In the case of the Stephen J. Barrett v. Ilena Rosenthal, the California Supreme has recently provided immunity to any user and internet provider that publishes any information provided by another information content provider, even if the content contains defamatory untruthful statements. The court advised that is what congress enacted and the court cannot change the law. It is up to congress to change it, in the meantime a person is still entitled to sue the original publisher of defamatory statements. In this case plaintiffs, Dr. Stephen J. Barrett and Dr. Timothy Polevoy, operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds. Defendant Ilena Rosenthal directed the Humantics Foundation for Women and operated an Internet discussion group. Plaintiffs alleged that Rosenthal and others committed libel by maliciously distributing defamatory statements in e-mails and Internet postings, impugning plaintiffs' character and competence and disparaging their efforts to combat fraud. They alleged that Rosenthal republished various messages even after Dr. Barrett warned her they contained false and defamatory information.

The Court stated that: In the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress declared: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." (47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1).) "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section." (§ 230(e)(3).) These provisions have been widely and consistently interpreted to confer broad immunity against defamation liability for those who use the Internet to publish information that originated from another source.

We conclude that section 230 prohibits "distributor" liability for Internet publications. We further hold that section 230(c)(1) immunizes individual "users" of interactive computer services, and that no practical or principled distinction can be drawn between active and passive use.

California Supreme Court Case S122953

By: Arnold Hernandez
www.arnoldhernandez.com

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

Note: This articles is not intended to be legal advice and is merely editorial in substance. Should you have questions concerning this subject you should consult an attorney

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

Comment from Ilena Rosenthal on January 31, 2007
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/barrettvsrosenthal.htm

Thank you very much for covering this case with balance.

Even though I was the prevailing defendant in this action, I continue to battle public relations spinning the facts of this case on the internet, including Wikipedia and Usenet.

I have read several internet comments that claimed the contrary, so I will repost the final words of the 39 page opinion. Judge Moreno reiterated: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 122953.PDF

Professors by and large have reached high academic positions living in a world of books. Most, almost certainly, have little or no experience with directly creating wealth.

The typical business start-up requires a capital investment, rent or purchase of a facility, and the hiring of at least several employees, just to get underway.

A successful businessman must have the leadership skills to command respect from his employees. To gain that respect, he must have the business savvy of his particular business and know how to use leadership skills that will result in productivity from his employees.

In businesses where grunt work is dominant, he often must set the example doing most of the grunt work, to keep some employees from believing the boss "can not do without them". Even after all this, the typical businessman has a very small margin for error.

In the case of professors, their goals are in the academic world. They support the forces that will give them their highest standard of living, once they become professors. Many professors enjoy six figure salaries.

It is hard to imagine most professors having the leadership skills to start a business from scratch and show the leadership skills necessary for success, to say nothing of first putting up the capital. They likely resent this, causing them to turn against business and generally against the great success of our capitalist system.

Of course, it's that very system that provides their comfortable lifestyle.

Democrats, are the party of higher government spending. The more the government takes from taxpayers, the bigger the pie for professors to go after. Professors are registered Democrats by a very wide margin, they support most of the liberal Democratic agenda.

A major part of that agenda, is to vilify business, especially using the term big business and to attack companies like Exxon Mobil. The dialogue gets twisted further, suggesting that such businesses somehow are recipients from taxpayers. In reality these companies are large contributors to taxpayers.

A blog recently reported that Mobil, in the third quarter of 2006 paid, income taxes of $7.68 billion, excise taxes of $7.76 billion, all other taxes of $10.79 billion, a total of over $26 billion, for just one quarter

If this is accurate, would this diminish the endless class warfare of the Left?

Liberal dialogue constantly suggests, and many people might believe, that subsidies and credits actually give payments to these businesses. They do not. What they actually do, is reduce the final payment. Mobil still forks over many billions in profitable years.

How else would the federal government alone, have wound up with over $300 billion dollars in tax payments from these companies, over each of the last two years?

Finally, this is not about whether or not professors make a serious contribution to the nation, nor is there any suggestion that their salaries should be higher or lower. The U.S. is considered to have the finest university system in the world. There certainly are many fine professors, no matter what their politics.

It is about the fact that the role of wealth creation and the positive contribution of business in America is not only downplayed on most campuses, it is vilified, indeed even badly distorted.

