Anti-H1b WebSites forced to shutdown
Submitted by debug on Tue, 12/29/2009 - 01:28
Computer Week has done a good job on how Anti-H1b websites are being forced to shut down.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court_orders_three_H_1B_s...
I don't know how that judge justifies that
but I don't know the details of the case either, but how can a website be responsible, especially a blog with comments, what some commenter said?
Pretty bizarre and of course these companies just want all of the protests to be silenced, which makes it even more suspect.
If there's a 1st amendment
If there's a 1st amendment issue in this case it may be important to other websites (like this one) to see this weblink regarding SLAPP suits
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california
that's CA
the case is in NJ but I don't know how someone can shut down 3 websites when as far as I know it should have been removal of confidential info, yet if that person wants to post their horror story online, obviously they could hit the comments on over 1000 websites...so is the judge going to shut down all of them including major jobs boards, slashdot, online magazines?
I don't know how that's justified when a website isn't responsible for other people's comments as far as I know.
If the lawsuit was in CA, it
If the lawsuit was in CA, it would be a done deal, the plaintiff will loose, since CA has anti-SLAPP laws. In fact, after Jan 2009, if the plaintiff looses all costs for legal defense will have to be paid by the plaintiff.
The lawsuit was triggered by a posting in www.endh1b.com.
If you read this, that entry in www.endh1b.com just redirected to the original blog posting in another website.
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/
I saw the story
It's on Vdare and a host of very large sites, with large attorneys and large journalism departments....so trying to attack some small potatoes guy ....let's see them try to shut down the Internets and major news press site now...
cause that's where the story went.
Click onto the right-hand side for the NJ stuff, here's the link
I put the CA stuff up because you never know if the Judge will go after Computerworld, whose reporter covered the story, and Economic Populist is apparently a CA-based site so I feel a bit freer to post here...
Anti-SLAPP Law In NJ
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-new-jersey
'TunnelRat' could possibly file a
Malicious Use of Process Claim in New Jersey.
this site is not
the economic populist. This site is noslaves.com
on posting here
we should be safe. There are site rules, privacy rules and we are not responsible for comments, anyone can register and comment.
I might make a disclaimer a little more explicit on this one.
This is supposedly over some employee posting a contract in a comment.
New Jersey does not have an anti-slapp statute.
However, the NJ courts have allowed victims of slapp suits to recover legal fees.
"The present struggle between the South and North is, therefore, nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labour ... It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other." ~Karl Marx
made it to slashdot
here and I guess it's also all over the job boards comments...
Not a first amendment case...
First Amendment cases, per se, are cases of first impression, meaning that it's an issue that the courts have not previously considered.
This is not such a case. It is long and well established that absent extraordinary circumstances, "equity will not enjoin libel."
The quoted words mean that where reputation is the thing at issue, a libeler cannot be ordered to be silenced by the court. Yet this judge did it anyway, most likely knowing full well that it was wrong. The judge also knew that his court had no power over the non-party recipients of the order.
However, there is a loophole. Most non-parties will merely comply as the path of least resistance. The presence of the order pretty much indemnifies them from being sued for complying with it, even if it had no legal force. Knowing this, and by making the deadline unreasonably short for compliance (which at the same time denied the due process right to contest it), the judge would get what he wanted even though the law would not back him up. He would get Tunnel Rat's identity (as would the plaintiff), and he would get the site shut down.
Going back to equity enjoining libel, the judge went far beyond enjoining the libel. Having the particularly described offensive material removed would satisfy the meaning of enjoining the libel. Here, the judge went so far a to silence the speaker completely, with respect to not only the libel but virtually everything.
That is way over the top, and is repugnant to the First Amendment (but then so is enjoining the libel itself).
"The present struggle between the South and North is, therefore, nothing but a struggle between two social systems, the system of slavery and the system of free labour ... It can only be ended by the victory of one system or the other." ~Karl Marx