WBCCI Board Lawsuit

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

From the Harvard Law Review (McSwain):

You need to cite stuff than is less than 10 years old, also see cda 230

I've litigated this area of law in Federal court this year, you're incorrect as to the way the 2nd circuit will act.

And this case will be in that circuit.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by Silvertwinkie

Given the fact you changed your username and email that is registered with WBCCI, rather than have me play middleman,

I did not know that an individual was limited to just one user name or e mail account. At this point I have 4 and use them as I want.

More importantly I would question how as a "none member" you even have access to my WBCCI e mail information. As a member of WBCCI I receaved a Cease and Desist letter from a Lawyer representing the Feckless Leadership for exercising my rights as a member for using such information. Lord knows what they will do in your case.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by wkerfoot

I find this discussion about the IBT officers very interesting. At the Hobo Rally this past February, I had a conversation with John Boutwell, the candidate for I3VP, about why he, as a sitting Region President, was chosen and not someone who was not a sitting president. He told me that none of the prior region officers was willing to step up. I am not sure what to read into this.

Bill

Bill, wasn't the Hobo Rally less attended by a large amount compared to previous years? How are the units doing as far as number of members in the area? Are any folding or merging? Even here in Michigan it is very difficult to find members to volunteer for the unit positions. This might make a good topic for discussion especially if those who are or have been officers post their experience with taking on a leadership position. Besides a smaller pool to choose from and possibly the economy keeping people at work or at home, I wonder if as you may have wondered if members would be reluctant to become yoked with the current board of trustees. It could not be an easy job if you are not content with the status quo. It would be great to hear from others on this. If anyone is interested in this further perhaps a new thread could be started. I am recalling the excellent letters of Phil Pons and Forest and others! Gathering them up together anew and following that direction would be interesting and informative.

[wkerfoot]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

Bill, wasn't the Hobo Rally less attended by a large amount compared to previous years? How are the units doing as far as number of members in the area? Are any folding or merging? Even here in Michigan it is very difficult to find members to volunteer for the unit positions. This might make a good topic for discussion especially if those who are or have been officers post their experience with taking on a leadership position. Besides a smaller pool to choose from and possibly the economy keeping people at work or at home, I wonder if as you may have wondered if members would be reluctant to become yoked with the current board of trustees. It could not be an easy job if you are not content with the status quo. It would be great to hear from others on this. If anyone is interested in this further perhaps a new thread could be started. I am recalling the excellent letters of Phil Pons and Forest and others!

There were about 90 units at the Hobo this year. I believe more that last year but certainly fewer than years past. The organizers seemed pleased with the turnout as it met their minimum. One of the evenings, they asked current and past unit officers to stand and most of the room stood. On another item, the Rose Parade Rally did meet the minimum number of units and will be held next year, as a Region 12 event. It will be limited to about 20 units.

Like other regions, there are units which are growing and some which are not. El Camino Real is a thriving unit and the other unit we belong to, South Coast, is also growing. The Central California Coast, previously Tri County, is growing after almost dissolving a couple of years ago. San Diego seems to be doing well and it is sponsoring the Region 12 rally this October, I don't know about any others.

Bill

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

It feels like folks are missing the forest for the trees. The WBCCI "forum" is just another symptom of a larger issue. By the way, moderation of a private forum--here or there--isn't censorship, at least not in a legally actionable way. From the Harvard Law Review (McSwain):

"Because the First Amendment acts as a shield against state — not private — conduct, private actors are generally free to censor speech with impunity.94"

Now, just because heavy-handed moderation is legal doesn't mean it's a bright idea. This isn't the era of rotary phone and the six-cent stamp. In the digital age, people (and data) flow around obstacles. If people can't write freely on the WBCCI forum, they'll find another venue (like here). In the long run, attempts to control and manipulate information almost always backfire.

As for the legal action, it seems clear that both on people sides have a personal investment in the outcome. This is one of the reasons we have lawyers, to act as dispassionate advocates. It's also one of the reasons I doubt the lawsuit will really accomplish what either side wants. Once something becomes personal, a legal action becomes about "winning" and "losing" rather than achieving the best solution for the greatest good.

