![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 43 to 67 of 192. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on December 6, 2004, at 2:37:27
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
>
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> BobI do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
To tell the truth I've always preferred the benign (mainly benign) monarchy of this site to a democracy because I think you protect the minority from the majority, and I *always* think that's a good thing. Not that the majority here is bad or anything, but it's just human nature. While you, as someone not involved, have a bit more distance and aren't as likely to let emotions rule your decisions. (I'm sure you get emotionally involved at times, but I notice you administrate the charged threads last on occasion.) But I don't see much potential for problems with this idea. And I'm great at seeing potential problems. :)
You do realize that the occasional curse word would rarely if ever be reported, don't you? :) Which I rather like, but you might not.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:39:33
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-hm » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:11:27
F4MT,
You wrote,[...I... would allow my guests...deal with the issues themselves...].
In my post to you , I had asked if you would allow a guest to humiliate another guest. Are you saying , then, that you would not intercede and allow a possible confrontation to go on that could lead to assult and then you would try to evict the"slap happy" guest?
Let us go further into this situation in your home. If the guest then made a sign that ridiculed another guest, perhaps having the poster libled with defaming epithets, and staked it in the front lawn where 100s of cars went bye per hour, would you allow the sign to remain in the front lawn for all the people that could pass bye to see?
If you could reply to the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:55:29
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-hm » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 5, 2004, at 22:11:27
F4MT,
You wrote,[...rule...not allowed to smoke on my property...my call right or wrong...].
In your no smoking rule for your property, would you enforce that rule by making the smoker leave when you see him/her smoking or would you follow the policy that you wrote about where one guest humiliated another guest and your position is to let them settle it among themselves without your interceding untill it could escalate into a possible assult? If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl-lb » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 5, 2004, at 21:47:35
gg,
You wrote,[...no, I do not think that the editor would have to address ...aricle...inflamatory...].
Well, now we are getting into what the law says about that. I am not a lawyer and do not want anyone here to take the following as legal advise but only to write some of what I think what I know about defamation on the internet. The law provides a remedy if newspapers defame others. This is a good law , for if newspapers were allowed to defame others, they could inflict great economic damage to businesses with lible. In respect to economic damage to a business, a newspaper could also be held liable for allowing others to defame that business or if the newspaper fostered the libel. This happened here in Cincinnati with the newspaper reporter writing libelious material about Chicita Bananna. The newspaper was requiered by the court to write an apology for the libel and had to pay a substantial amount for the damages to the company.
Harm can result to an idividual when a statement published about the person is false. But there is also emotional harm to a person besides economic harm.
In this analogy, I have used a newspaper because a newspaper claimes to monitor and remove objecionable material (Stratton Oakmont, Inc v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995.}
In the internet, AOL is not liable for what others write because they do not make the claim that they {monitor} the boards that they sponsor.
In this forum, the moderator writes that a deputy can remove grossly offensive material and the moderator is sanctioning posts that [...have the potential to put down or accuse others or jump to a conclusion about others...or use offensive langusge...]. One test that the courts have used to determine if the internet forum is liable for allowing defamation is if the forum {...is open to residents of all states...].(Resolution Trust Corp. v. First of America Bank 1992, however this ruling may be overruled if it is ever taken tto the U S supreme cout on constitutional issues.
Another aspect of an internet forum is if it is open to the public. If so, would the 1st and 14th amemdment to the US Constituion apply? My research shows that it very well could if the forum was a part of , lets say, a school that receives federal funds. But what if the forum was not? Could the forum still cause harm by libel be it economic or emotional harm? IMO,I say not.
Lou
Posted by nikkit2 on December 6, 2004, at 7:09:41
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
Lou,
Can I just point out that the internet is Global, and not just based in the US. Therefore, the laws governing it are not the same as for paper based material.
I think the easiest thing for Dr Bob would be to host the site on a server in the Phillipines (as an example), as he would not then be liable to US law in any way.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 7:22:58
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by nikkit2 on December 6, 2004, at 7:09:41
Nikkit2,
You wrote,[...the internet is global...laws not the same for paper -based...Dr. Bob could have the server in the Phillipines...not liable to U.S. law...].
You have a good background it seems on this subject. In my reserch, I have come across what you wrote reletive to the global issue of the internet and the issue of jurisdiction. What else have you found that {could be relevant to the administrative aspect of this forum}?
