Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Oh shit... Cary, check this out
()
Date: December 12, 2014 01:34PM
BRRRRRRR!! Is it getting chilly in here?
Section 230 defenses are crumbling.
In September, 2014, a federal appeals court judge ruled that a website couldn’t
hide behind Section 230 when it was sued for not warning that a predator
used the site to target new victims.
“Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for
businesses that publish user content on the Internet,” the judge wrote in the
opinion.
Background
Modelmayhem.com, a website used by professional and aspiring models for
marketing purposes, was purchased in 2008 by Internet Brands Inc.
Internet predators browsed profiles and contacted potential victims with fake
identities.
After the predators were convicted, plaintiff Jane Doe hired a lawyer to help
her get the videos the men made of her taken off of porn sites. At that time
she learned that the people who ran Model Mayhem knew that predators were
actively prowling it for victims and hadn’t warned users.
Doe filed suit against Internet Brands for negligence.
Lawsuit not barred by Communications Decency Act
A federal district court dismissed the case, ruling that as a publisher of
information provided by another content provider, the company could not be
held liable under the Communications Decency Act.
But a unanimous three-judge appellate panel reversed the lower court, holding
that Doe's negligence claim was not barred under the act.
The act “precludes liability that treats a website as the publisher or speaker
of information users provide on the website,” said the ruling. This protection
applies “even though the website proprietor has not acted to remove offensive
content posted by others.”
“Jane Doe's claim is different, however.” She does not “seek to hold Internet
Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of content posted on the website, or
for failure to remove content.”
“Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn
her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through” the website.
“Barring Jane Doe's failure to warn claim would stretch the (Communication
Decency Act) beyond its narrow language and purpose.”
“Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card
for businesses that publish user content on the Internet, though
any claims might have a marginal chilling effect on Internet publishing
businesses,” wrote Circuit Judge Richard Clifton in a 13-page opinion. He was
joined by Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder and Brooklyn U.S. District Judge Brian
Cogan, sitting by designation.
Lawyers React to the Ruling
Jeffrey Herman of Herman Law in Boca Raton, Fla., who represents the plaintiff
in the case, said the panel essentially drew "a line in the sand in terms of
the CDA."
"This case is not about content. It's about failing to protect users
from a known danger," Herman said. "The question is: What did they
know and when did they know it?"
Santa Clara Law School professor Eric Goldman, a fierce defender of Section
230, was not a fan of the opinion. “We don’t expect newspapers to warn people,”
he said.
But some sites have taken to warning people. All of Craigslists’ ads have a
warning at the bottom, saying “Avoid scams. Deal locally.” It links to a page
about common scams on the site and personal safety.
Fairfax Underground: A Libertarian 'Bridge Too Far'?
Other websites, however, such as Fairfax Underground, encourage people "to
please not be shy about posting in these forums."
In a post titled "Welcome to Fairfax Underground! [New users read this first],"
the webmaster writes:
The webmaster thus not only fails to provide any warning, but actually
encourages new users in a false sense of safety and security -- despite
having been repeatedly notified about the presence of predators on the board.
Indeed, the webmaster refuses to discipline or ban predators who are known -
and have been known for years - to use Fairfax Underground as an instrument to
target, intimidate, and harass victims.
For example, the identifying information of a recent victim was obtaining by
a phishing technique that utilized the website's private messaging system.
This information included the victim's name, address, and cell phone number.
An internet predator named Michael Basl, who posts on Fairfax Underground
under the username 'eesh' (as well as many other names) posted this information
in an attempt to intimidate and harass the victim.
The webmaster refused to remove the information. It is not clear whether this
refusal arose out of a desire to cooperate with Basl in the harassment and
intimidation of the victim, or mere indifference, negligence, or possibly a
lack of awareness of the CDA's "Good Samaritan" rule, which would protect him
against at least civil liability for screening such offensive information.
Asked to comment, the webmaster said, "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was America."
And with that he turned on his heel and left.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/18/modeling-website-didnt-warn-users-rapists-were-preying-on-them/
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202670430221/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-Rape-Victim-Can-Sue-Modeling-Website
Pic unrelated
Section 230 defenses are crumbling.
In September, 2014, a federal appeals court judge ruled that a website couldn’t
hide behind Section 230 when it was sued for not warning that a predator
used the site to target new victims.
“Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for
businesses that publish user content on the Internet,” the judge wrote in the
opinion.
Background
Modelmayhem.com, a website used by professional and aspiring models for
marketing purposes, was purchased in 2008 by Internet Brands Inc.
Internet predators browsed profiles and contacted potential victims with fake
identities.
After the predators were convicted, plaintiff Jane Doe hired a lawyer to help
her get the videos the men made of her taken off of porn sites. At that time
she learned that the people who ran Model Mayhem knew that predators were
actively prowling it for victims and hadn’t warned users.
Doe filed suit against Internet Brands for negligence.
Lawsuit not barred by Communications Decency Act
A federal district court dismissed the case, ruling that as a publisher of
information provided by another content provider, the company could not be
held liable under the Communications Decency Act.
But a unanimous three-judge appellate panel reversed the lower court, holding
that Doe's negligence claim was not barred under the act.
The act “precludes liability that treats a website as the publisher or speaker
of information users provide on the website,” said the ruling. This protection
applies “even though the website proprietor has not acted to remove offensive
content posted by others.”
“Jane Doe's claim is different, however.” She does not “seek to hold Internet
Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of content posted on the website, or
for failure to remove content.”
“Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn
her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through” the website.
“Barring Jane Doe's failure to warn claim would stretch the (Communication
Decency Act) beyond its narrow language and purpose.”
“Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card
for businesses that publish user content on the Internet, though
any claims might have a marginal chilling effect on Internet publishing
businesses,” wrote Circuit Judge Richard Clifton in a 13-page opinion. He was
joined by Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder and Brooklyn U.S. District Judge Brian
Cogan, sitting by designation.
Lawyers React to the Ruling
Jeffrey Herman of Herman Law in Boca Raton, Fla., who represents the plaintiff
in the case, said the panel essentially drew "a line in the sand in terms of
the CDA."
"This case is not about content. It's about failing to protect users
from a known danger," Herman said. "The question is: What did they
know and when did they know it?"
Santa Clara Law School professor Eric Goldman, a fierce defender of Section
230, was not a fan of the opinion. “We don’t expect newspapers to warn people,”
he said.
But some sites have taken to warning people. All of Craigslists’ ads have a
warning at the bottom, saying “Avoid scams. Deal locally.” It links to a page
about common scams on the site and personal safety.
Fairfax Underground: A Libertarian 'Bridge Too Far'?
Other websites, however, such as Fairfax Underground, encourage people "to
please not be shy about posting in these forums."
In a post titled "Welcome to Fairfax Underground! [New users read this first],"
the webmaster writes:
Please take the opportunity to ask your neighbors whatever
you are curious about. You don't have to provide your real
name or email address, and the worst that can happen is that
nobody responds. And perhaps a month from now someone will
search google for the exact same thing and find your post.
So go on, hit that Post New Topic button, what do you have
to lose?
