Jump to content

Talk:Barrett v. Rosenthal: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ilena (talk | contribs)
1,128 edits
mNo edit summary
Line 150: Line 150:


:::: I understand, and certainly won't post it again, even though it doesn't contain any hate speech. No problemo. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
:::: I understand, and certainly won't post it again, even though it doesn't contain any hate speech. No problemo. -- [[User:Fyslee|Fyslee]] 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

:::::I disagree that my links are anymore "vanity links" than quackwatch.com or the probably illegal operation of ncahf.org and any of millions of webpages linked to Wikipedia. I have been under attack by these losing plaintiffs for 6 years, and since the final Supreme Court of California ruling against them, their actions are een more egregious. The entire webring that Paul Lee operates is filled with Barrett's attacks on scientists and physicians that they hate and try to destroy. Mr. Lee is profoundly inaccurate as to who I am and why I have devoted 11 years of my life to raising awareness to the dangers of breast implants and the dangers of the PR teams paid by the breast implant, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Paul Lee may call it a 'smear' to be linked to Stephen Barrett, but it is a fact. For several years, he was the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud List and his webring links all of Barrett's questionable sites together which promote each other. He was also a member of the now removed "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes" which provided Smear Campaigns via blogs and usenet of people Barrett and the other losing plaintiffs were suing. Mr. Lee and Barrett were on that list together for 6 years (up until last week.)[http://web.archive.org/web/20050205050827/http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm] Mr. Lee removed every link I have made on Wikipedia, filled my talk pages with the same nonsense he wrote above, and it feels exactly like stalking. He even interfered in my personal talk page. To Jance, I do definitely believe it was Terry Polevoy who posted under drpolevoy yesterday. He has repeated the same things on usenet and the healthfraud list and follows me wherever I post. [[User:Ilena|Ilena]] 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:06, 2 January 2007

  1. Initial archive

Moving info from Stephen Barrett to here

I think most of this edit should be incorportated here instead: [1]--Ronz 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Or at least the verifiable facts outside of Barrett should be included here rather than on the Barrett article. The Polevoy issue is irrelevant on the Barrett article, but here it makes complete sense. Levine2112 22:43, 11 ]December 2006 (UTC)
I think the recent edits are enough. Great work, Jance. --Ronz 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I removed it. As it stands, this article is a totally factual, unslanted discussion of this case., Please see my last edit - I removed an unnecessary quote about Barret's claims, and made it a single sentence.Jance 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Ronz 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On to secondary sources

Because this article documents a recent event, there are really no secondary sources available of high-quality to use as references. Hopefully in the coming months some will appear, probably in legal reviews, which we can use to strengthen the article. As it stands now, the article's reliance on primary sources for a current event is not a problem, but that needs to change as time passes. The secondary sources will also allow the article to be expanded with notable evaluations of the case. --Ronz 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Although secondary sources would not be required here, they certainly would add to the discussion. I can't imagine there will not be more written about this case as time goes on, since it is the only case to date that interprets the meaning of "user" in the federal statute.. Jance 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about an Los Angeles Times article? Would that qualify? Ilena 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but unless it includes some analysis from lawyers, it's not going to give us much to work with. Do you have the ref handy? --Ronz 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying - what I'm looking forward to is some in-depth analysis from legal experts. Such reference will give us interpretations to include in the article. Newspaper's will never give such in-depth coverage, and they're more likely to publish a slightly modified press release or a superficial report instead. --Ronz 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect there will soon be quite a bit about this case, because it is the first to interpret Section 230 wrt a 'user'. Jance 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) A s*load of blogs have picked it up, predictably. The Mercury News [2],[reply]

Findlaw article on it [3]

This sounds interesting, on Berkeley website: Brief of Amicus Curiae on behalf of law professors with expertise in Internet law before the California Supreme court in Barrett v. Rosenthal, No. S122953, November 22, 2004 (2004)

Howard Kurz @ WAPO Jance 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and POV

