| Mark Probert 2005-10-29, 11:18 am |
| Ilena Rose wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2005 10:01:06 -0700, jdeere2312@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> SLAPP suits such as the one Barrett lost to me may eventually be
> 'thrown out' but he is still able to keep his enemies on the defense
> ... via appeals (he lost all)
Not precisely...he has not lost his appeal on your case, as yet...
Supreme Court Case: S122953
Court of Appeal Case(s): First Appellate District, Division Two
A096451
Case Caption: BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL
Case Category: Review - Civil Appeal
Start Date: 03/01/2004
Case Status: fully briefed
Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal vacated in part
and otherwise affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike.
This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Communications
Decency Act (47 U.S.C. section 230) confer absolute immunity on an
Internet "provider" or "user" who republishes statements made by third
parties, or can liability still be imposed under traditional common law
principles where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the
defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet? (2)
What is the meaning of the term "user" under the Act? (3) For purposes
of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether the "user"
engaged in active or passive conduct?
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca...._id=312161&rc=1
It seems that there should be a ruling shortly. Expect to go to
Washington....
|