Why isn’t Morty taking steps to keep this fellow from threatening the far corners of the Williams community?

“Post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, offensive, indecent, pornographic, profane, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, federal or international law …”

Eric, I don’t believe any of those things have been posted here — except maybe by Farkers and through links to sites that Throne runs. And given the anti-SLAPP laws, none of what’s here is a criminal offense. So if it means that EphBlog has to go down to preserve its right to stay up, so be it. I don’t like to think that Ephs would easily cave into bullies.

hwc:
I imagine Morty has far better things to do than worry himself about any of this (although physical threats of violence on campus, that probably is something worth looking into - but Morty? maybe security).

ephmom:
I have no plans in caving, although also feel just about the same about actually caving - somewhat ambivalent. My main objection in all of this is not that someone did something stupid - hell, I do stupid things pretty much constantly - it is that someone did something stupid, cried free speech when called on it, and then when that didn’t work stomped up and down calling free speech while demanding others not be given free speech.

While I don’t really agree with the posters, (as in paper placed on a vertical surface, not as in those who add text to these threads) I am totally fine with what she did. I think it was stupid and the fact that it was done in an attempt to be anonymous was childish and points to knowing it was wrong and hiding from it.

I had no interest in that part of the discussion. She could be the nicest person in the world, or a raving psychopath - she’s an Eph and therefore we should discuss it, that’s what the site is about. Discussion is what makes things interesting - otherwise life gets boring, and internet sites get *really* boring.

Where I got pulled into this was a little bit when the people started demanding censorship - I have shown many times in life (even many times on this site) that I am a complete asshole when it comes to people doing public things and then seemingly not understanding what the consequences are of that.
If you want to do something - awesome - rock on - do it loud and proud. I may or may not agree, but I will probably admire the balls it took to get up there and say/do/think whatever it was that is stirring people up. Rock it.
But when you then want to change your mind and crawl into a hole and erase all record that it happened - that’s when I call bullshit.

And then when you do it with irony so heavy that it hurts, that’s when it is just too damn awesome for me not to just grab on and hug the life out of it.
I’m here for the ride and while I was perfectly willing to walk by at first and just watch from afar, now I’m strapped in and pounding my fist into the seat - fire this thing up - I want to know how it ends.

This is ridiculous and I am very sorry that Eric is caught in the middle of it. Eric, could you post a copy of the complaint (with your personal information blacked-out). Surely, this can be fought or David should use some Kane Capital to buy his own server.

I guess the complainer does not care for free speech after all! (Would anyone else other than Robert Shvern have a motive to file such a complaint?)

Lowell and the other attornephs, what are the possibilities of burying the complainant with tons of paper by filing harassment, tortious interference and some other claims?

I can’t imagine anything Morty could possibly have on his plate that would be more important than anti-semitic bigotry and associated threats from the perpetrator towards members of his community.

Why don’t you host it at anonhost.org? I hear free speech still lives on there.

hwc:
I agree that threats are worthy of his time - voiced opinions, less so. Exactly along the free speech theme.
The internet is full of tough guys, if Morty had to act on each instance of it, he would never get anything done.
If said tough guy action takes place in the real world, there are established channels for that - security and the police. (and Batman)

Also please note that Dave Kane has already been kind enough on *many* occasions to offer to take full control of the site, he pays for EphBlogs share of the server, takes me out to lunch, and generally is far too nice to me for how little I do.
So be sure that DK is nowhere near any fault for this - I’m happily joining the fray if it is to go that far.

If I in any way felt that real harm was done, I would be the first to act on it. But it is the fact that the real harm is the ironic actions and frivolous leaps to legal action that are making me all the more interested.

Dave gave me fair warning of all of this and I had multiple chances to avoid it. I am sure he can go into more detail as towards anything else, if he is so inclined - but I want to make it clear that none of what I posted was to be taken in any way as a “woe is me” - I merely wanted to make people aware of the possibility.

I was eventually going to move servers anyway for a variety of reasons, so whether this moves to DK’s control, or to another server of mine - it is not that big a deal.

I just personally would prefer to be in the country when the move takes place.