The webmaster thus not only fails to provide any warning, but actually
encourages new users in a false sense of safety and security -- despite
having been repeatedly notified about the presence of predators on the board.
Indeed, the webmaster refuses to discipline or ban predators who are known -
and have been known for years - to use Fairfax Underground as an instrument to
target, intimidate, and harass victims.
For example, the identifying information of a recent victim was obtaining by
a phishing technique that utilized the website's private messaging system.
This information included the victim's name, address, and cell phone number.
An internet predator named Michael Basl, who posts on Fairfax Underground
under the username 'eesh' (as well as many other names) posted this information
in an attempt to intimidate and harass the victim.
The webmaster refused to remove the information. It is not clear whether this
refusal arose out of a desire to cooperate with Basl in the harassment and
intimidation of the victim, or mere indifference, negligence, or possibly a
lack of awareness of the CDA's "Good Samaritan" rule, which would protect him
against at least civil liability for screening such offensive information.
Asked to comment, the webmaster said, "Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was America."
And with that he turned on his heel and left.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/18/modeling-website-didnt-warn-users-rapists-were-preying-on-them/
http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202670430221/Ninth-Circuit-Rules-Rape-Victim-Can-Sue-Modeling-Website
Pic unrelated
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
cost of justice
()
Date: December 12, 2014 02:36PM
This presumes that someone is actually going to sue Cary for the shit that takes place on his forum.
Since Cary isn't rich or a big company, no lawyer will take a case against him on contingency, because Cary will just file bankruptcy five minutes after someone gets a nice fat judgement against him.
This means that if you want to sue Cary using the theory outlined above, you'll have to pay your lawyer out of your own pocket, which will cost you thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, which you absolutely do not have.
Justice costs, and you can't pay.
Since Cary isn't rich or a big company, no lawyer will take a case against him on contingency, because Cary will just file bankruptcy five minutes after someone gets a nice fat judgement against him.
This means that if you want to sue Cary using the theory outlined above, you'll have to pay your lawyer out of your own pocket, which will cost you thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars, which you absolutely do not have.
Justice costs, and you can't pay.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
The Sectional Conflict
()
Date: December 12, 2014 04:04PM
Maybe one of Cary's "friends" in the legal community would handle the matter pro bono.
Say, Phillip Leiser (see: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,19096)
Or Andi Geloo (see: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/1708737/1708807.html).
Maybe if someone with a viable claim, but a lack of financial resources, made an appeal to Robert McCartney, McCartney might write a sympathetic piece, and some person or persons in the NOVA region - where there is no small concentration of wealth and not a few enemies of FU - might step forward.
That said, I might add that the tone of the kindly discourager "cost of justice" is not unreminiscent of several posts on the "HEY GERRY" thread of fond memory.
As on that thread, I suspect the only people who would try to discourage someone from bringing a claim are not acting from any charitable or selfless impulse, but rather from the desire to demoralize and dishearten potential claimants -- and thus preemptively nullify any risk that pursuit of a legal remedy might "very well land on their own ill-covered heads, like an unwelcome deposit from the ever-clever bird of Karma."
In contrast to "cost of justice" - who I'm sure is posting with only the best intentions - I would note that in circumstances where the problem persists (as it has) and Cary adamantly refuses to address it (as he has), victims of Fairfax Underground predators like eesh should be aware that the supposedly insurmountable obstacle of legal fees might not be quite so insurmountable as "cost of justice" would like to make it seem.
And indeed, in the long run, by whatever means the fee is paid, it may well prove less costly than the "substantial penalty" eesh has suggested is the price of being his enemy.
Say, Phillip Leiser (see: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2,19096)
Or Andi Geloo (see: http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/1708737/1708807.html).
Maybe if someone with a viable claim, but a lack of financial resources, made an appeal to Robert McCartney, McCartney might write a sympathetic piece, and some person or persons in the NOVA region - where there is no small concentration of wealth and not a few enemies of FU - might step forward.
That said, I might add that the tone of the kindly discourager "cost of justice" is not unreminiscent of several posts on the "HEY GERRY" thread of fond memory.
As on that thread, I suspect the only people who would try to discourage someone from bringing a claim are not acting from any charitable or selfless impulse, but rather from the desire to demoralize and dishearten potential claimants -- and thus preemptively nullify any risk that pursuit of a legal remedy might "very well land on their own ill-covered heads, like an unwelcome deposit from the ever-clever bird of Karma."
In contrast to "cost of justice" - who I'm sure is posting with only the best intentions - I would note that in circumstances where the problem persists (as it has) and Cary adamantly refuses to address it (as he has), victims of Fairfax Underground predators like eesh should be aware that the supposedly insurmountable obstacle of legal fees might not be quite so insurmountable as "cost of justice" would like to make it seem.
And indeed, in the long run, by whatever means the fee is paid, it may well prove less costly than the "substantial penalty" eesh has suggested is the price of being his enemy.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 04:36PM
Does this mean I can't lure beautiful women to come here and give me naked pictures anymore?
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Mental Collection Agency
()
Date: December 12, 2014 04:37PM
Or "Cary" should just close down the website/pull the plug.
Then you would have dozens of lunatics with no way to release those inner voices and the beds of Woodburn would overflow with crazy basement trash.
Of course "Cary" is no longer running the site. Yes his account is still there, and once in a while a law enforcement officer will logon with it and do some pre-approved cleanup, but for the most part the site is a honey pot for criminal information.
Enjoy your cesspool.
Then you would have dozens of lunatics with no way to release those inner voices and the beds of Woodburn would overflow with crazy basement trash.
Of course "Cary" is no longer running the site. Yes his account is still there, and once in a while a law enforcement officer will logon with it and do some pre-approved cleanup, but for the most part the site is a honey pot for criminal information.
Enjoy your cesspool.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 04:39PM
Eesh lured me here after telling me I could make hundreds of dollars stuffing envelopes in my home. I've yet to see a dime.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 04:41PM
Is the OP Joanne Perez?
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Time for Plan B.
()
Date: December 12, 2014 05:08PM
Even if you pound away on your keyboard until your fingers are bloody stubs, it will not motivate Cary to do anything.
The most logically organized, well written and cleverly crafted argument is negated by being wholly ignored, which is exactly what Cary does.
You've wasted your time and changed exactly nothing.
It's time for plan B, which does not involve sitting on your ass and typing shit into a computer.
The most logically organized, well written and cleverly crafted argument is negated by being wholly ignored, which is exactly what Cary does.
You've wasted your time and changed exactly nothing.
It's time for plan B, which does not involve sitting on your ass and typing shit into a computer.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
lexi
()
Date: December 12, 2014 05:25PM
OP is a liberal faggit, G2.
Constant insults, harasses and threatens others but when somebody else simply takes a shot in the dark at who they are, the lib screams rape.
What a pussy.
Constant insults, harasses and threatens others but when somebody else simply takes a shot in the dark at who they are, the lib screams rape.
What a pussy.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
NotRiveted
()
Date: December 12, 2014 05:28PM
If you're so concerned about the Fairfax Underground then why are you here?
Lonely?
Lonely?
