FMCDH
A. Effective immediately, continued withholding of nutrition and hydration from Theresa Schiavo is hereby stayed.
Posted by GeekDejure
There. Sue me a**hole.
L
A little trivia....the Supreme Court held that the libel laws extended to opinion pieces in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal. This was a case brought by the wrestling coach at my high school when a sportswriter accused him of lying under oath. Mike Milkovich was a legendary HS wrestling coach, but it's always seemed odd to me that a major Supreme Court precedent was named after a guy that rumored to grade term papers by weighing them in his hand. :)
-Eric
Are you OneParticularHarbour or not? It is a fair question, as you are speaking about people hiding behind screen names. It is quite germaine to this discussion, considering the thread somebody posted about OPH doing legal work for FR network.
If you are OPH, and hiding it, and posting this, through the cover of a different persona, it highly affects the signifigance of your posting.
So, what gives? If you are just participating in threads, it's a different animal, but here, your identity is crucial. I don't think you can duck this one anymore.
Is Palpatine and OPH the same person? Yes or no?
Still I find it a little more than intertesting you felt compelled to post this now, eh?
Where were you & your "legal advise" when I suppose OJ, Clinoccio or any other number of people could've posed an equal -- if not more serious -- threat to this forum given the "letter of the law" you've so graciously provided.
C'mon ol' boy, whisper into my ear.
What's the angle you're working here.
Where've you a dog in this -- or any other -- fight outside of whatever your *practice* generates?
What's really behind the motivation of your clarion call that you'd go so far as to cite chapter & verse, hmmm?
Surely you must've known -- full well -- all it'd do is serve to stir up a hornet's nest of needless anger over what already is a sickening & heartbreaking situation?
I suppose you could claim yours is out of a "sincere concern" for the welfare of the forum's participants?
That it?
OK, I believe you. {wink-wink}
Your motive(s) are as pure as the driven snow.
Well gee thanks, Emporer.
Who'd a thunk it.
...you're really just a swell guy.
I do believe that all the parties are now "public figures", engaged in a public controversy dealing with the application of law and patient and family rights.
This is now a national case with wide-ranging repercussions for all of us. Mr. Schiavo certainly doesn't want to have his past, present and future opened up for closer scrutiny.
If you posted this with the ongoing Schivo tragedy on your mind, let me state for the record that I believe Terri's family and therefore must call evil, evil.
Michael Shiavo and his attorney are monsters, imho. Evil, predatory and dangerous.
Let’s assume an attorney showed up on FreeRepublic, and adopted a copyrighted screen name like, say, ‘Winnie the Pooh.’ Normally that's not a big concern, but let’s assume the attorney subsequently agreed to represent a client with a somewhat questionable reputation – someone like Jack Kavorkian or Bill Clinton. And then let’s assume that the attorney started representing Mr. Kavorkian (or Mr. Clinton ;>) in a professional manner, on FreeRepublic, while using the screen name ‘Winnie the Pooh.’
Here’s the question: Do you think the owner of the ‘Winnie the Pooh’ copyright might object? After all, the copyright owner makes money off the name ‘Winnie the Pooh’ – books, movies, ‘action figures,’ etc. I’m sure the owner would be interested in a license fee, at the very least, if an attorney set up a de facto ‘Winnie the Pooh Online Law Office.’ Or perhaps the copyright owner would simply pursue legal action. Especially if the owner had his own team of attorneys on retainer, and considered the unapproved association with Jack Kavorkian (or Mr. Clinton ;>) to be harmful. And especially if the attorney’s FreeRepublic home page was one of the top two listings provided by Google when an online search for ‘Winnie the Pooh’ was conducted.
Actually, you don’t need to answer. The scenario isn’t very realistic. Most attorneys would recognize the risks involved: they might be spotted by a representative of the copyright owner who happens to post at FreeRepublic, or reported to the copyright owner by a ‘Winnie the Pooh’ fan (an especially likely event, if they had attempted to intimidate any ‘Winnie the Pooh’ fans ;>). The risks would outweigh the benefits, don’t you think?
;>)