I’m not *yet* an attorney, so you should probably consult a practicing one who knows something about 1. the appropriate state’s or federal law to apply, 2. harassment and tortious interference claims under that JDX.

The one thing I do know is that if there’s an anti-SLAPP provision in the appropriate state, Shvern just did something colossally stupid :).

There is definitely an anti-SLAPP provision in MA.

Whether or not this would be applied there is a matter of contention, I could see it argued either way.

OK, just to clarify, is Shvern complaining to PAIR, threatening (”bark bark”) legal action, or has he actually *done* something?

PAIR may be “knee-jerk” on complaints but since this isn’t a DMCA and since Shvern is Shvern and not Murdoch, I have my doubts on the attention he will get. (Um, “private party issue.”). “YMMV.”

If you wind up needing hosting help, (not clear you need it), I can think of a few options that might frustrate Shvern.

Generally I like the RBL’s response to Cease & Desists: “Plenty of people threaten to sue us, please don’t waste your breath. Please, just sue us.”

EphBlog’s content on this is now populating the internet and I cannot imagine anything that an actual suit would achieve except more publicity. That said, while I can imagine how to get a court order against you, it’s very costly, and I doubt Shvern has the resources. (Your ISP may vary, as noted, but PAIR doesn’t really have the ‘authority’ to cut you off without duly diligent consideration of whether you are in violation of their TOS).

Of course, if you want to play aggressive, you could C&D back at Shvern for his clearly false & misleading statements to PAIR, and/or fire a non-trivial suit or two off at him first. (I’ll skip the details: no sense giving him ideas, and we might as well leave him in suspense).

Cheers.

http://www.casp.net/statema.html

This is a list of anti-SLAPP proceedings in MA.
See “MacDonald vs. Paton”.
A website with ’slanderous content’ about a certain individual, relating to a ‘local town controversy’ was allowed to continue operating under anti-SLAPP statute.

Expiation does not work. Until one offers oneself to self-immoliation, we cannot be at peace. I wonder if if the shoe were on another foot we would find Imelda Marcos adding that specimen to her closet of inumerable shoescapes. The tragedy of it all, the comedy. This Schwanz tangos into our community and wrestles with a damsel in distress. Viva Revolucion! The show must go on!

P.S. If you plan on anticipating a suit, dress well.

“Until one offers oneself to self-immoliation”

Are you equating this to an apology by any chance?

“This Schwanz tangos into our community”

If he were patient and unobtrusive, it all just might die its own death.

Chapter 231: Section 59H. Strategic litigation against public participation; special motion to dismiss

Section 59H. In any case in which a party asserts that the civil claims, counterclaims, or cross claims against said party are based on said party’s exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth, said party may bring a special motion to dismiss. The court shall advance any such special motion so that it may be heard and determined as expeditiously as possible. The court shall grant such special motion, unless the party against whom such special motion is made shows that: (1) the moving party’s exercise of its right to petition was devoid of any reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law and (2) the moving party’s acts caused actual injury to the responding party. In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based.

One thing to keep in mind is that while the statute does not mention damages, as the moving party is effectively dismissing the complaint he may be entitled to attorney’s fees and costs if the Anti-SLAPP motion prevails. Good luck collecting!

A useful non-state specific resource on this is here, and the MA Trial Court Library ‘pathfinder’ (showing case law that might be broad enough to cover this instance) can be found here.

In full disclosure, I am a MA lawyer, but have no particular experience with or knowledge about Anti-SLAPP cases. This is not meant to be definitive advice, but to help in the process of locating competent counsel.

So much for embedded links. Rather, look to:

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/slapp.html

and

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/slapp.html

I doubt that Ephblog has much of an argument that its content is “based on [its] exercise of its right of petition under the constitution of the United States or of the commonwealth.”

I don’t know MA case law at all, but the right of petition in the federal constitution is generally thought to involve petitioning the government. The quoted section probably doesn’t apply.

I’ve not researched it myself, but the squibs in the pathfinder suggest that counterclaims to a restraining order can trigger Anti-SLAPP. That procedural posture seems unlikely, at least as far as Ephblog is concerned. In a purely private matter it appears unlikely to apply.

Still, the Mass. courts appear to have consistently expanded the reach of this statute.