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
The Clean Slate
()
Date: December 12, 2014 05:41PM
Mental Collection Agency Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or "Cary" should just close down the website/pull
> the plug.
>
> Then you would have dozens of lunatics with no way
> to release those inner voices and the beds of
> Woodburn would overflow with crazy basement
> trash.
>
> Of course "Cary" is no longer running the site.
> Yes his account is still there, and once in a
> while a law enforcement officer will logon with it
> and do some pre-approved cleanup, but for the most
> part the site is a honey pot for criminal
> information.
>
> Enjoy your cesspool.
I've got about ten pages of information that I've collected over the years that supports this, I won't stop lurking here because frankly, I don't really give a shit, but yeah, no coincidence people that post here end up catching misdemeanors down the line, there's a laundry list of people that have suffered as a result of this place.
People need to read cary's old posts and cross reference them with the "cary" that is modding now. nothing similar in their verbiage whatsoever, nothing even really similar in how they mod. The smoking gun here is that back in 04, far far before this site even launched, old cary got collared for PID-hallucinogens(possession with intent to distribute)
"WIEDEMANN ","CARY ","S","019"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","12/09/2003","POSS MARIJUANA "
"WIEDEMANN ","CARY ","S","020"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/25/2004","FAIL TO APPEAR SUSP LIC "
"WIEDMANN ","CARY ","S","020"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/31/2004","P/ID OTHER HALLUCINOGENIC "
"WIEDMANN ","CARY ","S","022"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/31/2004","P/ID OTHER HALLUCINOGENIC "
So essentially, that's three felonies before the site even launched. In addition, there was a PID-marijuana charge around 08-09 that has been scrubbed from (most) of the internet
Would you trade a website for a clean slate?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or "Cary" should just close down the website/pull
> the plug.
>
> Then you would have dozens of lunatics with no way
> to release those inner voices and the beds of
> Woodburn would overflow with crazy basement
> trash.
>
> Of course "Cary" is no longer running the site.
> Yes his account is still there, and once in a
> while a law enforcement officer will logon with it
> and do some pre-approved cleanup, but for the most
> part the site is a honey pot for criminal
> information.
>
> Enjoy your cesspool.
I've got about ten pages of information that I've collected over the years that supports this, I won't stop lurking here because frankly, I don't really give a shit, but yeah, no coincidence people that post here end up catching misdemeanors down the line, there's a laundry list of people that have suffered as a result of this place.
People need to read cary's old posts and cross reference them with the "cary" that is modding now. nothing similar in their verbiage whatsoever, nothing even really similar in how they mod. The smoking gun here is that back in 04, far far before this site even launched, old cary got collared for PID-hallucinogens(possession with intent to distribute)
"WIEDEMANN ","CARY ","S","019"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","12/09/2003","POSS MARIJUANA "
"WIEDEMANN ","CARY ","S","020"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/25/2004","FAIL TO APPEAR SUSP LIC "
"WIEDMANN ","CARY ","S","020"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/31/2004","P/ID OTHER HALLUCINOGENIC "
"WIEDMANN ","CARY ","S","022"," 13802","VALLEY COUNTRY ","DR","CHANTILLY ","VA","01/31/2004","P/ID OTHER HALLUCINOGENIC "
So essentially, that's three felonies before the site even launched. In addition, there was a PID-marijuana charge around 08-09 that has been scrubbed from (most) of the internet
Would you trade a website for a clean slate?
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: December 12, 2014 06:13PM
So in trying to get Cary's attention and appeal to his logical side, you deliberately dig up the worst information you could find on him. You aren't too bright, are you?
Blessed are the murderous.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 06:15PM
That's old news about CARY. Every year or so someone, with nothing better to do,drags it out. BTW, I could use some weed right now.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: December 12, 2014 06:20PM
The Clean Slate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've got about ten pages of information that I've
> collected over the years that supports this,
Say this out loud. If you can't see how insane this is, you need to be involuntarily committed. Just unplug your computer at the very least.
> no coincidence
> people that post here end up catching misdemeanors
> down the line, there's a laundry list of people
> that have suffered as a result of this place.
No one has suffered because of this site. No one has been charged with any crime because of this site. This is a fantasy that exists solely in your head.
Blessed are the murderous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've got about ten pages of information that I've
> collected over the years that supports this,
Say this out loud. If you can't see how insane this is, you need to be involuntarily committed. Just unplug your computer at the very least.
> no coincidence
> people that post here end up catching misdemeanors
> down the line, there's a laundry list of people
> that have suffered as a result of this place.
No one has suffered because of this site. No one has been charged with any crime because of this site. This is a fantasy that exists solely in your head.
Blessed are the murderous.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
eesh
()
Date: December 12, 2014 06:25PM
The Clean Slate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've got about ten pages of information that I've
> collected over the years that supports this,
Does your bedroom look like this?
-
Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've got about ten pages of information that I've
> collected over the years that supports this,
Does your bedroom look like this?
-
Blessed are the murderous.
Attachments:
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
smh1
()
Date: December 12, 2014 07:19PM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So in trying to get Cary's attention and appeal to
> his logical side, you deliberately dig up the
> worst information you could find on him. You
> aren't too bright, are you?
Nice triple post, pal.
You're actually correct, it's the same guy as the original mod and they even type completely alike too.
Obviously, you have out argued me with your superior logic and straw men and I'm just glad you, me and priapus(obviously a completely separate entity from Michael Basl) got to have such an enlightening conversation.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So in trying to get Cary's attention and appeal to
> his logical side, you deliberately dig up the
> worst information you could find on him. You
> aren't too bright, are you?
Nice triple post, pal.
You're actually correct, it's the same guy as the original mod and they even type completely alike too.
Obviously, you have out argued me with your superior logic and straw men and I'm just glad you, me and priapus(obviously a completely separate entity from Michael Basl) got to have such an enlightening conversation.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 07:56PM
I'm not Eesh. I just like his porn.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Alyse
()
Date: December 12, 2014 08:48PM
Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy, but I think if you love free speech you don’t take a shit on it.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 09:08PM
Free speech means the government can't infringe on your right to say what you want... So I'm not getting your point.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Alyse
()
Date: December 12, 2014 09:26PM
Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I'm not getting your point.
I can't fix stupid, and I'm not going to try.
-------------------------------------------------------
> So I'm not getting your point.
I can't fix stupid, and I'm not going to try.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 12, 2014 09:37PM
Alyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Priapus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So I'm not getting your point.
>
>
> I can't fix stupid, and I'm not going to try.
"This case is not about content. It's about failing to protect users
from a known danger," Herman said. "The question is: What did they
know and when did they know it?"
There is no danger here. "Outing" someone may be disconcerting, but it's not dangerous in itself.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Priapus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So I'm not getting your point.
>
>
> I can't fix stupid, and I'm not going to try.
"This case is not about content. It's about failing to protect users
from a known danger," Herman said. "The question is: What did they
know and when did they know it?"
There is no danger here. "Outing" someone may be disconcerting, but it's not dangerous in itself.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Alyse
()
Date: December 12, 2014 10:43PM
Priapus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no danger here. "Outing" someone may be
> disconcerting, but it's not dangerous in itself.
