Judge bars R.I. mother from talking about custody case
A Family Court judge has forbidden a woman from talking about her custody case with anyone, including the media, or posting anything about the matter on any blogs or other sites on the Internet.
Note: I wonder if the judge Debra DeSegna will get pissed off because I blogged about the case.
Oh well, it's better to get pissed off then pissed on, right?
Legally Kidnapped
Pages
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Guess what
Privacy Policy
Infolinks In Text Ads
Analyetics
1 comments:
Click here to view Caseworker Ratings or to RateMyCaseworker
http://www.ratemycaseworker.com/Legal-about-Site.php
IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING A LAW SUIT, YOU REALLY SHOULD READ THIS PAGE!
Our users are anonymous. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that anonymity of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution (see McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. at 337; Talley v. State of California, 362 U.S. 60). United States courts also recognize the right to speak anonymously – AND have held that the right extends to speech on the Internet. When courts have ordered disclosure of the name of an anonymous user, a litigant must show that its need for identifying information outweighs the user's constitutional right. RateMyCaseworker recognizes this right to anonymity.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Anyone questioning the legality of anonymous postings on an internet site should familiarize himself or herself with 47 USC Section 230, the federal law that permits many entities to "host" other people's content without being liable for defamation/libel etc. "By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service." Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997). Under 230(c)(2)(A), ``
Does this change when RateMyCaseworker deletes inappropriate comments?
The answer is NO according to the following:
(2) Civil liability.--No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of-- ``(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
The following is a list of websites containing legal information, as well as quotes and legal precedents. Please feel free to click on the links.
The Anti SLAPP Resource Center
Electronic Frontier Foundation: Anti-SLAPP Cases
News.com: Relevant e-Bay case
Any disputes or claims must be filed in the United States, State of Texas, County of Galveston.
Post a Comment