyway by association with TMM? If so, what is your affiliation? If not, what is your interest?

[Mediaguy]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Are we to assume you are speaking for TMM? Do you work for them or do you profit in anyway by association with TMM? If so, what is your affiliation? If not, what is your interest?

Read my second statement above:

Second, I just want to say that I don't represent or speak for TooMuchMedia, despite Shellee's own confused references to "2 Much Media" and "2Much media". I'm just following the case since I was there and posted in the initial thread, http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=89612.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Mediaguy

Read my second statement above:

I did. You are trying to dodge the bullet. What exactly, confused you?

[Mediaguy]

[quote=rhetorical;826089]Are we to assume you are speaking for TMM?

No.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Do you work for them or do you profit in anyway by association with TMM?

No.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

If so, what is your affiliation?

None.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

If not, what is your interest?

As I said, "I was there and posted in the initial thread, http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/showthread.php?t=89612."

Hale is an ex-customer of ours. I expected something like this to happen to her sooner or later, from her behaviour both "professionally" and publically, especially after the TMM/Rhino-pays post-facto postings.

Gonzo posted a legitimate poll/question, and I'm throwing in my two-cents.

[gonzo]

It seems that even people in the mainstream are split on this one ....

http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2009/...sts_too_m.html

Rhetorical has become famous too.

Hello to all our new visitors.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

It seems that even people in the mainstream are split on this one ....

http://blog.nj.com/jerseyblogs/2009/...sts_too_m.html

Rhetorical has become famous too.

Hello to all our new visitors.

Its taken me years to learn how to bear the heavy burden of fame.

[RawAlex]

Mediaguy, one of the real issues for TMM is that John gives the impression of a very agressive guy, and sometimes can strike some people as a bit of a loose cannon (I have heard worse expressions, but that is enough to make it clear).

Therefore, there is potential that something that John may have said to someone at some point might have been taken as a threat, even though that might not have been John's intention.

Like I said before, the shield law stuff is step one, then the rest of the case comes after. TMM has to win 2 in a row to have a hope, and even in getting the indentification of the "source", they may find themselves in a no win situation where one of John's off the cuff "moment of anger" comments was taken by someone in a way not intended, but in a manner that would still pass legal muster.

TMM's only win in this is to get past the shield law stuff and prove that Shellee had no source, and just made it up. But that might be pretty hard, as she could point to any random GFY board nick as the source, and that would likely be enough.

There is so few ways TMM can win here.

[griffin8r]

She can certainly countersue if she was an affiliate whose information was compromised...

[Toby]

Originally Posted by griffin8r

She can certainly countersue if she was an affiliate whose information was compromised...

Only if she can prove damages directly related to the breach, which would be damn near impossible.

[griffin8r]

Originally Posted by Toby

Only if she can prove damages directly related to the breach, which would be damn near impossible.

Good point. Didn't consider that.

It was mentioned there were other websites where the employees of the company stated that these breaches happened - doesn't she have an abuse of process counter in there?

[softball]

IMHO.....gotta say that around here or you could be sued. TMM was out to beat up a soccer mom and kicked a pit bull in the teeth. They report. You decide.
Goliath, meet David.

[gonzo]

Blogger jailed in Anna Nicole Smith defamation suit


A real estate agent in Houston who blogged about Anna Nicole Smith was jailed for contempt last week in a defamation case brought by the late Playboy model's mother.
Legal experts said bloggers are increasingly the targets of such litigation, which are testing the bounds of free speech.

Lyndal Harrington, who is accused of helping to spread falsehoods that Virgie Arthur married her stepbrother and abused Smith as a child, spent four nights in jail after she failed to comply with a court order to turn over her computer.


The 53-year-old grandmother claimed her computer was stolen during a burglary less than a week after it was subpoenaed.

A police officer testified that he believed the theft was staged and judge Tony Lindsay ordered Harrington to produce the computer by July 2 or she will again face incarceration.

Harrington says she is shocked that she is being sued for comments posted on someone else's blog to pass the time.

"I just voiced my opinion," said Lyndal Harrington of her posts about Smith and Arthur on the website "Rose Speaks."

Like many bloggers, Harrington doesn't consider herself a publisher and did not realize she could be held liable for her posts.

"I got into this because my business had fallen apart in this economy and it was something to do," she told AFP. "I developed a lot of friendships with women who are retired or ill at home."

Three other bloggers are named in the suit along with Smith's former companion, Howard K. Stern, and Larry Birkhead, the father of her daughter, Dannielynn.

Arthur alleges that the defendants conspired to defame her so she wouldn't get custody of Dannielynn, who could inherit up to 88 million dollars.

"Lyndall Harrington is a liar who faked a burglary," said Neil McCabe who represents Arthur.

"She's part of a conspiracy to defame my client and she's done her own defaming of my client."

Lawsuits against bloggers in the United States have been doubling every year since 2004 with 15 million dollars in judgments so far against them, according to Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association.

"A lot of bloggers think of themselves as individuals or maybe writers but in the courts, they are considered a publisher," Cox said.

His organization has created an on-line course with Harvard Law School, City of New York School of Journalism and News University at the Poynter Institute at Northwestern University to educate bloggers about their legal rights and responsibilities.

"A lot of these cases could have been avoided if things had been worded just a little differently or if they had double sourced their information," Cox said.

"Most of the time, these people are not trained journalists."

The spike in suits is due in part to the burgeoning number of bloggers.

About 175,000 new blogs are created every day according to Technorati, a blog search engine.

But it also has to do with people's growing obsession with controlling their on-line reputations and new technologies that allow them to do it.

"With Google alerts and rss feeds, it's a lot easier to monitor what's being said about you," said Sam Bayard, assistant director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University.

Moreover, the technology exists to find anonymous bloggers.

"People can find you," said Cox at the Media Blogger Association, which this year began offering its members legal expenses insurance for an annual fee of 540 dollars for 100,000 dollars of coverage.

The majority of cases against bloggers are for defamation but they are also frequently sued for copyright infringement and invasion of privacy.

"There's this Wild West mentality where people think they can do anything on the Web and not be held liable," said Bayard.

While state laws vary on what constitutes defamation and who qualifies as a journalist and thus who can protect sources, Bayard said, judges have consistently applied the same standards to blogs as they would any other medium of expression.

"Defamation is defamation no matter whether it is written on paper or on a blog," he said.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[RawAlex]

Well, Shellee can take that case with her to court. If someone is a publisher, then they also get all the rules and benefits that come with it.

Too much for some of you?

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Well, Shellee can take that case with her to court. If someone is a publisher, then they also get all the rules and benefits that come with it.

Too much for some of you?

Has Shellee denied being a publisher?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Has Shellee denied being a publisher?

Judge decides this summer.
Right now shes probably in Canada dealing with our old cam and resource expert Mark Prince.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Judge decides this summer.
Right now shes probably in Canada dealing with our old cam and resource expert Mark Prince.

What exactly is the relationship between MP and 2mm? I am not clear on the pecking order here. Anyone know?

[Toby]

Other than the similirity in the company names I don't think there is any relationship.