Hamp, I think in this case the hard feelings came first and caused the behaviors. Many of us had already figured out we weren't on the IBT Xmas card list when we got banned, blocked, suspended, expelled, ignored, discriminated against, etc. I don't think any one who has been closer to this would expect litigation to cause love to rule supreme, especially in light of the type of extremes of deliberate malice waged. Considering the source we are adjusting our expectations. But as in every social awareness campaign, the reeducation must begin somewhere.

As far as forum censorship there is a difference between be nice and keep quiet. It is always frustrating when a thread one is involved in gets closed because some one else cannot control their responses. Just like in class, everyone suffers not just the individuals that acted out. However if one is invited to a debate of open discussion forum the premise most would like to expext is objectivity from mediation and moderate moderation. It's also a good rule of thumb to not do anything when you are out that you wouldn't do in your own home. So if something is outside the TOS at one forum it is dubious to use other forums and think one can act with less respect than you have for your own.

[Silvertwinkie]

Originally Posted by HowieE

I did not know that an individual was limited to just one user name or e mail account. At this point I have 4 and use them as I want.

More importantly I would question how as a "none member" you even have access to my WBCCI e mail information. As a member of WBCCI I receaved a Cease and Desist letter from a Lawyer representing the Feckless Leadership for exercising my rights as a member for using such information. Lord knows what they will do in your case.

Are you serious Howie? You asked for help. I looked into it on your behalf, based on your request several posts back, and was given the info that I shared with you. I received no specific detailed info on what email address or as you elude to addresses. I shared no real personal info and gave you a direction in which to proceed to gain the access you seek. Talk about shoot the messenger....I simply was assisting in getting you where you wanted to be (your lawsuit thread) because that's what I volunteered to do.

Yer a tough cookie to please. There is almost always some issue...almost to the point that you'll grasp at any straw, pay any price to find the negative-- so be it.

Anyway, the info has been delivered and clearly received. What you do with it, is entirely up to you at this point.

[joecolao]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

Joe yes he's a moderator, but not a WBCCI member.

and since the wbcci forum owner is banned here perhaps his sock puppet

So he governs members posts

Bob,
That is so interesting. I left the WBCCI forums some time ago because of the arrogant nature of the moderators who continually saw to it that those with "different" opinions were CENSORED.
I expressed my displeasure about the moderators CENSORSHIP of my fellow members in WBCCI. I said that I did not think I wanted to be a part of a forum that discouraged WBCCI members with different opinions.
The moderator was quick and happy to see me go!
I never looked back.
But, as a quiet observer I have seen his posts and often wondered if perhaps he had a "hidden agenda" because he seems to me to talk in riddles, you never really can understand where he is coming from.
By the way - I am probably the original Silvertwinkie it was my CB handle for years.

[Silvertwinkie]

Originally Posted by joecolao

Bob,
That is so interesting. I left the WBCCI forums some time ago because of the arrogant nature of the moderators who continually saw to it that those with "different" opinions were CENSORED.
I expressed my displeasure about the moderators CENSORSHIP of my fellow members in WBCCI. I said that I did not think I wanted to be a part of a forum that discouraged WBCCI members with different opinions.
The moderator was quick and happy to see me go!
I never looked back.
But, as a quiet observer I have seen his posts and often wondered if perhaps he had a "hidden agenda" because he seems to me to talk in riddles, you never really can understand where he is coming from.
By the way - I am probably the original Silvertwinkie it was my CB handle for years.

It's not a bad handle.

No hidden agendas on my end or according to some, my puppet master.

What would you specifically like to know pertaining to the topic at hand that I haven't been clear about? I'll do my best to respond in a non-riddle type way.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by rideair

How about we try this and maybe Silvertwinkie will help.

Some can write a clear concise “Thread Post” about how the Metro NY Unit has now signed on to be the principle plaintiff in the lawsuit and has committed $2,000.00 from the Units treasury in support of this action. One could include the list of reasons for this lawsuit from the defendwally.org website and state if there are other members or Unit leaders that feel/think the same way to please contact XXX person or the Metro NY Unit for more details.

I would make the post no more than three short paragraphs and include the list from defendwally.org at the end. No name calling and such, just clear facts.


This “post” can then be submitted to the powers at the forums website for the WBCCI for approval and comment.