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2004, at 10:02:17
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
Lou,
I'm clearly not a lawyer either, and unfortunately, your post has gone beyond my capacity for discussion about this. I guess, naive as it might be, I tend to look at what feels like common sense first. I am less concerned about the legal aspect of it.I am hoping that your bringing the legal end into this discussion was to make a point, and not because you are thinking of legal recourse to your concerns here?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 10:47:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2004, at 10:02:17
gg,
You wrote,[...I tend to look at what feels like common sense first...I am less concerned about... ...legal aspects..].
But can common sense be wrong? In the United States at one time it was thought it was common sense that slavery was legal. In that famous U. S. Supreme Court case, it was ruled that slaves were property and not free, even if they left a slave state and went to a free state for theowner of the slave could persue the slave and bring the slave back on the grounds that the skave is the property of the slave-owner. This court decision preceeded the U.S. Civil War.
Is there not different common senses? Whose common sense could be the one that is right?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 11:06:38
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on December 6, 2004, at 10:02:17
gg,
You wrote,[...I was hoping that your bringing in the legal end was to make a point, not because you are thinking of legal recorse of your concerns here...].
That is correct. It is not my intention to bring legal recorse for my concerns here. I believe that things are to be settled at the lowest possible level.
That is why I believe in the administrtive board's function so in settleing at the lowest possible level we can be in dialog on these issues.
But I do not think that it could harm anyone to take a look at legal decisions as a guidline for policy here. The laws for defamation are changing rapidly for the internet and I believe that what I have to contribute could be of some value to look at these issues for the laws now could be different from the laws that were in effect yesterday. As of now there is a case of great impotance that I think is relavant to this forum. The case is one where a person requested an internet forum to remove a post that the plaintiff consideered to be defaming to him. The defendant refused. The case is: Godfrey v. Demon. I believe that there is the potential for this case to be relavant to this forum.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on December 6, 2004, at 13:09:16
In reply to Lou's reply to Nikkit2-glb » nikkit2, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 7:22:58
I don't have an incredibly indepth understanding, but my understanding from having worked on internet security issues in the past (national security rather than computer security) is that is *partly* where a site is based as to the laws that govern it.
But, its not entirely the laws of the land that cover it but where the perpetrator is based - so, again in my understanding, you can't use laws under the US Constitution as an example. You see, *I* am not covered by the US Constitution as I am not resident in the US. So, as another example, I could "defame" you all I like, as I am not legally bound by the same laws as you.
So, while things like child pornograpjy *are* illegal to post on the internet in the vast maority of countries, minor offences such as defamation, isn't.
I hope I am making this clearer
Nikki
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 6, 2004, at 1:35:02
Hey Dr Bob a report button would be a great idea IMO it would save time and send the info to you right off..you could then go in and take whatever action you wanted. This is IMO the best idea I have seen and fair as no select clique would be chosen I have seen far too many sites become *just for the few* because of how close the monitors were
I use to be on The Depression Forum we never knew how certain people were selected they were NOT selected by us..the owner of the site was not really involved much as far as we knew plus it was never really clear WHO owned it. I can only guess he/she picked a long trusted poster to pick the others and well it spun into more of a dictatorship.
For those of us on your site they can say we cheated on our spouse for example or that we are in love with our T but on the site I use to be on the RELATIONSHIP monitor would delete YOU or your posts or even the thread due to HER issues. For a while it was OK to post on those subjects and others then we got this new relationship monitor *a fellow poster with unresolved issues* I rather liked her as a person but she was herself in a terrible relationship and could *not be objective* as her husband was cheating on her and other issues I would feel bad posting on here so she would PM people and get rid of them.
On my board that I co-owned with a friend. We both owned and had few rules we said swear all you want but do not talk politics....we and only we ran the show and if anyone had an issue they could send us a PM knowing we may not get to it that day..we only removed one girl because she fell in love with him and was stalking him and threatening suicide another no no on our site we had a we will not deal with it policy call 911 etc disclaimer..I took her off per his request and sent her a letter as to the reason why...I still have a site it's on groups at AOL a private site of friends no rules small group and I delete anything out of line which is so rare and again my only rule is no politics. Anyone can set up a site like on AOL with chat and posting boards or PHP ...BETA is free and make it how they want. This is why I do not see why some view this as the only board they can be on and want to change it so much as to fight over it with you. They can take their friends to a site they all made...Again my thoughts only. Thank you for explaining about Lou I was thinking maybe it was a co-owned site. I know we can make suggestions and requests I appreciate that. Again thanks for the site.I say go for the report buttons :-) it will be less work for you and we could ALL be involved in the process not just a few but if you want a few...you know what I say :-) ...IT is YOUR site
> > it SOUNDS like you maybe co-own the site with Dr. Bob?