At issue was NOT an email sent by Bolen. At issue was a single legal point: Was Rosenthal exempt under Section 230 for liability for republication of potentially defamatory statements. To add any of the section I just deleted is POV and a terrible summary of the notability of this case. Jance 06:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements weren't "potentially defamatory", they were described by the court simply as "defamatory". The central question of the case was whether the defendants were liable for republication of those statements so the statments themselves are clearly the central issue. --Curtis Bledsoe 18:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis, the court ruled they were not defamatory - have you actually read the ruling? ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The way Curtis had written it read like all the statements were described by the court as defamatory. This is simply untrue, as a plain reading of the case will show. In fact, that is why I changed it. The one statement against Poloevy was different. This was stated in the article properly (by me). Curtis, I don't think you understand the meaning of defamation. It is not "nice" to call someone a Nazi, thug, etc etc In fact, it is downright vicious. It is not ordinarily defamation - it is hyperbole. It is an opinion. The courts went to some length to explaint this.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read the ruling. That's how I know that the court described the statements as defamatory but that the people who republished them weren't liable because they were not the original authors of the defamatory material. If you'll look at the bottom of "page 3" of the ruling, you'll see where the court describes Bolen's statements as "defamatory". I'm not how you can argue that calling someone a "Nazi" when they're not actually a Nazi isn't defamatory unless you want to try to argue that Bolen's work was some sort of humor or satire. Where's the humor in calling someone "professionally incompetent" or "emotionally disturbed", "thug" or "bully" when there's no evidence to support such a claim? Even in concurring with the court's decision, Justice Moreno criticized Rosenthal for falling "considerably short of the type of investigation a reasonable person would undertake before republishing potentially defamatory material". --Curtis Bledsoe 19:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point being? Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal beliefs, not is it a soapbox for your political beliefs or personal interpretations of the case. Please see the neutral point of view policy for how you should approach this article, and read the policy on conflict of interest, since your edits and opinions seem to imply one exists. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, he still is incorrect. The court was repeating what the complaint said. This court said, and I quote, "Plaintiffs argue that Barrett, as well as Polevoy, was defamed in the Bolen article. We need not address this claim, given our conclusion that Rosenthal is immune from liability under section 230. " The state supreme court did not call any statement defamatory. The only statement that seemed to be questionable as to whether it was defamatory, based on lower court rulings, was the one about stalking. The court there "determined that the only actionable statement appeared in an article Rosenthal received via e-mail from her codefendant Tim Bolen. This article, subtitled “Opinion by Tim Bolen,” accused Dr. Polevoy of stalking a Canadian radio producer." And depending on whether Polevoy was deemed a (limiited)public or private figure, the standard would be either 'malice' (reckless disregard for the truth or knowledge of falisty) or negligence. This article does not state that sentence was not defamatory. The court would not call any statement defamatory (or not defamatory) if that question was not before the court. If it were dicta, it would be couched in an explanation. Here, the court was merely repeating from a complaint.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The fact remains that the court described the statements as defamatory and the concurring justice criticized Rosenthal for not taking reasonable precautions to validate the claims made by Bolen. My personal opinions don't enter into this. I'm not sure how you conclude that I'm trying to get up on a soapbox but I'm also not sure it matters. --Curtis Bledsoe 21:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NO, that is not the fact, Curtis. ANd where did you get this from Moreno's concurrence? That is not what he is saying. His concurrence addresses "conspiracy" and why there is not a case for it.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been continually reverting anyone who edits the article to your preferred version. This is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, and I would ask you to avoid it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis' POV is misleading. Here is the exact quote. "It also may well be true that Rosenthal’s investigation of Dr. Polevoy’s incident with McPhee fell considerably short of the type of investigation a reasonable person would undertake before republishing potentially defamatory material, inasmuch as she did not contact the appropriate law enforcement authorities to corroborate McPhee’s story. But these facts are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy to defame Dr. Polevoy, i.e., a preconceived plan and unity of design and purpose on the part of Rosenthal and Bolen to defame."
From the Opinion, (and I have been unable to get this to stay on this page), "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." (page 39, final words of the Opinion) [4] Further, for the purposes of this case, it was regarding one statement only about Terry Polevoy and the 'stalking' comment was reposted.
This statement is misleading: The question before the court was not whether Bolen's statements were accurate; there was no evidence that they were. The question was whether Rosenthal was legally liable for rebroadcasting them. It was regarding one statement only ... the stalking statement. Ilena 21:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convenient Section Break