How about we also try this. That same clear concise message can be sent by each of us to all of our friends and they in turn can send the message to their WBCCI friends and perhaps we will reach even more members that don't frequent the WBCCI forums. And too remind your friends and contacts to include those they know that do not have internet. This is an initative every one can have a share in. Being encouraged by the NY unit coming out in full support is a testament to perseverence and very encouraging. Getting entire units onboard is the way to catapult changes through this stranglehold of obstruction. Paul are you a good writer? The more messages and people working on this the better and the more informed the greater part of the general membership becomes. Let's not put all our eggs in one basket or forum. Much can be done. Telephoning, now that is something I had the pleasure of engaging in with others of WBCCI and something each member could consider. Start spreading the news...New York, New York!

YouTube - NEW YORK,NEW YORK- FRANK SINATRA

Hey are you boyz done oneupping each other? Let's get back on topic.

[Janet H]

Moderator hat on:

OK folks... just a reminder that this thread is about a lawsuit. Try to keep it on the rails please.

[LI Pets]

I'm done playing tag with him, I set Twink to ignore, suggest others do the same.

[joecolao]

Untrustworthy to me - means that there may be a level of deceit or not worthy of trust. I have never met the man. But, from by observations there often seemed to be an "antagonizing tone" or not forthcoming about having a different agenda.
I have my concerns with one's continued interest in a WBCCI members lawsuit. And, especially by someone who is apparently NOT a member of WBCCI and who happens to be a MODERATOR of WBCCI forums, a forum that clearly CENSORS the voices of WBCCI members. Especially those members that advance strategies for saving our club that differ with those ideas or lack of by the LEADERSHIP.
This is how I see it.
If I offended anyone in this exchange I apologize. I will not re-visit this topic again.
My interests are in doing what ever it is that I can do in saving WBCCI and if a FEDERAL LAWSUIT appears to be the best route - I wholeheartedly support it.

[Coloradobus]

Originally Posted by wheel interested

How about we also try this. That same clear concise message can be sent by each of us to all of our friends and they in turn can send the message to their WBCCI friends and perhaps we will reach even more members that don't frequent the WBCCI forums. And too remind your friends and contacts to include those they know that do not have internet. This is an initative every one can have a share in. Being encouraged by the NY unit coming out in full support is a testament to perseverence and very encouraging. Getting entire units onboard is the way to catapult changes through this stranglehold of obstruction. Paul are you a good writer? The more messages and people working on this the better and the more informed the greater part of the general membership becomes. Let's not put all our eggs in one basket or forum. Much can be done. Telephoning, now that is something I had the pleasure of engaging in with others of WBCCI and something each member could consider. Start spreading the news...New York, New York!

Wheelinterested::: EXCELLENT SUGGESTION, whenever such letter is drafted for the masses, please send, my finger is set-on "Reply All."

[pmclemore]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

I'm done playing tag with him, I set Twink to ignore, suggest others do the same.

Yeah, me too. I knew a guy like this in grade school. Push, push, push - then complain to the teacher when you pushed back.

Pat

[Ganglin]

Originally Posted by LI Pets

You need to cite stuff than is less than 10 years old, also see cda 230

I've litigated this area of law in Federal court this year, you're incorrect as to the way the 2nd circuit will act.

And this case will be in that circuit.

You've piqued my morbid professional curiosity - which is the main reason I follow this thread.

First I'll admit that I've not worked for a carrier that provides Cyber Liability for 5 years but, I fail to see how CDA 230 applies as it appears you meant it in reference to the previous post.

The apparently now "old" training that we had pretty much followed these basic definitions/thoughts on 230:

Congress, however, wanted sites to be able to preserve "family-friendly" content by policing their postings, and to have the option to respond intelligently to complaints -- by reading the relevant posting and then deciding whether to de-post it depending on whether it violated the site's policies.

Thus, § 230 of the CDA protects ISPs and online forums from undeserved liability due to third party actions. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia observed:

In recognition of the speed with which information may be disseminated and the near impossibility of regulating information content, Congress decided not to treat providers of interactive computer services like other information providers such as newspapers, magazines, or television and radio stations, all of which may be held liable for publishing or distributing obscene or defamatory material written or prepared by others.

230 as I understood it "primarily" protects sites from FAILING TO REMOVE but does not prevent them from do so. If that were not the case, then Airforums would not be able to delete posts they find objectionable - which they do all the time.

Not asking you to take the time to teach a class - if you could just point me in right direction it would be appreciated.....

[hampstead38]

Gary,

To the best of my knowledge, Bob isn't an attorney. I believe that when he says he's "litigated" a case, he means he was a party in the litigation, not the litigator. If I'm wrong, Bob, I apologize... but please forgive me if I require your C.V. and bar license information before I eat crow.

