Sandra Tanner and Utah Lighthouse Ministries lose lawsuit against FairLDS

[Grig]

A three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of FairLDS, Scott Gordon, and Allen Wyatt and against Sandra Tanner and Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

This lawsuit was an effort to limit free speech by making an online parody websites legally actionable. The case was previously thrown out in summery judgment by the Tenth Circuit Court for the District of Utah, but Mrs. Tanner appealed.

You can read the full court ruling here:

http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-4095.pdf

You can read a write-up from the Citizen Media Law Project on the judgment here:

http://tinyurl.com/58dvho

Here is the original District judge's ruling that was affirmed:

http://www.thelen.com/tlu/UtahLighthouseVDiscoveryComputing.pdf

[Osage Orange]

I did answer it. It appears tha you and others are too stupid to understand the difference between me asking you not to post to me and Sandra Tanner suing someone in Federal Court demanding that they remove a satirical site and telling lies about the reasons they want it removed.

You didn't answer the "screaming" question.

BTW, you don't ask...you SCREAM it, or you laughably threaten.

But, I'm too stupid to post like you...oh wise and conservative, free speech one.

[Graybeard58]

There should not be limits on freedom of speech where the only real consequence is minor irritation on the part of the speakee. Or even major irritation.

How about when people "annoy" you?

[Old Mountain man]

Obviously, I annoy you. Would you like to try to do something about it?

[rightazrain]

“Obviously, I annoy you. Would you like to try to do something about it?” — OMM

. . . or I’ll take my marbles and go home. Stamps foot. Double dare ya! Triple dare ya! Go ahead! Mash the abuse button like I do! Nanner, nanner, nanner!

[Old Mountain man]

I didn’t add any or elses. Legitimate question - are you a Tannerite or a conservative American?

Sometimes you have to think about something other than personalities.

[rightazrain]

I’m both.

I’m a Tannerite if that means I have read many of their scholarly works about Mormonism, and have contributed to their very fine Christian ministry.

I’m a conservative who believes in the rights of people to have their day in court, even if they lose. This is what the Utah Lighthouse Ministry did.

[Osage Orange]

Ah....right up old mouse’s alley.

[Old Mountain man]

I’m a free speecher and against Slapp suits.

http://www.ired.com/news/lieberman/000806.htm

[Osage Orange]

Well...at least graybeard won't threaten you.

To: Elsie; Admin Moderator

This comment as well as most of your comments annoy me. I am now formally requesting that you cease posting to me in any manner that would tend to annoy me.

“Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications. ..shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

Buried deep in the new law is Sec. 113, an innocuously titled bit called “Preventing Cyberstalking. “ It rewrites existing telephone harassment law to prohibit anyone from using the Internet “without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy.”

335 posted on Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:57:25 AM by Old Mountain man (Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice!)

[Osage Orange]

Nope....not really there, OMM.

See #229

[Old Mountain man]

Wonderful. Please in your “infinite wisdom” point out which particular words are equivalent to a SLAPP suit by the Tanners? Where did I apply to a court to take anyone’s property away?

Well?

[rightazrain]

Admit it. You’re just against the Tanners because they have been very very good at documenting the false claims of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, et al.

[ejonesie22]

How exactly is the Tanners action a SLAPP suit.

I am dying to know...

[ejonesie22]

You know what I find interesting, that an organization presumably so right and so prestigious as the LDS would need to rely on a parody site to handle opposition.

Very odd that...

[Osage Orange]

I've not been speaking about that suit today.....

You can deflect and mis-direct all you please....

But, the fact remains...You threatened another FReeper with particular language for "annoying" you. As laughable as that was.

And if I recollect correctly....you were roundly slapped down on it by official FR spokespersons...and fellow FReepers. But you just continue to deny, or defer, or deflect.

And then today you champion your own allegiance to "Freedom of Speech"..???

It doesn't fly with your past, OMM.

Plain and simple.

[Old Mountain man]

Which of the words constitutes a threat?

[Osage Orange]

I can explain it to you...but I can't make you understand it.

Although 85% of me thinks you know exactly what I'm talking about.......

If you are in the other 15%...I'm sorry.

But, I promise you will not be rid of that post. It's part of your MO here.........

[Enosh]

* Play Dumb

#?

Grumpy’s batting 1.000 today.

[rightazrain]

If you’ll recall, the Mod told you to not even hint about a lawsuit against a fellow FReeper (paraphrasing, don’t remember the exact words). I’m sure someone can come up with that relevant post by the Mod in the same thread where you posted statutes that supposedly buttressed your point.

[Enosh]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2008967/posts?page=343#343