Harvard University's Citizen Media Law Project regularly posts new threats against free speech. This literary agent was categorized as among the "20 Worst." I suppose that all she has to do is to prove that there are 20 agents who are worse than she is. But isn't it all a matter of opinion? And isn't opinion protected speech?
Bauer v. Wikimedia
In January 2008, literary agent Barbara Bauer and her company Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. filed a lawsuit in New Jersey State court against twenty-two defendants, including the Wikimedia Foundation. The complaint includes claims for defamation, tortious interference with prospective business advantage, and conspiracy.
According to court documents, the dispute revolves around statements made on a large number of websites and blogs describing Bauer as being among the "20 Worst Literary Agents" and claiming that she has "no . . . significant track record of sales to commercial (advance paying) publishers."
The complaint also alleges that various defendants posted altered photographs of Bauer on the Internet and created YouTube videos, including "Crouching Snark, Hidden Draggon" and "Miss Snark's Happy Hooker Crapstravaganza," that allegedly defamed and belittle her.
With regard to Wikimedia, the complaint alleges that Wikipedia published false statements indicating that Bauer was "The Dumbest of the Twenty Worst" literary agents and that she has "no documented sales at all."
...On May 1, 2008, Wikimedia moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230), the federal law that shields providers and users of "interactive computer service[s]" from liability for defamation and other torts for publishing the statements of third parties, bars Bauer's claims as a matter of law. Wikimedia's memorandum in support of its motion also argued that, even if CDA 230 did not bar Bauer's claim, the underlying statements are protected opinion under the New Jersey Constitution and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/bauer-v-wikimedia
2 comments:
Thanks to Judge Perri, Tyler Clemente a freshman at Rutgers University is dead because of "free speech" on the internet. Good work Judge Perri, and I am sure Tyler's parents and friends are comforted by the fact that Judge Perri didn't let any "chilling effects" get in the way of those sickos who pornographically altered Bauer's photos on Wikipedia and on Writer Beware Blog.
I think that Wikipedia and Defendant Shweta Narayan should have been prosecuted for cyberbullying, which is a crime in New Jersey.
They deliberately posted and hyperlinked to lewd, altered videos of Bauer, and also made sexual slurs against her family members who were under age at the time.
Tyler Clemente was bullied into suicide, but he was only a junior in High School when Judge Perri and Judge Uhrmacher decided to let Wikipedia and Narayan go. Then it was all over the Jersey papers that it was OK to defame and cyberbully Bauer and how "dumb" she was for suing, when she was truly a very brave person.
Had the courts done their sworn duty, maybe Tyler Clemente would still be alive, and Darun Ravi wouldn't be rotting in jail NOw at least two families are ruined because the court and the press was too dumb to see the case of cyberbullying staring them in the face with Bauer vs. Glatzer.
An opinion is an opinion.
Stealing someone's pictures and altering them to perform lewd sexual acts is invasion of privacy and hate speech.
Wikipedia and Narayan should be rotting in jail.
Instead Judge Perri set a bad example for the kids, and here are your results. I hope Judge Perri and Judge Uhrmacher choke on their nice fat pensions.
Post a Comment