Somebody PLEASE tell me which comments constitute libel. Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, that’s where you’d do your own prophylactic research, Cliff. I’d consider hiring counsel – I doubt that you could get pro-bono representation on this.

Again, it will be expensive. The last time I used an attorney, he charged just under $600/hr. And that was just him. He also had a couple of associates billing around $300/hr and some litigation technology and paralegal people billing around $200/hr, each. Costs add up in a hurry. God forbid you need forensic data recovery during discovery.

Really – I enjoy 1U.

I realize that it chaps your hide, but you might want to consider an apology.

What’s the saying, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client?

I didn’t give legal advice. Let’s make that clear.

Finally, though you, yourself might be prepared to go to court, is everyone else? 1U has a “board” doesn’t it? Are they prepared for your ‘representation’?

Never underestimate the value of a sincere apology. Much of litigation is a pissing contest. Sometimes, the party who realizes it first, wins.

I do believe you are right Shane. JD has libeloused me. I’ll be filing in the am.

JD, You people really don’t get it. You think OneUtah has a board? Such an idea can only come from an authoritarian, a follower of orders.

I never even met any of my authors before they became authors except for Larry who I found walking down the street, Paul Mero, and the Firmages.

I met Warnick several years ago after he had begun posting, and Glen Brown much later.

I’ve never met Becky or Shane though I would like to and will someday.

We virtually NEVER speak and e-mail only when ’shit happens’

We did discuss Okelberries today by e-mail only because I am concerned about his stability and Becky’s safety.

OneUtah is an online community in the purest sense.

Becky,

“yes I feel personally threatened by Richard Okelberry and feel it is a real possibility he may carry out his threats and come to find me personally.”

If I where you I would think very seriously about speaking to an attorney about that last statement. And please advise your council that I will want all emails between you and Cliff Lyon preserved.

jdberger,

It is interesting that people have gotten themselves all worked up all of a sudden. Something tells me that everyone is going to discover why an un-moderated say whatever you want about anyone “public square” site only truly works in fantasyland. There is a reason that not s single corporate site doesn’t have an anti-defamation/moderation policy. Of course, any possible legal action is only secondary to exposing the intolerance on this site and compelling community leaders to take a stand against it. Honestly, I can’t imagine even Rocky Anderson, Cliff’s political benefactor being willing to condone much of what is said around here.

Regardless the C & D will be out the door shortly which I am sure will give everyone much to talk about.

RO, Its so interesting you said this:

Something tells me that everyone is going to discover why an un-moderated say whatever you want about anyone “public square” site only truly works in fantasyland.

Why is OneUtah fantasy land?

What about DailyKos?

Lets see how far the stupidity can be taken.

RO can sue Becky for publicly saying that she feels threatened by RO and fears for her safety. Becky can then counterclaim against RO for publicly saying that she libeled RO. Then they can both sue each other once again for malicious prosecution after their respective claims die the miserable death they deserve. Cliffy and RO and RW and RO can do the same thing.

Weeeee! Isn’t this fun?

Richard, I just ran a test and put soci-ial8ism in her without additional characters and here is the result:

Ken Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:15 am

soc#ialism, soc#ialist – just testing.

U1 is dead! (or on the auctionblock / facing the judge) – Long live U1! (blatent cheerleading)

Rancid Odors Surround Free-thinkers, causing a fearful funk.

Debate over the true meaning / spelling of Socializmizm ensues.

First Dog sets off alarm at 3am. Level Red Pandamonium only barely thwarted.

UnkaRico’s correct, This is fun.

cav Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

As the bartender is wont to say, “Is this some kind of a joke?”

And Hello Ken. : )

John Poindexter is in the house!

Cyber-bomb-throwers, thank you very much.

Beyond that it’s totally f*cking insane?

Hmmm….

In regard to blogs, they are private property. A blog owner can restrict speech all they want without running afoul of the First Amendment. However, the government is restricted by that old “Congress shall make no law” stuff.

From UCLA ConLaw professor Eugene Volokh who is way more experienced than I:

1. I try to coerce a politician into voting a particular way, by repeatedly blogging (using a hostile tone) about what a hypocrite / campaign promise breaker / fool / etc. he would be if he voted the other way. I am transmitting in interstate commerce a communication with the intent to coerce using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior” — unless, of course, my statements aren’t seen as “severe,” a term that is entirely undefined and unclear. Result: I am a felon, unless somehow my “behavior” isn’t “severe.”

2. A newspaper reporter or editorialist tries to do the same, in columns that are posted on the newspaper’s Web site. Result: Felony, unless somehow my “behavior” isn’t severe.

3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that’s an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he’ll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” (I might also be said to be intending to “harass” — who knows, given how vague the term is? — but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what “severe” means.

4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don’t give me a refund, and I use “hostile” language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is “severe.”

5. Several people use blogs or Web-based newspaper articles to organize a boycott of a company, hoping to get it to change some policy they disapprove of. They are transmitting communications with the intent to coerce, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: Those people are a felon. (Isn’t threatening a company with possible massive losses “severe”? But again, who knows?)

6. John cheats on Mary. Mary wants John to feel like the scumbag that he is, so she sends him two hostile messages telling him how much he’s hurt her, how much she now hates him, and how bad he should feel. She doesn’t threaten him with violence (there are separate laws barring that, and this law would apply even in the absence of a threat). She is transmitting communications with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means “to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.” Result: Mary is a felon, again if her behavior is “severe.”

The examples could be multiplied pretty much indefinitely. The law, if enacted, would clearly be facially overbroad (and probably unconstitutionally vague), and would thus be struck down on its face under the First Amendment. But beyond that, surely even the law’s supporters don’t really want to cover all this speech.

What are Rep. Linda Sanchez and the others thinking here? Are they just taking the view that “criminalize it all, let the prosecutors sort it out”? Even if that’s so, won’t their work amount to nothing, if the law is struck down as facially overbroad — as I’m pretty certain it would be? Or are they just trying to score political points here with their constituents, with little regard to whether the law will actually do any good? I try to focus my posts mostly on what people do, not on their motives, but here the drafting is so shoddy that I just wonder why this happened.

Probable.

It’s billed as the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act (Introduced in House)”

A perfect example of symbolism over substance.