Hypothetically, outing may be no more than disconcerting.
As for whether it's "dangerous in itself," that depends on the context it plays out in.
In the context of FU Off-Topic, when it is done by a sociopath like Mike Basl, who takes sadistic pleasure in cruelly mocking the most intimate, now outed details of other's personal lives - including the lives of juvenile children who have never posted on Fairfax Underground - and who sends threatening pictures of his guns, and stalks people in real life, and brags about that stalking online (until he wised up about that), it rises beyond disconcerting and becomes intimidating and threatening.
In a world where everyone was reasonable and evenhanded, FU Off-Topic would be trouble free.
But we don't live in that kind of world.
We live in a world where there are people like Mike Basl, who take it upon themselves to escalate trivial internet conflicts to online and real life threats, harassment, and intimidation.
When you use the non-strictures of Fairfax Underground as an instrument for sociopathic aggression, you've gone beyond robust debate, beyond polemics, beyond a shouting match, beyond pornography. You're shitting on free speech, and if you love free speech you don’t shit on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no danger here. "Outing" someone may be
> disconcerting, but it's not dangerous in itself.
Hypothetically, outing may be no more than disconcerting.
As for whether it's "dangerous in itself," that depends on the context it plays out in.
In the context of FU Off-Topic, when it is done by a sociopath like Mike Basl, who takes sadistic pleasure in cruelly mocking the most intimate, now outed details of other's personal lives - including the lives of juvenile children who have never posted on Fairfax Underground - and who sends threatening pictures of his guns, and stalks people in real life, and brags about that stalking online (until he wised up about that), it rises beyond disconcerting and becomes intimidating and threatening.
In a world where everyone was reasonable and evenhanded, FU Off-Topic would be trouble free.
But we don't live in that kind of world.
We live in a world where there are people like Mike Basl, who take it upon themselves to escalate trivial internet conflicts to online and real life threats, harassment, and intimidation.
When you use the non-strictures of Fairfax Underground as an instrument for sociopathic aggression, you've gone beyond robust debate, beyond polemics, beyond a shouting match, beyond pornography. You're shitting on free speech, and if you love free speech you don’t shit on it.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Sonny Drysdale
()
Date: December 13, 2014 01:48AM
It's funny how the people loudest about defending free speech are the first to try to limit it.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
how's my driving?
()
Date: December 13, 2014 05:22AM
Sonny Drysdale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how the people loudest about defending
> free speech are the first to try to limit it.
Free speech on the internet, where anyone can hide under a rock and intentionally set out to ruin a person or business's reputation on false allegations, for example, is still largely uncharted waters in most of the US. To propose maybe we need to consider how to deal with this relatively new complication to the 1st amendment--cretins who write false Yelp reviews for instance, or who can be held liable and how the information revealing the anonymous libeler's identity can or cannot be legally retrieved for example--is not necessarily 'trying to limit free speech'.
Imagine you own a business, Sonny, and someone from FFXU goes all-out to Google-fuck you just for the fun of it, and is successful. You're forced to close your doors. Worse, your personal reputation is ruined and you're turned down for a job because of strategically indexed Google results that say this and that about you, all lies. Who can be held accountable? How can those people be identified? Can the operator of the website be sued if he knew all along who was doing it? Are the laws already addressing these questions adequate? Is more protection needed for innocent parties such as yourself, Sonny, the ruined bakery owner? Less protection? Would you say, 'perhaps we need to think about how to handle this sort of thing'? before just throwing out a bumper sticker like you just did?
I'll hang up and listen.
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's funny how the people loudest about defending
> free speech are the first to try to limit it.
Free speech on the internet, where anyone can hide under a rock and intentionally set out to ruin a person or business's reputation on false allegations, for example, is still largely uncharted waters in most of the US. To propose maybe we need to consider how to deal with this relatively new complication to the 1st amendment--cretins who write false Yelp reviews for instance, or who can be held liable and how the information revealing the anonymous libeler's identity can or cannot be legally retrieved for example--is not necessarily 'trying to limit free speech'.
Imagine you own a business, Sonny, and someone from FFXU goes all-out to Google-fuck you just for the fun of it, and is successful. You're forced to close your doors. Worse, your personal reputation is ruined and you're turned down for a job because of strategically indexed Google results that say this and that about you, all lies. Who can be held accountable? How can those people be identified? Can the operator of the website be sued if he knew all along who was doing it? Are the laws already addressing these questions adequate? Is more protection needed for innocent parties such as yourself, Sonny, the ruined bakery owner? Less protection? Would you say, 'perhaps we need to think about how to handle this sort of thing'? before just throwing out a bumper sticker like you just did?
I'll hang up and listen.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Hon. Judge Art Vandelay
()
Date: December 13, 2014 05:52AM
This is beginning to remind me of the final episode of Seinfeld.
Jackie Chiles will be defending Cary for breaking the Good Samaritan law.
A media circus erupts.
Screwball characters from the entire run of Fairfax Underground are called to the stand.
And the series finale of the website ends with Cary and rstidman sitting in a cell in New England with tina and mariokart, having the same conversation about the death of Don Geronimo's wife that the first episode of Fairfax Underground began with.
Jackie Chiles will be defending Cary for breaking the Good Samaritan law.
A media circus erupts.
Screwball characters from the entire run of Fairfax Underground are called to the stand.
And the series finale of the website ends with Cary and rstidman sitting in a cell in New England with tina and mariokart, having the same conversation about the death of Don Geronimo's wife that the first episode of Fairfax Underground began with.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Priapus
()
Date: December 13, 2014 10:30AM
I see what you mean. You've won me over. Send me your name and email and we will formulate a plan. Perhaps start another website more to your liking..Cheers to another day. Carpe diem!
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
close persnal friend o' "karree"
()
Date: December 13, 2014 01:17PM
last night, i was "sitting on a twig" eating "caterpillars" and getting "very
small," chillin' with my "bud," a beautiful bird named "karree," -- 'tho his
mama mighta named him 'jonathan livingston seagull' for all that, given his
combination of courage and vision (in peopleworld, i
think you call those types "heros").
well, "karree" was "chirpin" -- or so it woulda sounded to your "people ears,"
tho' to my fine-tuned "bird ears" all i heard was the delicious burbling of
laughter.
and i was like, yo, brah, wat up?
and he be like, nigga, see what that mothafucka be typin' down there??
