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

[rhetorical]

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.

[rhetorical]

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.

[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

[rhetorical]

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

[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.

[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

[rhetorical]

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

[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.

[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.

[rhetorical]

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

[rhetorical]

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

[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.

[rhetorical]

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.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

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.

Ive highlighted this thread on the front page just incase the SE folks dont know where to go.

[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.

[rhetorical]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

...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.

The damage is done. The bottom line is that fucking with a litageous company is costly and usually useless, win or lose. Only in America can litigation be an integral part of a business plan.

[griffin8r]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Only in America can litigation be an integral part of a business plan.

True that, sister.

Litigation + Lobbying are a highly integral part of a successful business plan in this country, and the bigger the company gets, the more important those components are.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[rhetorical]

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.

[rhetorical]

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.

[gonzo]

Got this today


NATS v3 bug fix As part of of our ongoing commitment to provide the most secure and reliable software, we are contacting you to inform you of a possible security issue with NATS v3. We are providing a fix file immediately to resolve this issue. To get these fix files, in the main NATS directory, run theses commands on your server: cvs up -d fix/2991_approved.php;cp fix/2991_approved.php www/signup/approved.php If you are unsure how to do this, or you wish to have us perform this fix for you, please open a support ticket at http://client.toomuchmedia.com and a tech will be happy to assist you in the implementation of this fix. Thank youToo Much Media

[gonzo]

Oprano Makes it to the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124287328648142113.html

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Oprano Makes it to the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124287328648142113.html

I'm thinking she's gonna win.
I thought the umbrella insurance policy thing was interesting....

[Toby]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I'm thinking she's gonna win.
I thought the umbrella insurance policy thing was interesting....

Not just taking on an affluent soccer mom, but a giant corporation too. I'm wondering if TMM is now thinking maybe this wasn't such a good idea.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

Not just taking on an affluent soccer mom, but a giant corporation too. I'm wondering if TMM is now thinking maybe this wasn't such a good idea.

I think they are doing it for the publicity.
Both as an exposure, and as a shot across the bow for any other "would be journalists" (in their opinion)

[Toby]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I think they are doing it for the publicity.
Both as an exposure, and as a shot across the bow for any other "would be journalists" (in their opinion)

I'll buy the shot across the bow idea, the publicity angle I don't. There is no upside to rehashing that whole access breach issue again.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

I'll buy the shot across the bow idea, the publicity angle I don't. There is no upside to rehashing that whole access breach issue again.

There is also no reason to try to defuse a bomb once it's gone off.
I didn't follow it at the time, but I understand the whole thing was pretty well publicized?
That being the case, the response choices were:

1. Denial
2. Explanation
3. promise to fix
4. Attack the accuser mercilessly to divert attention

So, if they can make the public believe there was no breach, and it was just an angry affiliate, they could gain some ground, as well as looking like a company that is right on top of things.

I agree with your reasoning though....the credit card industry takes your approach.
Who can give me ANY details about the time/date/company of the last major card breach?
Even the government ones......where was the senate hearing on all those records of soldiers that were compromised?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

...if they can make the public believe there was no breach, and it was just an angry affiliate, they could gain some ground, as well as looking like a company that is right on top of things...

Did you read any of the posts on GFY by John from TMM when all this went down? TMM admitted that there had been a breach, that their own internal list of support access passwords to client installations had been compromised giving full admin access to the perpetrators.

NATS and other backend software doesn't capture and store credit card information, but they do maintain member email addresses and other non-financial data. Also, if you consider affiliates to be customers then all of their information was fully available as well, including SSN, mailing address etc.

Pretty tough to gloss all that over and come out looking good.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

Did you read any of the posts on GFY by John from TMM when all this went down? TMM admitted that there had been a breach, that their own internal list of support access passwords to client installations had been compromised giving full admin access to the perpetrators.

NATS and other backend software doesn't capture and store credit card information, but they do maintain member email addresses and other non-financial data. Also, if you consider affiliates to be customers then all of their information was fully available as well, including SSN, mailing address etc.

Pretty tough to gloss all that over and come out looking good.

As I said, no, I wasn't really following it.
But if what you are saying is what I think I'm hearing, then it sounds like they don't have much of a case.

They did make a note of the costs involved in proving you are right......That sounded like an intentional story plant. note to the future reporters......if you write bad stuff about us, we'll sue you, right or wrong, and you'll go broke defending....so keep yer yap shut.

Maybe the reporter can get them with a slapp suit.