By: Mick McNesby
Mick McNesby is a former tax advisor, consultant and negotiator. He was a frequent guest on political talk shows in Atlantic City, N.J., discussing the benefits of the lower cost of government. He can be visited at http://conservative-politics-infofind.com.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

When President Bush unveiled his new strategy for dealing with the ongoing violence in Iraq, he made it a point to reinforce a fact that he and the rest of the world have known for some time now: that Iran and Syria are directly responsible for fomenting violence in Iraq to further their regional interests and, in the case of Iran, to consolidate the position of the Iran-friendly Shi'a. In reality, Syria is just a side-show. It is Iran that the message was really directed at.

The President went further in his message to the world than just re-stating the obvious. He put the clerics in Tehran on notice, saying "We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran...," letting the Islamic Republic know that the United States intended to put a stop to, or at least degrade the Persian influence in its neighbor's internal affairs.

Almost immediately after the President spoke to the nation from a library inside the White House, American military forces in Iraq raided an Iranian consular office in the city of Irbil, detaining several Iranian citizens. Of course, this isn't the first time we've sent Tehran a message about its activities in Iraq. But in the past, we haven't been taken seriously. This time, though, may be different.

Think about it. I'm sure the Iranians, along with everyone else, expected the United States to start drawing down its forces in the region. Instead, the President did the opposite of what everyone was telling him. Instead, he decided to increase the U.S. presence in Iraq and ease the restrictiveness of the Rules of Engagement that our forces have been operating under. Surely that's not what the Iranians expected, or wanted.

All of a sudden people in the United States and in Iran are wondering if the President is shifting some of his focus to another member of the "Axis of Evil," with American Senators warning Mr. Bush to stay out of Iran and Arab governments in the Middle East getting nervous because the United States was not doing what they expected, although secretly these Arab states are quite content for President Bush to take on the rising influence of the Shia in the region.

Surely Iran has to be giving this turn of events some serious thought. The Islamic Republic is in turmoil right now, with the cleric and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reportedly losing his fight with cancer, and the future of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in some doubt as internal criticism of his administration increases. On top of the troubles within Iran's borders, the United Nations voted to impose sanctions on Tehran, even though the agreed upon package was a considerably watered down version of what the United States wanted. Now President Bush, leader of the "Great Satan," is ramping up the pressure and nobody is really sure what's coming next.

Maybe the increase in American forces in Baghdad and al-Anbar Province, along with the President's promise of increased action against Iran, will have the effect of making Tehran think twice about its involvement in Iraq. Maybe the Iranians will take the gains they have made thus far, which are considerable, and decide that their strategic position cannot get much better than it is right now. If so, the President's troop surge may turn out to be a good move after all, both for quelling some of the violence in Iraq and for giving the Iranians pause about U.S. intentions in the region.

By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com.
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Land of the Free and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal. His columns appear in several online and print publications.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.

A man in California is facing a prison sentence of up to 101 years after a jury found him guilty of e-mail scams. The 45-year-old man, Jeffrey Goodin, made several thousands of dollars using his sophisticated computer scam. Using hacked computers and false data, he would write e-mails to many thousands of AOL users. His e-mails would suggest that their AOL accounts would be closed unless they were able to "confirm personal details."

These activities are part of the widening range of phishing scams circulating around the Internet and around the world. Using these scams, criminals are able to falsify who they are and they use sophisticated methods to fool the recipients into thinking that e-mails and other communications are from a reliable source. Their aim is to extract personal data including names, dates of birth, bank account numbers and passwords.

The illegal use of sensitive data such as this is widespread. At best, this can cause concern to the victim and a good deal of time energy and money rectifying the situation. At worst, criminals can steal all the victim's financial assets, leaving them penniless and sometimes homeless. There have been reports of illegal gains being used for terrorist activities as well.

Goodin managed to hack into a number of EarthLink accounts and then send mails to the appropriate AOL customers. He collected their personal data when customers were worried that their AOL accounts were possibly to be terminated. Unfortunately, activities such as this are widespread and, more importantly, those that carry out his crime are very hard to catch as they hide behind false names and hacked computers.

By: Eric Hartwell
For further information and resources on identity theft, internet crime and online security visit the New Identity Theft website operated by Eric Hartwell.

Featured By Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the general internet public.

For more legal resources in California see California Legal Resources.

Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.