...uh --where?
and i looked down and got all a sudden dizzy-like cos i'd been so deep in
my head wit' dem sweet sweet cattypillows -- hadn't felt that way since i
was a little birdboy and mama tipped my skinny ass out the nest (dam
dem kittypillars'll fuck you up).
but i gives my head a shake n bang -- i saw 'ZACKLY what he meant.
some fool - the op o' this thread, if i may have the freedom to say so??
or you gonna sue my black ass?? - was typin' some nonsense he didn't
know nothin' bout.
mothafucka be like all bentover n earnest n shit, like he think he doin' sumpin
'portant.
fool thought he gonna tie "karree's" tail-feathers in a knot with a lot of
legal mumbo-jumbo and what-not. whole lotta ethical hee-haw an' moral
doo-doo, basically.
come down to this - that fool was a fool.
cos "karree" so far above that non-sense, he as far above it as the heavens
is above the earth.
so i just wanted to let you know what "a little bird" tol' me, if that fool op
ever stumble into this "thread" again.
tho' i might advise agin' it -- cos that nigga's head gonna be my target-
practice fo' the fo'see'ble future, if'n u no wat eye meen n eye zinc dat u
doo.
adios. this bitch gonna fly on out here now. up up into the wild blue
yonder where you humanfolk can't come -- all you suckas can do is
look up and dream.
n get a "deposit" in yo' face u da op dis "thread"
dis here a drawin o' "karree" and me graduatin from hi skool. "karree" is the little dude
wit glasses (kinda look like spike lee, don' he?), and i'm on the other side wearing the
yeller hat. plus those two other mothafuckas in the middle you don't know. they dead
now, by the way. one o' dem dumass fairfax boys takin' a little "target practice" -- well
i call it murder!! but jus' so u no, we was laffin' at u fairfax fools then and we still laffin'
at u!!
pic unrelated
small," chillin' with my "bud," a beautiful bird named "karree," -- 'tho his
mama mighta named him 'jonathan livingston seagull' for all that, given his
think you call those types "heros").
well, "karree" was "chirpin" -- or so it woulda sounded to your "people ears,"
tho' to my fine-tuned "bird ears" all i heard was the delicious burbling of
laughter.
and i was like, yo, brah, wat up?
and he be like, nigga, see what that mothafucka be typin' down there??
...uh --where?
and i looked down and got all a sudden dizzy-like cos i'd been so deep in
my head wit' dem sweet sweet cattypillows -- hadn't felt that way since i
was a little birdboy and mama tipped my skinny ass out the nest (dam
dem kittypillars'll fuck you up).
but i gives my head a shake n bang -- i saw 'ZACKLY what he meant.
some fool - the op o' this thread, if i may have the freedom to say so??
or you gonna sue my black ass?? - was typin' some nonsense he didn't
know nothin' bout.
mothafucka be like all bentover n earnest n shit, like he think he doin' sumpin
'portant.
fool thought he gonna tie "karree's" tail-feathers in a knot with a lot of
legal mumbo-jumbo and what-not. whole lotta ethical hee-haw an' moral
doo-doo, basically.
come down to this - that fool was a fool.
cos "karree" so far above that non-sense, he as far above it as the heavens
is above the earth.
so i just wanted to let you know what "a little bird" tol' me, if that fool op
ever stumble into this "thread" again.
tho' i might advise agin' it -- cos that nigga's head gonna be my target-
practice fo' the fo'see'ble future, if'n u no wat eye meen n eye zinc dat u
doo.
adios. this bitch gonna fly on out here now. up up into the wild blue
yonder where you humanfolk can't come -- all you suckas can do is
look up and dream.
n get a "deposit" in yo' face u da op dis "thread"
dis here a drawin o' "karree" and me graduatin from hi skool. "karree" is the little dude
wit glasses (kinda look like spike lee, don' he?), and i'm on the other side wearing the
yeller hat. plus those two other mothafuckas in the middle you don't know. they dead
now, by the way. one o' dem dumass fairfax boys takin' a little "target practice" -- well
i call it murder!! but jus' so u no, we was laffin' at u fairfax fools then and we still laffin'
at u!!
pic unrelated
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Dr. Funkenstein
()
Date: December 13, 2014 04:48PM
Don't confuse drug induced psychosis with the OP's repeatedly dropped on his head/oxygen deprivation at birth/genetic dane bramage.
They may present the same, but one is a choice and the other is a fact.
They may present the same, but one is a choice and the other is a fact.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
malum in se
()
Date: June 05, 2015 08:08AM
eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > no coincidence
> > people that post here end up catching
> misdemeanors
> > down the line, there's a laundry list of people
> > that have suffered as a result of this place.
>
>
>
> No one has suffered because of this site. No one
> has been charged with any crime because of this
> site. This is a fantasy that exists solely in your
> head.
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/1880764.html
-------------------------------------------------------
> > no coincidence
> > people that post here end up catching
> misdemeanors
> > down the line, there's a laundry list of people
> > that have suffered as a result of this place.
>
>
>
> No one has suffered because of this site. No one
> has been charged with any crime because of this
> site. This is a fantasy that exists solely in your
> head.
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/1880764.html
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
kVe9V
()
Date: June 05, 2015 05:23PM
under the same section , since law applies equally to all parties
i accuse the federal state and local gov of allowing financial terrorist (gov workers scamming) to use telephone company equipment and police in a predatory manner upon simpleton denizens who are in fear of anyone who presents themselves as "authority"
which often enough results in DEATH of the victims
i accuse the federal state and local gov of allowing financial terrorist (gov workers scamming) to use telephone company equipment and police in a predatory manner upon simpleton denizens who are in fear of anyone who presents themselves as "authority"
which often enough results in DEATH of the victims
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
G9NxL
()
Date: June 05, 2015 05:26PM
major law before minor and death (and counterfeiting) being serious
their idea some website should take action if never notified how to take action is illegal. when did the state inform and warn action would be taken if the site did not adhere to a particular measure? never. the gov is just stalking the site because it is in the gov workers benefit to do so, and profitable for them as well
their idea some website should take action if never notified how to take action is illegal. when did the state inform and warn action would be taken if the site did not adhere to a particular measure? never. the gov is just stalking the site because it is in the gov workers benefit to do so, and profitable for them as well
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
diplomatic immunity(?)
()
Date: June 25, 2015 01:09AM
Oh shit... Cary, check this out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BRRRRRRR!! Is it getting chilly
> in here?
>
> Section 230 defenses are crumbling.
>
> In September, 2014, a federal appeals court judge
> ruled that a website couldn’t
> hide behind Section 230 when it was sued for
> not warning that a predator
> used the site to target new victims.
>
> “Congress has not provided an all purpose
> get-out-of-jail-free card for
> businesses that publish user content on the
> Internet,” the judge wrote in the
> opinion.
>
> Background
> Modelmayhem.com, a website used by professional
> and aspiring models for
> marketing purposes, was purchased in 2008 by
> Internet Brands Inc.
>
> Internet predators browsed profiles and contacted
> potential victims with fake
> identities.
>
> After the predators were convicted, plaintiff Jane
> Doe hired a lawyer to help
> her get the videos the men made of her taken off
> of porn sites. At that time
> she learned that the people who ran Model Mayhem
> knew that predators were
> actively prowling it for victims and hadn’t
> warned users.
>
> Doe filed suit against Internet Brands for
> negligence.
>
> Lawsuit not barred by Communications Decency
> Act
> A federal district court dismissed the case,
> ruling that as a publisher of
> information provided by another content provider,
> the company could not be
> held liable under the Communications Decency Act.
>
> But a unanimous three-judge appellate panel
> reversed the lower court, holding
> that Doe's negligence claim was not barred under
> the act.
>
> The act “precludes liability that treats a
> website as the publisher or speaker
> of information users provide on the website,”
> said the ruling. This protection
> applies “even though the website proprietor has
> not acted to remove offensive
> content posted by others.”