Unfortunately, Ilena Rosenthal continues to defame me personally on her own web sites, and she doesn't just repeat the defamatory statements of others. She claims that she earned a victory before the Supreme Court, but there is no victory when somebody continues to hide out in Costa Rica far away from any previous court judgments against her. Claims made in the original lawsuit that involved Hulda Clark and Tim Bolen may also add Ms. Rosenthal for initiating her own defamatory statements on her own web sites, and by continuing to post these remarks on Usenet over the last 6 years. We can prove that she actually did conspire to defame me personally and professionally. The original lawsuit against Tim Bolen and Hulda Clark and up to 100 other people is still before the courts and will be heard. --Drpolevoy 23:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drpolevoy, that is not true here, in this discussion. I hope you are able to prove your statements about her attempting to escape previous judgments, because they are factual statements that, if false, may be deemed defamatory and actionable. Drpolevoy, the only defendant that brought the appeal that is this case is Ilena Rosenthal. Your discussion about all the rest is irrelevant to this case. I am not defending Ilena here, but I am trying to state what this case is about. All other commentary is irrelevant to this discussion.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, I suppose it is okay for Ilena Rosenthal to post any bloody thing that she wants on this Wikipedia site. Nobody is attacking individuals here because of their beliefs or views of world politics. I am attempting to provide your readers with factual information about the present lawsuit before the courts in California that will be heard shortly. Again, if Rosenthal continues to post defamatory statements on her own blogs, web sites and Usenet, then she can be included in any future legal actions. That is a legal opinion about the facts in the case. Tim Bolen and Hulda Clark will face the music very soon, and this web page will be the perfect place to keep up to date. Drpolevoy 03:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is the legal opinion of one court - the CA Supreme Court. There is only one question before this court - was Rosenthal immune from liability for the statement about stalking? That really is it.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) After re-reading this, I want to point out that otehr current or future legal actions are not the subject of this article.Jance 20:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Terry Polevoy. Indeed, in a unanimous court decision,in a case before the Supreme Court of California decided November 20, 2006 now called Barrett Vs Rosenthal, I won and you lost. [5] I know it is not pleasant for you right now. The Remittitur was issued on 12/21/2006. [6]. This quote might be making you uncomfortable. Costs, if any, shall be awarded by the Court of Appeal. I noticed on Usenet you claimed I was in "exile" ... this may be a fantasy of yours. I travel freely in this world. Your continual obsession (several years now) about my marriage and my physical whereabouts concerns me, my family, my friends, and my legal team enormously. Thank you for giving me a good opportunity to post the reference to this update to this case. Ilena 17:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all of this extraneous personal dispute is not relevant here.Jance 18:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My humble apologies. Would it be possible to have the information on the Remittitur posted on this page?[[7]?Sending jungle New Years Greetings of health and healing to all. Ilena 19:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. I meant only that it was not pertinent to the writing of this article. I agree that this is harassment. Jance 19:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Statement

  1. There is no source for the "Statements" section.
  2. The section is now a lede which misrepresents the case. It is not correct, legally or factually. At issue is not an email Bolen sent. At issue was whether or not Section 230 provided immunity, for Rosenthal's republication of a statement made by Bolen, as against Polvenoy. This statement was an accusation that Polvenoy stalked a radio host. None of the other verbiage now in this section is correct.
  3. All other statements were adjudicated by more than one court to be non-defamatory. I will add that this does not mean the statements were nice or non-inflammatory. It does mean that they were not legally defamatory. Hyperbole and opinion are never defamatory, which is evidently something not understood here.
  4. The state supreme court did not address any statement as against Barrett. This case is Barrett v. Rosenthal and is the state supreme court case.
  5. Even Barrett's attorney evidently did not evidently understand the meaning of "actual malice" in the context of defamation - although, I will point out that this is very basic to an understanding of defamation. Curtis does not understand the meaning of libel, or what was going on here. One does not have to condone inflammatory statements to understand that hyperbole is not libel. The court explained this at length. The court explained that the tone of the material is irrelevant to libel. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right for a reason.Jance 21:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a tiny correction: At issue was a republication by Rosenthal of statements made by Bolen, ...it was regarding just one statement. Thanks very much. Ilena 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and I changed it. This article is about a state supreme court case. Only one statement is at issue in this case, and that is the one you mention. The introductory paragraph as written is factually incorrect, and misleading. Jance 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through this, I added a POV tag back to the article. --Ronz 23:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ronz. It was badly misstated, and POV. I am not sure if it still isnt, so leaving the tag is probably a good thing.Jance 19:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two very good accounts of this case ... one from Law.com

These are just two (of over 300 Googleable articles)... Perspective: How Web providers dodged a big legal bullet and Califiornia Supreme Court Shields Web Republishers. This is far bigger than me ... it affects millions of users, bloggers, Wikipedia, ISP's etc. Ilena 22:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly why the "Statement" section leading into this is utterly inappropriate.Jance 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of changes

I made a couple of changes to the more egregious errors. The court did not declare the statements defamatory. In fact, it was just the contrary. Most of the statements that Rosenthal republished were decleared by the court to be "hyperbole" and "opinion", therefore non-defamatory.

