I'm sending my donation to the ACLU immediately. Much
as I abhor cyber wars and the online mudslinging which
occasionally occurs in newsgroups, never would I vote
to deny _anyone_ their freedom of speech.
Sure hope this judge was planning to leave the bench
soon anyway!
I heard about this in rec.aviation.homebuilt and I am astonished to say
the least. Where has common sense gone in our legal system? Flame wars
sprout in every Usenet group and noone I know takes it seriously.
(except
the occasional certifiable Netloon)
This is very worrisome. Thank you for publishing the article.
I'm sending my donation to the ACLU immediately. Much
as I abhor cyber wars and the online mudslinging which
occasionally occurs in newsgroups, never would I vote
to deny _anyone_ their freedom of speech.
Sure hope this judge was planning to leave the bench
soon anyway!
this is most bizarre thing I've ever heard. Unfortunately the judge most
likely is not Internet literate and knows the word blackhole list. Those
people who don't like his posts can block them out. *gawd*
Idiot... all of 'em.
Very frightening. I will be adding a link from my web page as I want
people to know about this apparent violation of the Bill of Rights.
Interestingly - I and 14 others were sued by Magazine Publisher Jim "Zoom"
Campbell for writing about him on UseNet (rec.aviation.homebuilt) and for
my web page where I published the truth about him. After almost a year the
suit was dropped. It did help to have a friend that is a semi-retired
attorney who needed a hobby.
If what you say is correct, I am dumbfounded by the ruling of the judge
in the case you describe and can't imagine how it can possibly hold
up. Also, the involvement of the Det. Shirley in all of this is bizzare
to say the least.
Egad! The ACLU is going to have a field day with this ruling!!
How _dare_ this judge decide to void someone's right to freedom
of speech!!!
As my lawyer pointed out, and the judge agreed, "prior restraint" of speech
in a public place is unconstitutional. The remedy for damaging speech is
to sue in Circuit Court for libel (or whatevers).
AFTER the fact.
I'm shocked and dismayed at this extremely dangerous precedent. Hopefully
the gag order will be declared unconstitutional.
Unfortunatly, in my own country (Australia) the "government" has already
passed legislation to censor the Internet (see http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/99.html
for
details) and we have no constitutional right of free speech to protect us.
Should this case have occurred in Australia the gag order would most likely
be upheld.
To show the futility of trying to censor cyberspace,
we offer to make posts for you, with you supplying
the text (and Usenet posting context).
Somebody should take the posts of the individual in question who is no
longer able to post to the newsgroup and post anything he needs posted
in lieu of direct posting. Preferrably, somebody outside of the usa.
Editor: I certainly appreciate the sentiments of the last two comments! They are consistent with Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." But that still would leave unresolved the underlying issue. Hopefully organizations like the Computer Professional for Social Responsibility (CPSR), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will act to overturn such orders and give wide public exposure to the broader issue of judges issuing such gag orders.
I can't believe this is happening.
What if Judge X decides that he doesn't like Black people, so he bans all
Black people from using Usenet. Using the same logic as this case, that
could happen.
Regarding the Seattle judge who issued a usenet group gag order -- I see
no way of enforcing this, and on the face of it, the ruling seems absurd.
On the other hand, I have been the victim of two internet stalkers for
over a year. One of them posted private information from another service,
threatened to kill our pets, accused (and that's the right word) me and a
late friend of being homosexual lovers, trashed the reputation of that same
friend, publicly hoped I would die of the pancreatic cancer that killed my
mother, accused me of being a drug addict, and so on.
The other one made similar charges, then posted my home and alternate
e-mail addresses all over the net, inviting people to write to me for many
spurious reasons.
I've been an advocate of the most extreme freedom of speech my entire
life, and while I still am, I am beginning to think that ANONYMOUS speech
might be an exception.
As was posted on your Comments & Feedback Forum:
> Somebody should take the posts of the individual in question who is no longer
> able to post to the newsgroup and post anything he needs posted in lieu of
> direct posting. Preferrably, somebody outside of the usa.
I'm from Canada. I'll do it.
And I know the law here. The restraining order in the USA cannot touch posting from Canada.
I'm not a fan of censorship but don't you think that death threats and
threats of violence in public have to be dealt with? Why should we be
able to say on Usenet what we can't say in public? Note that if the
comments had just been on the order of "your ski's are rotten" then I'd
agree that the court order was bad. But if my neighbor threatens to kill
me because of what I said about skis a court order is in order. I don't
understand why some people think that the Internet should be beyond all
limitations of law and civility. Society needs rules. Imagine if the
police could do nothing when someone threatened to kill you and they had
to wait for you to show up at the morgue. Not a fun world. There is
never any justification for threatening that sort of violence and there's
no reason that Usenet postings should be any more free than what you can
say in a public library or park.
Let's all try to keep in mind that the bulk of the court is not controlled by
Luddite foot draggers, but by people who are trying to keep up with what they
see as runaway technology. We need to do a better job of patroling Usenet news
groups our own durn selves, eh?
That aside, the ruling itself is problematic. The lawyers are going to go
berserk over this one. Could you possibly post the content of the order itself?
That might clear some things up.
We plan to, as soon as it's available.
Marty S.
(sent over from alt.mountain-bike)
I am tired of knee jerk reactions like the one you exhibit - "Anyone
should have the _Right_ to behave like a totally irresponsible jerk
and bother untold numbers of people, and deprive them of value just
because this is _Usenet_"
"Who wins and who loses" you ask in your piece. I can tell who wins
by this : The people that actually want to use the newsgroup for what
it is intended for.
About time people became accountable for their actions.
You claim first amendment right for this guy. Don't forget what the
courts have ruled countless times "Your rights end where my nose
begins", ie. You do not have the right to punch me in the face just
because you feel like it.
Same thing here, the guy does not have the _right_ to behave in a way
that harms others. Flames and group bombardments harm others in that
it deprives others of the utility and value of the newsgroup.
You will probably say "just filter it". Why should I allow people
that are obnoxious on purpose to steal time from me ?
I have no expectation you will list this among the replies as it
obviously goes against your political agenda. That just show your
hypocrisy.
The judge in King County is obviously a complete moron when it comes to
the ability to apply the principles of the US constitution. Listen,
honey can you spell "F I R S T A M M E N D M E N T"? I also would raise
the question of whether King County even has standing to hear any case
involving the internet since there are a slew of constituional cases,
starting with the Heart of Dixie Motel, that clearly mandate that states
are not to be interfering in any matters of interstate or beyond
commerce. One of the functions of the internet is to be a free market of
ideas for all US and international humans who have access to this
technology. Besides the obvious first ammendment problem with this
ruling there is a problem with King County interfering with interstate
commerce.
While I am not a true fan of TB and some of his posts are compost
I think the judge is a latent lesbian that hates any man.
This of course is my humble opinion and should not be taken for truth
until she comes out of the closet(Anthea told me so!!).
Children with adult bodies have to be treated as (a) a very dangerous
individual and (b) as child. Once again, adults get hurt because of the
actions of children.