>
> “Jane Doe's claim is different, however.” She
> does not “seek to hold Internet
> Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of
> content posted on the website, or
> for failure to remove content.”
>
> “Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet
> Brands liable for failing to warn
> her about how third parties targeted and lured
> victims through” the website.
>
> “Barring Jane Doe's failure to warn claim would
> stretch the (Communication
> Decency Act) beyond its narrow language and
> purpose.”
>
> “Congress has not provided an all purpose
> get-out-of-jail-free card
> for businesses that publish user content on the
> Internet, though
> any claims might have a marginal chilling effect
> on Internet publishing
> businesses,” wrote Circuit Judge Richard Clifton
> in href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinio
> ns/2014/09/17/12-56638.pdf">a 13-page opinion.
> He was
> joined by Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder and
> Brooklyn U.S. District Judge Brian
> Cogan, sitting by designation.
>
> Lawyers React to the Ruling
> Jeffrey Herman of Herman Law in Boca Raton, Fla.,
> who represents the plaintiff
> in the case, said the panel essentially drew "a
> line in the sand in terms of
> the CDA."
>
> "This case is not about content. It's about
> failing to protect users
> from a known danger," Herman said. "The
> question is: What did they
> know and when did they know it?"
>
> Santa Clara Law School professor Eric Goldman, a
> fierce defender of Section
> 230, was not a fan of the opinion. “We don’t
> expect newspapers to warn people,”
> he said.
>
> But some sites have taken to warning
> people. All of Craigslists’ ads have a
> warning at the bottom, saying “Avoid scams. Deal
> locally.” It links to a page
> about href="http://www.craigslist.org/about/safety">comm
> on scams on the site and personal safety.
>
> Fairfax Underground: A Libertarian 'Bridge
> Too Far'?
> Other websites, however, such as Fairfax
> Underground, encourage people "to
> please not be shy about posting in these forums."
>
> In a post titled "Welcome to Fairfax Underground!
> [New users read this first],"
> the webmaster writes:
>
>
> The webmaster thus not only fails to provide any
> warning, but actually
> encourages new users in a false sense of safety
> and security -- despite
> having been repeatedly notified about the presence
> of predators on the board.
> Indeed, the webmaster refuses to discipline or ban
> predators who are known -
> and have been known for years - to use Fairfax
> Underground as an instrument to
> target, intimidate, and harass victims.
>
> For example, the identifying information of a
> recent victim was obtaining by
> a phishing technique that utilized the website's
> private messaging system.
> This information included the victim's name,
> address, and cell phone number.
> An internet predator named Michael Basl, who posts
> on Fairfax Underground
> under the username 'eesh' (as well as many other
> names) posted this information
> in an attempt to intimidate and harass the
> victim.
>
> The webmaster refused to remove the information.
> It is not clear whether this
> refusal arose out of a desire to cooperate with
> Basl in the harassment and
> intimidation of the victim, or mere indifference,
> negligence, or possibly a
> lack of awareness of the CDA's "Good Samaritan"
> rule, which would protect him
> against at least civil liability for screening
> such offensive information.
>
> Asked to comment, the webmaster said, "Oh, I'm
> sorry, I thought this was America."
>
> And with that he turned on his heel and left.
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/18
> /modeling-website-didnt-warn-users-rapists-were-pr
> eying-on-them/
>
> http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202670430221/Ninth-
> Circuit-Rules-Rape-Victim-Can-Sue-Modeling-Website
>
>
>
> Pic unrelated
>
> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=63630,filename=eesh2.jpg">
Attachments:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BRRRRRRR!! Is it getting chilly
> in here?
>
> Section 230 defenses are crumbling.
>
> In September, 2014, a federal appeals court judge
> ruled that a website couldn’t
> hide behind Section 230 when it was sued for
> not warning that a predator
> used the site to target new victims.
>
> “Congress has not provided an all purpose
> get-out-of-jail-free card for
> businesses that publish user content on the
> Internet,” the judge wrote in the
> opinion.
>
> Background
> Modelmayhem.com, a website used by professional
> and aspiring models for
> marketing purposes, was purchased in 2008 by
> Internet Brands Inc.
>
> Internet predators browsed profiles and contacted
> potential victims with fake
> identities.
>
> After the predators were convicted, plaintiff Jane
> Doe hired a lawyer to help
> her get the videos the men made of her taken off
> of porn sites. At that time
> she learned that the people who ran Model Mayhem
> knew that predators were
> actively prowling it for victims and hadn’t
> warned users.
>
> Doe filed suit against Internet Brands for
> negligence.
>
> Lawsuit not barred by Communications Decency
> Act
> A federal district court dismissed the case,
> ruling that as a publisher of
> information provided by another content provider,
> the company could not be
> held liable under the Communications Decency Act.
>
> But a unanimous three-judge appellate panel
> reversed the lower court, holding
> that Doe's negligence claim was not barred under
> the act.
>
> The act “precludes liability that treats a
> website as the publisher or speaker
> of information users provide on the website,”
> said the ruling. This protection
> applies “even though the website proprietor has
> not acted to remove offensive
> content posted by others.”
>
> “Jane Doe's claim is different, however.” She
> does not “seek to hold Internet
> Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of
> content posted on the website, or
> for failure to remove content.”
>
> “Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet
> Brands liable for failing to warn
> her about how third parties targeted and lured
> victims through” the website.
>
> “Barring Jane Doe's failure to warn claim would
> stretch the (Communication
> Decency Act) beyond its narrow language and
> purpose.”
>
> “Congress has not provided an all purpose
> get-out-of-jail-free card
> for businesses that publish user content on the
> Internet, though
> any claims might have a marginal chilling effect
> on Internet publishing
> businesses,” wrote Circuit Judge Richard Clifton
> in href="http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinio
> ns/2014/09/17/12-56638.pdf">a 13-page opinion.
> He was
> joined by Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder and
> Brooklyn U.S. District Judge Brian
> Cogan, sitting by designation.
>
> Lawyers React to the Ruling
> Jeffrey Herman of Herman Law in Boca Raton, Fla.,
> who represents the plaintiff
> in the case, said the panel essentially drew "a
> line in the sand in terms of
> the CDA."
>
> "This case is not about content. It's about
> failing to protect users
> from a known danger," Herman said. "The
> question is: What did they
> know and when did they know it?"
>
> Santa Clara Law School professor Eric Goldman, a
> fierce defender of Section
> 230, was not a fan of the opinion. “We don’t
> expect newspapers to warn people,”
> he said.
>
> But some sites have taken to warning
> people. All of Craigslists’ ads have a
> warning at the bottom, saying “Avoid scams. Deal
> locally.” It links to a page
> about href="http://www.craigslist.org/about/safety">comm
> on scams on the site and personal safety.
>
> Fairfax Underground: A Libertarian 'Bridge
> Too Far'?
> Other websites, however, such as Fairfax
> Underground, encourage people "to
> please not be shy about posting in these forums."
>
> In a post titled "Welcome to Fairfax Underground!
