Atty Charles Novins Seeks Changes In Law to Protect Innocents From
Internet Vandals

Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him. The perpetrators
posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
lies. Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.

Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
in Ocean County, New Jersey,

Of course, the ability to post anonymously to the internet in such a
way that it is impossible to be traced is now trivially easy, so it is
likely further libel will appear. The only way this will ever be
addressed is to hold the "publishers" - online services ranging from
Google all the way down to bedroom-based chat-room providers -
responsible, just as was done in the days of print publishing.

The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm. It
immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
essentially amounts to stealing.

Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
law is changed. The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
of recourse.

Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
Trade Commission prosecutions. But it's a stretch, legally. Some
balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
a vehicle for justice.

The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
same way. Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
providing information about some perpetrators. It's a serious uphill
battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.

These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
reporting of this matter here.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:19:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Albert Ekman got double secret probation
for writing:

Atty Charles Novins Seeks Changes

69.253.107.178

Too bad Comcast uses sticky IP on their DHCP.

Explain the Diversity rule as it applies to you case, Chuck:

On 2009-12-30, Albert Ekman wrote:
Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him. The perpetrators
posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
lies. Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.

Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
in Ocean County, New Jersey,

He also appears to have friends who are spammers.

The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm. It
immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
essentially amounts to stealing.

typical right-tard knee-jerk-off "it's stealing"

Bull****.

Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
law is changed.

Then the guy is an idiot. A law change is most unlikely to give him
redress against past wrongs.

The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
of recourse.

Insanity apparently.

Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
Trade Commission prosecutions. But it's a stretch, legally. Some
balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
a vehicle for justice.

sounds like he doesn't understand the internet.

The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
same way. Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
providing information about some perpetrators. It's a serious uphill
battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.

These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
reporting of this matter here.

I don't recall reading it, but anonymous posts are worth about as
much as anonymous IOUs. (It was 5 months ago, someone is a little slow!)

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

In article ,
Albert Ekman wrote:
Atty Charles Novins Seeks Changes In Law to Protect Innocents From
Internet Vandals

Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him. The perpetrators
posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
lies. Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.

Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
in Ocean County, New Jersey,

Of course, the ability to post anonymously to the internet in such a
way that it is impossible to be traced is now trivially easy, so it is
likely further libel will appear. The only way this will ever be
addressed is to hold the "publishers" - online services ranging from
Google all the way down to bedroom-based chat-room providers -
responsible, just as was done in the days of print publishing.

The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm. It
immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
essentially amounts to stealing.

Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
law is changed. The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
of recourse.

Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
Trade Commission prosecutions. But it's a stretch, legally. Some
balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
a vehicle for justice.

The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
same way. Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
providing information about some perpetrators. It's a serious uphill
battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.

These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
reporting of this matter here.


BRAVO!!!


--
Master of Puppets Direct line and fax: 206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement ø Am I the only one with half a brain?

On Dec 29, 7:19*pm, Albert Ekman wrote:
Atty Charles Novins Seeks Changes In Law to Protect Innocents From
Internet Vandals

Charles Novins, Esq., has received apologies from several of the
anonymous internet thugs attempting to libel him. *The perpetrators
posted libelous musings about drug use and sex crimes, all outright
lies. *Rather than face legal prosecution, most have backed down.

Novins is a prominent attorney from Toms River, a "Jersey-shore" town
in Ocean County, New Jersey,

Of course, the ability to post anonymously to the internet in such a
way that it is impossible to be traced is now trivially easy, so it is
likely further libel will appear. *The only way this will ever be
addressed is to hold the "publishers" - online services ranging from
Google all the way down to bedroom-based chat-room providers -
responsible, just as was done in the days of print publishing.

The widely-despised "Communications Decency Act," a Clinton-era relic
meant to censor the internet, was mostly struck down by the Supreme
Court. It lives on in part, however, causing further harm. *It
immunizes the publisher of damaging defamation from responsibility for
spreading the lies, the fraud, and for businesses harmed, in what
essentially amounts to stealing.

Novins hopes the damage that was caused to him can be remedied if the
law is changed. *The defamation in his case was so egregious - and so
utterly false - that he hopes his case can serve as an example of what
happens when the law leaves an injured party without any legal means
of recourse.

