FC: New Jersey editor's brother replies to Politech post re: lawsuit

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[There now are two lawsuits: One filed by censorhappy local politicians who 
can't stand criticism against Stephen Moldow, who edits the Eye on Emerson 
site. The second is what Stephen filed against these aggrieved politicos -- 
and some anonymous posters -- in response. I sympathize with Stephen's 
plight, but I think suing people who patronize your publication's 
discussion forums is entirely bad form. Background at: 
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02480.html --Declan]

**********

From: Jmoldow () aol com
Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.97])
          by smtp.well.com (8.8.5/8.8.4) with ESMTP
          id NAA00149 for <declan () well com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2001 13:58:51 
-0700 (PDT)
Received: from Jmoldow () aol com
        by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id z.16d.80613b (3968);
        Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <16d.80613b.28ca8f02 () aol com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:58:42 EDT
Subject: Reply to Politech:  NJ editor sues anonymous posters for 
disrupting site
To: declan () well com, Politech () politechbot com
CC: rick () ravin com, PLEVY () citizen org, aalaya () starledger com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="part1_16d.80613b.28ca8f02_boundary"

My posting/ reply will be extremely relevant, and for Politech not to give 
equal weight (with it's own headline/ link) would be unfair, and since 
we're dealing with First Amendment / Free Speech issues, here, for you not 
to post my reply would be grossly unfair, and hypocritical.

Jim Moldow

**********

From: Jmoldow () aol com
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 16:53:42 EDT
Subject: REPLY TO "New Jersey editor sues anonymous posters for disrupting 
site"
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
CC: rick () ravin com, PLEVY () citizen org, aalaya () starledger com

Dear Politech,

I'm writing in response to Paul Levy's posting, "New Jersey editor sues
anonymous posters for disrupting site."

First, I'm glad that Mr. Levy admits that it was Government officials who
brought suit against my brother, Stephen Moldow, webmaster of
<http://www.geocities.com/emersoneye>www.geocities.com/emersoneye. The 
point is that two elected officials, the
husband of the Council President (who is the Chair of the Reform Party) and a
council candidate filed suit in an attempt to force him to shut the community
website down after public opinions turned against them this past January.
They did not sue prior to that when the community supported their policies,
nor did they complain over other postings which might have criticized their
opponents.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, well over a dozen states
have passed ANTI-SLAPP legislation to protect defendants against frivolous
lawsuits filed by elected or governing officials.  New Jersey has not passed
such a law, but what is curious is that we have proposed legislation (Senate
bill S-2175), and one of the litigants is politically aligned with this
particular Senator.  So, it's interesting to note that he wrote me about the
bill, but indicated my brother would not be afforded protection under the
ANTI-SLAPP law (if passed) since the suit was filed by private individuals.
So, why does Mr. Levy bash my brother and his attorney's legal strategy when
he's being victimized here?  Who is protecting his constitutional rights?

From a quick cursory glance, Mr. Levy, who has filed an Amicus Brief with the
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Docket No.
BER-L-6214-01 - Civil Action on behalf of the 60 anonymous "Jane and John
Does," offers his legal opinions with regards to the merits of my brother's
answer and counter-complaint.  His legal comments/criticism is unfair to my
brother, who could be perceived as a "pawn" in both a local political battle,
but in a much larger area with regard to the Internet and Free Speech issues.


The defendant/ webmaster is embroiled in a Free Speech and First Amendment
issue, but it's not his objective to be a martyr or "flag-bearer," nor run up
legal fees which may approach over six figures in the long run.  For what, to
protect the community bulletin board?  His objective was open government, so
at he setup the site as a hobby and as a community service (providing
minutes, local web links, budget information, real estate data, test scores,
etc.)

If the legal scholars out there don't support his position, then walk a mile
in his shoes.  Or step up to the plate and offer your services - PRO BONO -
as Mr. Levy has to protect the rights of John and Jane Doe.  Again, let's
suppose the alleged slanderous emails were posted by the plaintiffs, then
he's simply a tool for those who DON'T SUPPORT FREE SPEECH.  Public Citizen
could have offered to represent both the webmaster and anonymous posters to
the site, yet they only offered to protect the rights of the 60 posters.  In
the real world, who would not consider the fact that perhaps the alleged
slanderous, defamatory postings were not sent by the plaintiffs, who maybe
wanted to coerce the defendant into closing his community website and
bulletin board down?

So, let's not judge Mr. Moldow so harshly without comprehending the big
picture here.  And, would you personally mortgage your financial future, and
your children's college funds, to fight a legal battle which has the makings
of a national "test case?"  Mr. Levy has no understanding of the big picture
regarding the website's history, the cast of characters, the political
issues, the level of community support for the website (and the webmaster),
etc. The vile postings, the implied threats received by the webmaster, the
political pressure, etc.   Instead, he feels the need to "attack" the
webmaster and his attorney for their legal strategy.  This is uncalled for,
and hurtful, and is a direct attack on weakening his defense position.  So,
let's not be so hypocritical and judgmental of their position, unless you
want to FUND his legal defense fund.

Additionally, members of the public have not been allowed to discuss issues
opening at Emerson Borough Council meetings.  So, the very politicians who
filed suit to "expose" the identities of the anonymous 60 posters to the Eye
on Emerson website, hid behind their positions as elected officials, and
silence the First Amendment rights of the public to exercise their
unalienable rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Shame on Mr. Levy, for his harsh criticism.

Jim Moldow
Hillsdale, NJ

**********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------