> [New users read this first],"
> the webmaster writes:
>
>
Please take the opportunity to ask>
> your neighbors whatever
> you are curious about. You don't have to provide
> your real
> name or email address, and the worst that can
> happen is that
> nobody responds. And perhaps a month from now
> someone will
> search google for the exact same thing and find
> your post.
> So go on, hit that Post New Topic button, what do
> you have
> to lose?
> The webmaster thus not only fails to provide any
> warning, but actually
> encourages new users in a false sense of safety
> and security -- despite
> having been repeatedly notified about the presence
> of predators on the board.
> Indeed, the webmaster refuses to discipline or ban
> predators who are known -
> and have been known for years - to use Fairfax
> Underground as an instrument to
> target, intimidate, and harass victims.
>
> For example, the identifying information of a
> recent victim was obtaining by
> a phishing technique that utilized the website's
> private messaging system.
> This information included the victim's name,
> address, and cell phone number.
> An internet predator named Michael Basl, who posts
> on Fairfax Underground
> under the username 'eesh' (as well as many other
> names) posted this information
> in an attempt to intimidate and harass the
> victim.
>
> The webmaster refused to remove the information.
> It is not clear whether this
> refusal arose out of a desire to cooperate with
> Basl in the harassment and
> intimidation of the victim, or mere indifference,
> negligence, or possibly a
> lack of awareness of the CDA's "Good Samaritan"
> rule, which would protect him
> against at least civil liability for screening
> such offensive information.
>
> Asked to comment, the webmaster said, "Oh, I'm
> sorry, I thought this was America."
>
> And with that he turned on his heel and left.
>
>
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/09/18
> /modeling-website-didnt-warn-users-rapists-were-pr
> eying-on-them/
>
> http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202670430221/Ninth-
> Circuit-Rules-Rape-Victim-Can-Sue-Modeling-Website
>
>
>
> Pic unrelated
>
> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=63630,filename=eesh2.jpg">
Attachments:
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
prophetic
()
Date: June 25, 2015 01:31AM
The Sectional Conflict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe one of Cary's "friends" in the legal
> community would handle the matter pro bono.
>
> Say, Phillip
> Leiser (see:
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2
> ,19096)
>
> Or href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/22033-va-andal
> eeb-geloo-691986.html">Andi Geloo (see:
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/17
> 08737/1708807.html).
>
> Maybe if someone with a viable claim, but a lack
> of financial resources, made an appeal to href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/board-me
> mber-punished-for-trying-to-do-right-thing-in-fair
> fax-school-dispute/2011/06/24/AGxt1ElH_story.html"
> >Robert McCartney, McCartney might write a
> sympathetic piece, and some person or persons in
> the NOVA region - where there is no small
> concentration of wealth and not a few enemies of
> FU - might step forward.
>
> That said, I might add that the tone of the kindly
> discourager "cost of justice" is not unreminiscent
> of several posts on the " href="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read
> /40/1715814/1715814.html">HEY GERRY" thread of
> fond memory.
>
> As on that thread, I suspect the only people who
> would try to discourage someone from bringing a
> claim are not acting from any charitable or
> selfless impulse, but rather from the desire to
> demoralize and dishearten potential claimants --
> and thus preemptively nullify any risk that
> pursuit of a legal remedy might "very well land on
> their own ill-covered heads, like an unwelcome
> deposit from the ever-clever bird of Karma."
>
> In contrast to "cost of justice" - who I'm sure is
> posting with only the best intentions - I
> would note that in circumstances where the problem
> persists (as it has) and Cary adamantly refuses to
> address it (as he has), victims of Fairfax
> Underground predators like eesh should be aware
> that the supposedly insurmountable obstacle of
> legal fees might not be quite so insurmountable as
> "cost of justice" would like to make it seem.
>
> And indeed, in the long run, by whatever means the
> fee is paid, it may well prove less costly than
> the "substantial penalty" eesh has suggested is
> the price of being his enemy.
>
> href="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read
> /40/1687908/"> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=86078,filename=Michael_Josef_Basl_Rich
> mond_Henrico_VA1.png">
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe one of Cary's "friends" in the legal
> community would handle the matter pro bono.
>
> Say, Phillip
> Leiser (see:
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read.php?2
> ,19096)
>
> Or href="http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/22033-va-andal
> eeb-geloo-691986.html">Andi Geloo (see:
> http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/17
> 08737/1708807.html).
>
> Maybe if someone with a viable claim, but a lack
> of financial resources, made an appeal to href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/board-me
> mber-punished-for-trying-to-do-right-thing-in-fair
> fax-school-dispute/2011/06/24/AGxt1ElH_story.html"
> >Robert McCartney, McCartney might write a
> sympathetic piece, and some person or persons in
> the NOVA region - where there is no small
> concentration of wealth and not a few enemies of
> FU - might step forward.
>
> That said, I might add that the tone of the kindly
> discourager "cost of justice" is not unreminiscent
> of several posts on the " href="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read
> /40/1715814/1715814.html">HEY GERRY" thread of
> fond memory.
>
> As on that thread, I suspect the only people who
> would try to discourage someone from bringing a
> claim are not acting from any charitable or
> selfless impulse, but rather from the desire to
> demoralize and dishearten potential claimants --
> and thus preemptively nullify any risk that
> pursuit of a legal remedy might "very well land on
> their own ill-covered heads, like an unwelcome
> deposit from the ever-clever bird of Karma."
>
> In contrast to "cost of justice" - who I'm sure is
> posting with only the best intentions - I
> would note that in circumstances where the problem
> persists (as it has) and Cary adamantly refuses to
> address it (as he has), victims of Fairfax
> Underground predators like eesh should be aware
> that the supposedly insurmountable obstacle of
> legal fees might not be quite so insurmountable as
> "cost of justice" would like to make it seem.
>
> And indeed, in the long run, by whatever means the
> fee is paid, it may well prove less costly than
> the "substantial penalty" eesh has suggested is
> the price of being his enemy.
>
> href="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read
> /40/1687908/"> src="http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.
> php?40,file=86078,filename=Michael_Josef_Basl_Rich
> mond_Henrico_VA1.png">
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
keep bumping
()
Date: June 25, 2015 01:40AM
You know either eesh or Cary are very unhappy when the Russ Nikov crapflooding starts....
....not a fan of this thread...?
....not a fan of this thread...?
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
keep eugene green.
()
Date: June 25, 2015 01:55AM
The Sectional Conflict Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I suspect the only people who
> would try to discourage someone from bringing a
> claim are not acting from any charitable or
> selfless impulse, but rather from the desire to
> demoralize and dishearten potential claimants --
> and thus preemptively nullify any risk that
> pursuit of a legal remedy might "very well land on
> their own ill-covered heads, like an unwelcome
> deposit from the ever-clever bird of Karma."
>
> In contrast to "cost of justice" - who I'm sure is
> posting with only the best intentions - I
> would note that in circumstances where the problem
> persists (as it has) and Cary adamantly refuses to
> address it (as he has), victims of Fairfax
> Underground predators like eesh should be aware
> that the supposedly insurmountable obstacle of
> legal fees might not be quite so insurmountable as
> "cost of justice" would like to make it seem.