>
> No, he's just making suggestions, which everyone is welcome to do.
>
> > Also I will say I use to be on a site called Depression Forum they long since moved BUT we had moderators and admistators and Forum Leaders, that met behind the scenes a clique as it was...and they could take posts off and whole threads also they P.M. ed you (like IM) and nobody else could see what went on. If they didn't like what was said about caring about your T for example they would say IN PRIVATE they were taking it down they did that kind of thing often. If you spoke of SA and it bothered one of them they ran to a friend and bam you were out..It boiled down to censorship not civility...It was a mess and the site lost a lot of people. IF Dr Bob wants others involved why not let *everyone* vote on if it stays or if it goes not a select group?
>
> The idea of being more democratic has come up before, for example, at:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89921.html
>
> And recently, I myself asked about a more democratic structure:
>
> > > Fight-flight occurs most frequently in workplaces where ... the structure of the workplace is a mixture of autocratic management direction and work group autonomy. It is common in organizations caught in transition between a bureaucratic and democratic structure.
> >
> > http://www.peopleincharge.org/groupdynamics.htm
> >
> > ... Would a more democratic structure help?
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/406827.html
>
> But there wasn't much response...
>
> 1. At that other forum, how were the moderators, etc., selected?
>
> 2. I've been wondering about making this structure more democratic by delegating part of what I do. At other boards, each post comes with a button, "report this post". What if I didn't keep trying to look at every post and let you select which ones I reviewed?
>
> It would of course be less work for me, too... And I would still decide what (if anything) to do about those posts...
>
> Bob
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:25:36
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT- » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:39:33
Lou you still haven't addressed much of what I have said or asked and I imagine we could go around and around but it boils down to...it would be my house my property and thus MY call not my guests. So I WOULD decide what I would do or not do with that sign :)
> F4MT,
> You wrote,[...I... would allow my guests...deal with the issues themselves...].
> In my post to you , I had asked if you would allow a guest to humiliate another guest. Are you saying , then, that you would not intercede and allow a possible confrontation to go on that could lead to assult and then you would try to evict the"slap happy" guest?
> Let us go further into this situation in your home. If the guest then made a sign that ridiculed another guest, perhaps having the poster libled with defaming epithets, and staked it in the front lawn where 100s of cars went bye per hour, would you allow the sign to remain in the front lawn for all the people that could pass bye to see?
> If you could reply to the above, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:27:55
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen4MyT-puf/def » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 5:55:29
Lou I said NO SMOKING on my property at all...none... so whomever smoked would GO ...however I have decent guests who respect me thus nobody smokes when they come HERE.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 13:41:59
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
The implimentation of a report button to alert the moderator of a questionable post , is a good idea. It would be easy and effitiant.
Regardless of how a post is alerted to the moderator, I am suggesting that the moderator , then, put one of two symbols after any post is alerted. One symbol would indicate that the post has been alerted to the moderator, but no action will be taken by the moderator. The other could be a symbol that indicates that the post is not acceptable in regards to the guidlines of the forum.
I suggest a small icon of an unusual looking question mark enclosed by brackets such as (?) after the post. That would mean that the moderator did see the request and has approved the post under question by another poster.
The other symbol could be for a post that is not acceptable under the guidlines of the forum. I suggest the following symbol to be used. It is a K with a "not" enclosed by brackets. It could look like this: {~K}.
I think that if the {~K} is described in the FAQ as being a post that could have been determined as unacceptable but the poster left the forum or it is unnecessary to comment on it, that could clear up the matter of posts left without comment that could be considered by some as unacceptable.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 14:30:17
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Nikkit2-glb » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on December 6, 2004, at 13:09:16
The question of jurisdiction is examined in the following court decision. The decision indicates, at least in the example for Austrailia,, that the jurisdiction is {...where it is read...} vs, [...where it was written...]
Lou
http://www.abc.net.au/am/stories/s745006.htm
Also the case known as Godfrey v. Demon may also have some bearing on jurisdiction.
Posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
In reply to Lou's reply to gardengirl- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on December 6, 2004, at 6:45:27
Lou,
As a former professional journalist with a journalism degree and experience teaching First Amendment law, let me clear up a few things here. First, the First Amendment is there to prevent the GOVERNMENT from censoring privately published material that it finds offensive or embarrassing. The key case here is the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan one, which essentially cemented the idea that a citizen of the United States CANNOT be sued for criticizing the government or government officials on the municipal, county, state, or federal level. And the government CANNOT censor the free speech of citizens. But it has nothing to do with libel cases involving one private citizen criticizing another. There are separate libel laws for those kinds of situations. But here's a quick example of the difference. A public university, which is considered an extension of the state government where it is located, cannot censor the student newspaper. It is a clear First Amendment violation. However, a private university can censor the student newspaper to its heart's content. The First Amendment is primarily designed to facilitate the robust exchange of political and social ideas (including and especially those that the administration may not cotton to) without GOVERNMENTAL interference or repression. That's the theory as outlined by Jefferson, anyway. Certain presidential administrations have shown little understanding or respect for this idea, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
As far a libel law goes, it's extremely complex (takes weeks to teach it), but in regard to media such as newspapers, if an opinion column is factually accurate and located in a section of the newspaper that a "reasonable person" understands to be a forum for the exchange of opinions (i.e., editiorial page, letters column, op-ed page), and not in a section that a reasonable person understands to be a forum for straight factual news (i.e. the front page), then insulting words are free to fly. Happens every day. And satire (i.e. editorial cartoons) has also been considered protected speech since Falwell v. Hustler. In fact, the first editorial cartoon ever published in the U.S. was written and drawn by none other than Ben Franklin.
The U.S. Supreme Court has historically set the bar extremely high for people suing for libel; it considers the protection of unfettered information to be that important. And consider: the Founding Fathers all thought free speech was so critical to the survival of their fledgling experiment in democracy that they made it the FIRST Amendment, not the second or third or fifth. Hope that little bit of info clarifies a few things. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 0:39:36
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
OK, to relate all that blah blah blah in my previous post to the PB site as a whole, to formally accuse someone of libel, first someone (most likely a judge) would have to determine whether this site is one that a "reasonable person" would view as a forum whose purpose is primarily the sharing of opinions. Not such an easy task, as far as I can see. Then second, the nature of the post would have to be examined. Even if this site were to be deemed primarily an aggregation of opinions, and most posters understood it to be so, poster "X" still could not come out and say poster "Y" was a pedophile or something equally unlawful and vile. Poster Y could sue poster X's posterior off and, as a private citizen, would likely win. Dr. Bob would be a big loser in this scenario, too, as someone who repeats or publishes a libelous statement is considered, under the law, as guilty of libel as the person who originally said it. It's called the "Republication rule." However, if X said that Y was a "an abrasive knucklehead," such a statement would almost certainly be judged opinion, and if this is considered an opinion forum, Y would lose if he sued and end up paying X's court costs to boot. My observations lead me to believe that most infractions that draw PBCs or blocks fall into the latter category. They're putdowns, not factual statements accusing someone of malfeasance. (The "dirty words" thing is another matter altogether; just something Bob insists on and that I disagree with, and we "agreed to disagree" on that matter ages ago.) Bottom line: I don't remember ever reading anything that would hold up in a court of law as libel on PB. Make sense? No? Tough. Atticus
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on December 6, 2004, at 13:20:50
> I do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
I was wondering about that. Is there benefit to keeping it secret? Deputies do what they do in the open... Also, people might be less likely to overdo it...
> You do realize that the occasional curse word would rarely if ever be reported, don't you? :) Which I rather like, but you might not.
>
> DinahIt isn't that they're an issue for me personally, you know... But I've also been thinking about automated asterisking. Maybe it could be an option? So people could turn it off -- but then not be warned before being blocked...
--
> I use to be on The Depression Forum we never knew how certain people were selected they were NOT selected by us..
Just for the sake of discussion, what if deputy administrators were elected?
> I do not see why some view this as the only board they can be on and want to change it so much as to fight over it with you.
>
> Fallen4MyTMaybe they want everyone to benefit from their suggestions? Of course, it could also be issues with authority...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 4:07:14
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
>I've also been thinking about automated asterisking. Maybe it could be an option? So people could turn it off -- but then not be warned before being blocked...
