From: Anonymous <nowhere@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 93 09:23:40 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The lighter side of computing...
Message-ID: <9310311722.AA00610@bsu-cs.bsu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Although this cross-post is off-topic, I thought perhaps many
of you would find it as humorous as I did. If not,
sorry for the bandwidth.


From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,talk.politics.crypto,misc.legal,alt.security.pgp
Subject: Re: "Honest argumentation"
Date: 30 Oct 1993 09:14:45 -0400
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <2atpc5$cds@eff.org>
References: <strnlghtCFKFLy.DtC@netcom.com> <CFo1Gs.AyH@cs.uiuc.edu> <strnlghtCFo7uo.BGx@netcom.com> <2atp3u$cca@eff.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eff.org

In article <strnlghtCFo7uo.BGx@netcom.com>,
David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> wrote:

>Courts have discussed this point in the past. There was a famous case in
>which a distinction was made between "the sound seemed to wander" and "the
>sound wandered." (Bose vs. Consumers Union). One cannot assume that Mike's
>usage (particularly since he is an attorney) meant "seemed" unless he said
>so. He did not. He said "is".

Interesting that you should apply a product libel case to your own
situation. Are you a product, David? Which manufacturer produced you?

A better precedent, of course, is Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. David
Sternlight, after having thrust himself into the vortex of public opinion,
will find it hard to avail himself of the protections against reputational
damage that a private citizen has.

My statement falls so clearly within the area of non-actionable speech
that your case would lose on summary judgment. I'd move for sanctions, of
course, since Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as
comparable state rules, sanction the initiation of frivolous lawsuits.
Ask your attorneys how they like Rule 11 sanctions, David. Whoever those
attorneys are, that is.

>Since it is a remark that goes to a matter of fact and is false, and more
>than that, Mike has no knowledge of my study of the history of press freedom
>in this country, and finally, since he is an attorney, this is considerably
>more than some layman's ad hominem.

First, it's not false.

Second, libel law doesn't distinguish between lawyer statements of fact
and non-lawyer statements of fact.

Third, it's not an ad hominem, as that term is used precisely.

>It is quite material to my view of EFF that one of their attorneys should
>post, over their name, a message that I am advised is defamatory.

Please, please don't dig yourself any deeper. If you like, I can give you
some examples of truly defamatory and non-defamatory statements, so you
can learn the distinction. 

In the meantime, I await the letter from your "attorneys." Nothing would
give me more pleasure than to slamdunk a frivolous libel suit.


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin, (202) 347-5400 |"In our sleep, pain which cannot forget
mnemonic@eff.org            | falls drop by drop upon the heart until, 
Electronic Frontier         | in our own despair, against our will, comes
Foundation                  | wisdom through the awful grace of God."

-------end forwarded article----------