I could not let this stand. It is not right. One cannot rewrite history, and the law. Also, I might point out that "legally liable" is redundant.Jance 01:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant

Can anyone tell me the purpose of the section "Statements.." ? The court's findings are stated in subsequent sections. The introductory section is the brief statement of the case. So what is the purpose of the "Statements" section, except to show how inflammatory some of the statements were? Also, whoever added that provided no reference. It is not a true statement to say the courts called these statements defamatory. In fact, just the opposite is the case. And "truth" or "falisty" was never an issue, because the statements were opinion. Will someone please stop with the soapboxes? And I say that about either side. Jance 01:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent E-mail

Should we have a link to the e-mail that Ilena Rosenthal reposted? This is the email that started her involvement in this whole sordid affair. Interested readers could click on a link to read it for themselves. http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/sleazy.htm Emilydcksn 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New coverage

More coverage of the subject (obviously not for the article, but for your enlightenment and enjoyment):

-- Fyslee 13:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee, I am surprised you would post this. Jance 18:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is the irony of free speech. If you allow one to speak freely, you must allow all the same freedom, even if you don't want to hear what they have to say. Barrett and Rosenthal are two opposite ends of the same spectrum. Either we have to hear both, or we hear neither. The world would certainly be a friendlier place with neither, but then someone else would likely just take their places. The question is, should an encyclopedia be a place where these grievances are aired. ;) --Dematt 18:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For sysops: Fyslee (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) • Applicable case
  • I'm not surprised at all. It was posted on the Healthfraud List this morning David Gorski (Orac, another Rag-tag Posse member) and being circulated by the losing plaintiffs team.It is filled with inaccuracies and downright lies and libel. I have added links to various araticles and comments here. Ilena 18:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well well! Maybe I should read it myself. I'm not surprised by Ilena's reaction though. She can dish it out, but..... Well the link is deleted, and I have no problem with that. -- Fyslee 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is censorship. There are hundreds of references to Barrett being circulated throughout Wikipedia ... and I am censored from having any. I have a legal non profit corporation Humantics Foundation. (NCAHF is very probably not legal) yet they are used as 'reliable sources' and I am not allowed any links. I do not believe this is the Wiki way. I have been a reliable source for breast implant information for 11 years, recently quoted in Wired, MyDNA, WebMD, Glamour Magazine, etc. Yet here, I am outnumbered by Barrett and Polevoy's publicists. Ilena 18:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for intervention. The link is gone and I have no further interest in it. If I am to face any censure, then Ilena should face even more, as she has constantly spammed Wikipedia with links to her own site, which are filled with hate speech, personal attacks, and untruths. We have deleted them and hope she will learn not to post more links to her own sites. They were vanity links -- a practice forbidden here -- and they are filled with hate speech, an unethical practice which has gotten her into trouble. All her troubles in the courts and on the internet could have been avoided if she didn't constantly attack others. If her sites were purely information about breast implant issues, then they might conceivably be useful as resources here, as long as she does't post them herself, but that is not the case. -- Fyslee 19:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fight fire with water, not more fire. Your link posting only threw more fuel on the fire, and only further contributed to an already negative environment surrounding the article. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, and certainly won't post it again, even though it doesn't contain any hate speech. No problemo. -- Fyslee 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that my links are anymore "vanity links" than quackwatch.com or the probably illegal operation of ncahf.org and any of millions of webpages linked to Wikipedia. I have been under attack by these losing plaintiffs for 6 years, and since the final Supreme Court of California ruling against them, their actions are een more egregious. The entire webring that Paul Lee operates is filled with Barrett's attacks on scientists and physicians that they hate and try to destroy. Mr. Lee is profoundly inaccurate as to who I am and why I have devoted 11 years of my life to raising awareness to the dangers of breast implants and the dangers of the PR teams paid by the breast implant, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Paul Lee may call it a 'smear' to be linked to Stephen Barrett, but it is a fact. For several years, he was the Assistant Listmaster for the Healthfraud List and his webring links all of Barrett's questionable sites together which promote each other. He was also a member of the now removed "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-oil Vigilantes" which provided Smear Campaigns via blogs and usenet of people Barrett and the other losing plaintiffs were suing. Mr. Lee and Barrett were on that list together for 6 years (up until last week.)[9] Mr. Lee removed every link I have made on Wikipedia, filled my talk pages with the same nonsense he wrote above, and it feels exactly like stalking. He even interfered in my personal talk page. To Jance, I do definitely believe it was Terry Polevoy who posted under drpolevoy yesterday. He has repeated the same things on usenet and the healthfraud list and follows me wherever I post. Ilena 21:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrett_v._Rosenthal&oldid=98014650"