To quote a certain somebody 'technology isn't always the answer'.
Posted by partlycloudy on December 7, 2004, at 6:23:54
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
> Just for the sake of discussion, what if deputy administrators were elected?
>
> BobI don't want to go through another election year until 2008.
Actually, I think an election would be scary and potentially very harmful to those who believe they'd make fine deputies to find that no one voted for them. Let the Great and Wonderful man Behind the Curtain appoint the deputies, just as the Lion got his courage, the Tin Man his heart, and the Scarecrow his brain.
Posted by Dinah on December 7, 2004, at 6:32:18
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
Well, the result of reporting privately rather than publicly would be to create less on board conflict. If you decided to pass on something, it would be no harm no foul. If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so? Reporting it publicly is just likely to escalate a situation until you get to the board.
And I think you're incorrect about deputies. If something fell under the deputy rules I acted openly. But lots of stuff didn't fall under the rather restrictive deputy rules, and I generally emailed you privately about them so as not to escalate on board conflict. And lots of times, people were patient and tolerant and didn't say anything till you came 'round so it worked out for the best. It's not a similar situation, anyway. Unless you give posters blocking powers, you shouldn't expect them to take the heat for publicly complaining unless you also give them the power. You know?
I think if someone overrides automatic asterisking, they shouldn't complain about a block. :) I think that's a fine idea.
Posted by nikkit2 on December 7, 2004, at 6:56:19
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 3:54:48
"> I do like that idea. Especially if the reporting were an email sort of thing. I don't see much benefit to posters publicly holding other posters up to scrutiny.
I was wondering about that. Is there benefit to keeping it secret? Deputies do what they do in the open... Also, people might be less likely to overdo it... "
Can you understand how painful it can be to be held open to public scrutiny when you're posting whilst in pain?
I think a "report" button would be a great idea, where it emails you, but doesn't need to be a post in public.
I'm quite sure I'm not the only one that feels very hurt when my posts are "questioned".. An "off board" way would be alot better, IMNSHO
Nikki
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 7, 2004, at 6:32:18
> I think an election would be scary and potentially very harmful to those who believe they'd make fine deputies to find that no one voted for them.
>
> partlycloudyI understand, and remember, this is just for the sake of discussion, but OTOH:
1. If someone wouldn't get any votes, it might not be such a good idea for me to appoint them, either. And IMO the vote totals wouldn't have to be public.
2. Deputies do need to be able to accept that people may "vote against" them after they're appointed.
3. Their actions might be more likely to be accepted if they're elected.
--
> Well, the result of reporting privately rather than publicly would be to create less on board conflict... If someone "overdoes it", can't you just tell them so?
>
> lots of stuff didn't fall under the rather restrictive deputy rules, and I generally emailed you privately
>
> DinahHmm, that's true. And other people email me privately, too. And I could apply some sort of 3-complaint rule. And an email system would be easier to set up...
I guess when I did Eating and Politics I forgot that a Complaints board had also been suggested... :-) I suppose this doesn't obviate that...
Bob
Posted by TofuEmmy on December 7, 2004, at 8:48:03
In reply to Re: a more democratic structure?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:31:43
Private reporting sounds good to me. Lots of other boards do it that way and it seems to work out just fine.
Although, there should be some mandatory box that asks WHY you are reporting the post. Otherwise, some gooberhead will report every single post every single morning before the school bus picks him up. Ya know?
emmy
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:26:16
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to gardengirl- » Lou Pilder, posted by Atticus on December 6, 2004, at 23:37:55
Atticus,
You cited {Falwell v. Hustler}. In that case, there was the additional aspect of the {public figure} of libel. I do not think that that could apply to an internet forum, for the members are not public figures , except perhaps the moderator.
In the Falwell v Hustler case, the U. S. Supreme court decision may be of interest for those here to examine in relation to what some of the justices wrote about the aspect of {intentional infliction of emotional distress}in reagrds to the claimed libel and also what the appellate court wrote in respect to that.
Mr. Flynt and his brother have been tried here in Cincinnati mamy times and the 6th circiut of appeals is here in Cincinnati and Mr. Flynt has stores near here in Monroe, Ohio, ouside the Cincinnati city limits to sell his publications. This brings up the concept of { community standards} and could have a bearing in some respects to internet forums in different jurisdictions.
Lou
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.