Until the law is changed or repealed, the focus has been on Federal
Trade Commission prosecutions. *But it's a stretch, legally. *Some
balance will need to be eventually made so that the internet can
freely thrive, while at the same time, victims of defamation can have
a vehicle for justice.

The Novins firm is becoming a clearinghouse for others damaged in the
same way. *Several other victims have called Novins, seeking
information as to the laws, the technology, and in some cases,
providing information about some perpetrators. *It's a serious uphill
battle to alter federal laws, but Novins, a 23-year practitioner, has
several times in the past been instrumental in changing laws.

These newsgroups listed in the header were among the many where the
original libel of Novins (and others) was posted, thus the general
reporting of this matter here.

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
responsible? Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
tracking capability. Guess that won't work all the time either, since
there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
brings that truth forward should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention? Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Robert Macy got double secret probation for
writing:

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
responsible? Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
tracking capability. Guess that won't work all the time either, since
there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
brings that truth forward should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention? Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.


How about we do it the easy way:

1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
upsets them, leave the interwebs.

2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
moderated web board.

3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, ****
themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.

The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

In article ,
Aratzio wrote:
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Robert Macy got double secret probation for
writing:

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
responsible? Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
tracking capability. Guess that won't work all the time either, since
there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
brings that truth forward should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention? Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.


How about we do it the easy way:

1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
upsets them, leave the interwebs.

2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
moderated web board.

3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, ****
themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.

The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.


Although no sign of Kebbie Cannon for miles.

--
Master of Puppets Direct line and fax: 206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement ø Am I the only one with half a brain?

In article ,
\"The Great One\" wrote:

"Aratzio" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Robert Macy got double secret probation for
writing:

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
responsible? Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
tracking capability. Guess that won't work all the time either, since
there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
brings that truth forward should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention? Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.


How about we do it the easy way:

1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
upsets them, leave the interwebs.

2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
moderated web board.

3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, ****
themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.

The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

That surely includes "you" leaving as you're almost as dumb as "Fat-Boi" Plow !!

No body could be dumber that the "Twinkie-Boi" !!
--
HJ


I dunno, it's lookin' neck and neck between him and Fudd Hall.
--
Master of Puppets Direct line and fax: 206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement ø Am I the only one with half a brain?

"Mad as a Box of Frogs" wrote in message ...
In article ,
\"The Great One\" wrote:

"Aratzio" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Robert Macy got double secret probation for
writing:

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS
responsible? Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete
tracking capability. Guess that won't work all the time either, since
there are situations where truth should surface and the person who
brings that truth forward should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention? Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.


How about we do it the easy way:

1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which
upsets them, leave the interwebs.

2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
moderated web board.

3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, ****
themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.

The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

That surely includes "you" leaving as you're almost as dumb as "Fat-Boi" Plow !!

No body could be dumber that the "Twinkie-Boi" !!
--
HJ

I dunno, it's lookin' neck and neck between him and Fudd Hall.
--
Master of Puppets Direct line and fax: 206-339-7561
DENSA Life Achievement ø Am I the only one with half a brain?

Good Point.........like the one on top of Hall's "microcephalic" head !!
--
HJ

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:05:49 -0800, Aratzio wrote:

On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 09:45:01 -0800 (PST), in the land of news.groups,
Robert Macy got double secret probation for
writing:

Rather than hold those responsible that 'transfer' information without
review, wouldn't it make more sense to hold the ORIGINATORS responsible?
Which means, remove anonymity. Maintain complete tracking capability.
Guess that won't work all the time either, since there are situations
where truth should surface and the person who brings that truth forward
should be protected.

Any ideas how to do all this WITHOUT government intervention? Else,
there'll be a tax to pay for the 'service' of policing the 'net.


How about we do it the easy way:

1. those who are functionally incapable of not reading that which upsets
them, leave the interwebs.

2. those who require that all messages be to their liking, move to a
moderated web board.

3. those who feel they need to control the words of others, ****
themselves with a spintered wooden spoon, then leave.

The rest of us that have a modicum of common sense will remain.

IAWTP.