>
> And indeed, in the long run, by whatever means the
> fee is paid, it may well prove less costly than
> the "substantial penalty" eesh has suggested is
> the price of being his enemy.
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I suspect the only people who
> would try to discourage someone from bringing a
> claim are not acting from any charitable or
> selfless impulse, but rather from the desire to
> demoralize and dishearten potential claimants --
> and thus preemptively nullify any risk that
> pursuit of a legal remedy might "very well land on
> their own ill-covered heads, like an unwelcome
> deposit from the ever-clever bird of Karma."
>
> In contrast to "cost of justice" - who I'm sure is
> posting with only the best intentions - I
> would note that in circumstances where the problem
> persists (as it has) and Cary adamantly refuses to
> address it (as he has), victims of Fairfax
> Underground predators like eesh should be aware
> that the supposedly insurmountable obstacle of
> legal fees might not be quite so insurmountable as
> "cost of justice" would like to make it seem.
>
> And indeed, in the long run, by whatever means the
> fee is paid, it may well prove less costly than
> the "substantial penalty" eesh has suggested is
> the price of being his enemy.
>
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
some more info
()
Date: June 26, 2015 12:51AM
Whoever wrote this blather has way too much time on their hands
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
cary berry quite contrary
()
Date: June 26, 2015 12:53AM
deanonymize this page please
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Cary
()
Date: June 26, 2015 01:00AM
cary berry quite contrary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> deanonymize this page please
This thread has a large number of unique, legitimate, non-proxy non-cell posters. No group of users has "flooded" this thread. De-anonymization is only appropriate in floods. This thread does not qualify for de-anonymization.
-------------------------------------------------------
> deanonymize this page please
This thread has a large number of unique, legitimate, non-proxy non-cell posters. No group of users has "flooded" this thread. De-anonymization is only appropriate in floods. This thread does not qualify for de-anonymization.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
didnt know they stack shit that
()
Date: June 26, 2015 01:26AM
Cary you remember when eesh threatened Chuck Hoffman with his guns several dozen times
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
monstrous vermin
()
Date: June 26, 2015 07:26AM
Cary's Greatest Shits
Posted by: henry winkler
Date: 06/26/2015 06:59AM
For a limited time! Order before it's "hidden"!
All your favorite Cary-isms on one affordable audio cassette, including the sublimely incoherent and ill-thought-out 2012 hit post "Sticky: Personal Attacks and Attempted Outing" :
Posted by: Cary ()
Date: June 28, 2012 05:02PM
"The ferocity of personal attacks and attempted "outing" has picked up considerably in the past few days. Some moderation (based on reports) has been performed every day this week, but it was obviously insufficient to stem the tide. I'm performing a full investigation now that will likely result in warnings and several bans.
I'm really just posting this (sticky) thread to reiterate:
PERSONAL ATTACKS INCLUDING "OUTING" ARE PROHIBITED ON FAIRFAX UNDERGROUND!"
With bonus posts by frequent collaborator "eesh" such as:
Re: eesh is using "extreme tracking"
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: November 19, 2014 10:37PM
"The code used in the private messages was intended originally for Gerrymanderer2, but since I saw Caan posting I thought I would include him in this. I used to dismiss Gerry as an idiot political poster, but since he has trolled me anonymously and under his name, I started to take an interest in him.
I do not know why the idiot that outed Radiophile thinks that Gerrymanderer2 is also the same person, but this is not true.
Gerry opened up my PM this morning, and his Chantilly IP showed up shortly thereafter. Searching the IP, his Android showed up with this phone number. Using Privacystar, we can see the owner's name clear as day."
Also, such cult favorites as "Otherwise Clairvoyant Topic"
Plus, the long out of print rarity "Anatomy of a Troll"
And, the power ballad classic "I've kept the account active in the faint hope the perpetrator will log in again from a real world identifiable IP"
And of course, "I DECLARE YOU A PUBLIC FIGURE!"
But wait, there's more! Post now and receive a free Fairfax Underground Football Phone as a free gift!
Post in the next 5 minutes and win a free 3am visit from local Henrico celebri-stalker eesh aka Mikey J Basl!
Call 1-800-MOSSBERG Now!
Visa MasterCard and Diners Club accepted
Posted by: henry winkler
Date: 06/26/2015 06:59AM
For a limited time! Order before it's "hidden"!
All your favorite Cary-isms on one affordable audio cassette, including the sublimely incoherent and ill-thought-out 2012 hit post "Sticky: Personal Attacks and Attempted Outing" :
Posted by: Cary ()
Date: June 28, 2012 05:02PM
"The ferocity of personal attacks and attempted "outing" has picked up considerably in the past few days. Some moderation (based on reports) has been performed every day this week, but it was obviously insufficient to stem the tide. I'm performing a full investigation now that will likely result in warnings and several bans.
I'm really just posting this (sticky) thread to reiterate:
PERSONAL ATTACKS INCLUDING "OUTING" ARE PROHIBITED ON FAIRFAX UNDERGROUND!"
With bonus posts by frequent collaborator "eesh" such as:
Re: eesh is using "extreme tracking"
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: November 19, 2014 10:37PM
"The code used in the private messages was intended originally for Gerrymanderer2, but since I saw Caan posting I thought I would include him in this. I used to dismiss Gerry as an idiot political poster, but since he has trolled me anonymously and under his name, I started to take an interest in him.
I do not know why the idiot that outed Radiophile thinks that Gerrymanderer2 is also the same person, but this is not true.
Gerry opened up my PM this morning, and his Chantilly IP showed up shortly thereafter. Searching the IP, his Android showed up with this phone number. Using Privacystar, we can see the owner's name clear as day."
Also, such cult favorites as "Otherwise Clairvoyant Topic"
Plus, the long out of print rarity "Anatomy of a Troll"
And, the power ballad classic "I've kept the account active in the faint hope the perpetrator will log in again from a real world identifiable IP"
And of course, "I DECLARE YOU A PUBLIC FIGURE!"
But wait, there's more! Post now and receive a free Fairfax Underground Football Phone as a free gift!
Post in the next 5 minutes and win a free 3am visit from local Henrico celebri-stalker eesh aka Mikey J Basl!
Call 1-800-MOSSBERG Now!
Visa MasterCard and Diners Club accepted
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
Toddler Stalker, P.I.
()
Date: June 29, 2015 11:40PM
Is toddler-stalking too "meta" for Cary's liking?
Or let's we should talk some more about the heinous act of the villainous DMV guy who unmasked the female threatenening toddler stalker.
Priorities
Or let's we should talk some more about the heinous act of the villainous DMV guy who unmasked the female threatenening toddler stalker.
Priorities
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
the toddler
()
Date: June 29, 2015 11:47PM
Rogue DMV employees who browse citizens' private data are a greater danger to everyone. That is a crime and if Cary has any info I hope he shares it.
Re: LaZee WebMaster's Guide® to Liability: SPECIAL REPORT! --- Federal Appeals Court finds "Failure to Warn" Liability for Webmaster --- Rejects Section 230 Defense
Posted by:
dirk bogarde
()
Date: July 22, 2015 03:31AM