By the way, Gary, you are correct. From the EFF:

"By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service”. Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998)

Also from the EFF:

"Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 U.S.C. § 230 (United States Code: Title 47,230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material | LII / Legal Information Institute)) was passed as part of the much-maligned Communication Decency Act of 1996. Many aspects of the CDA were unconstitutional restrictions of freedom of speech, but this section (230) survived and has been a valuable defense for Internet intermediaries ever since."

Also from the EFF:

"Can my commenters sue me for editing or deleting their comments on my blog?

Generally no, if you are not the government. Section 230 protect a blog host from liability for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” This would include editing or deleting posts you consider objectionable, even if those posts would be protected by the First Amendment against government censorship."

There is a good faith element in the statute. Put simply, for Bob et al to have any legal recourse against the WBCCI, they would need to demonstrate mala fides, i.e., bad faith. It's easy to claim another party has acted in bad faith, but it is generally hard to prove. For example, let's say the moderators at the WBCCI forum delete Bob's post. The deletion is not evidence of bad faith. There would have to be a "smoking gun," something along the lines of emails (admissible) proving that the moderators had improper motives. In a private venue, deference is given to the publisher, not the writer. Of all of the possible legal claims against the WBCCI, I think how they run their forum is probably the weakest.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

Gary,

To the best of my knowledge, Bob isn't an attorney. I believe that when he says he's "litigated" a case, he means he was a party in the litigation, not the litigator. If I'm wrong, Bob, I apologize... but please forgive me if I require your C.V. and bar license information before I eat crow.

You correct and incorrect

Of all of the possible legal claims against the WBCCI, I think how they run their forum is probably the weakest.

Weakest no. It is well documented by one of the plaintiffs, but I will not discuss the details due to the pending litigation on that point.

Courts in the United States have upheld Section 230 immunity in a variety of factual contexts and on numerous legal theories.
However, Plaintiffs can successfully set aside CDA 230 Immunity in cases that allege that a website is an "Information/Internet Content Provider," or "Information/Internet Content Facilitator" with respect to the information at issue…..has reason to know, or anticipate, that at least some of the postings on their website are defamatory, false, anonymous, annoying, or harassing in nature, then they will be considered a co-author of the defamatory, false, anonymous, annoying, or harassing postings, and just as liable as the original poster, losing their CDA 230 immunity completely, and be subject to full monetary, legal, and equitable damages by an aggrieved party.

This also goes for website owners who edit even slightly, or alter the defamatory, false, anonymous, annoying, or harassing material by purposely indexing the postings to search engines, or in some way altering the keywords or metatags on those postings to boost their search engine visibility, because they then become "co-authors" or "facilitators" of those defamatory, annoying, harassing, threatening, or anonymous website postings, and can not claim that they are merely providers of an internet service that is immunized by CDA 230.

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com

MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com


there are other better cases but the WBCCI lawyers R following this thread ,

but they can use WestLaw as well as myself.


IMO the IBT must be buzzing like crazy knowing that the lawsuit is not a threat, they must be in the holy s#$% mode.


They also have Leo's appeal coming up the beginning of June.
My guess is they don't want him at the rally so a decision will be sent afterwards.



With the Complaint hopefully being filed/served long before the International the end of June.
I can't imagine the attendees will be talking about anything other than this litigation.


Too bad the feckless committee that selects the site locations doesn't realize where the center of the US is.

[Lily&Me]

I think, Bob, that you are underestimating them by thinking they are at all fearful or intimidated in any way.

Also, you continue to telegraph the supposed strategy here...........incredible, IMO.

Maggie

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by Coloradobus

Wheelinterested::: EXCELLENT SUGGESTION, whenever such letter is drafted for the masses, please send, my finger is set-on "Reply All."

Super! I am looking for an e-mail now if there is one already drafted, or I am hoping someone may draft one here. I will see to it that that trigger finger of yours doesn't go unexercised. We don't want any wasted energy.

[LI Pets]

Originally Posted by doug&maggie

I think, Bob, that you are underestimating them by thinking they are at all fearful or intimidated in any way.

Intimated no!

They R very concerned, they would be remiss if they weren't.

Any defendant facing a Federal Court action is.

The reality will sink in real quick when the process server knocks.

.