Trackbacks

• Trackbacks are closed for this post.

Comments

• 3/11/2009 1:45 PM Argyle wrote:
  Guess I will have to go underground. People like Becki didn't need an excuse, all hell will break out now.
  Like mistletoe, I'm gone!
  
• 3/12/2009 11:07 PM Con wrote:
  Both sites can reduce ‘censorship!’ allegations. A public rebuke based on Rules would both punish [inappropriate comments], and illustrate that the site is 'open', but uses good sense; the site is fair and is administered with impartiality. It would be nice not to hear the inevitable and shrill cries of “censorship!”.
  
  It’s disingenuous to delete (or refuse to publish) comments in light of the 'mission statements’ of each site. ‘Siberia’ banishments are followed by shrill, gleeful accusations of 'censorship!', 'dictator!’. Implement a clear, fair and objective standard for all comments. It's not a matter of Free Speech or censorship - anyone with a working brain can understand that it's flat-out inappropriate to give public voice to a certain comments (just as it's inappropriate to scream obscenities in church).
  
  On woodstocktruth, the standard of what they won’t publish is clear, but too subjective. Objectivity is necessary. The site claims fairness and openness: "Here your posts will not be manipulated or edited. Here you will also not be relegated to 'Wackyville' or any such nonsense." (I understand that the statement may be a ‘dig’ at the Cafe, but never mind).
  
  Their rule regarding what they will not publish seems subjective. Specifically, the relevant section states "...we will not allow unprovoked personal attacks by name or references to families that we consider to be out of line." If the words/phrases "unprovoked" and "that we consider to be out of line" were deleted, the statement could be called objective and would provide a good start for not publishing a given comment. I don’t understand why the word 'unprovoked' is even in the statement. The fact that woodstocktruth maintains this statement prominently on the side even as the pages change is a nice touch. The statement is a good start.
  
  The equivalent Café’ statement is kind of vague. Discussing the site goals and ambitions, the statement reads: [The site] “is NOT intended to be a site for slamming, spiting or any other disrespectful and ignorant expressions…” I think the statement is a request for readers to take the high road and avoid such comments, even though they will be tolerated if posted. Many comments posted on the Café are contrary to what was hoped for originally. This is good evidence that the Café is open and tolerant. To both sites: Please consider drafting and implementing a clear, fair and objective standard for comments.
  
  1. 3/12/2009 11:26 PM Admin wrote:
     Con, what is the address of your blog?
     
     1. 3/14/2009 10:02 AM Con wrote:
        Admin,
        I don't really understand your question - I don't have a blog; I'm an individual reader.
        
        1. 3/14/2009 10:31 AM Admin wrote:
           I was just being a wiseguy, perhaps you should start one- everyone loves a critic you know...on another subject, I was reading your thread on Aljazeera with John. My guess is that he doesn't remember or is spinning again, but the comments he is referring to are his own and a self-inflicted wound. He posted the following just prior to the elections (The cover page is a piece I did but didn't post). It was however, distributed by hand prior to the election... http://216.93.241.136/Docs/Cafe1.pdf
           
           In the future if your comment exceeds the dialog box, you can send by email. Thanks.
           
  2. 3/13/2009 9:30 AM Maggie wrote:
     Con,
     
     I hardly could call what the Cafe did to Maggie and her family non discriminatory. I also don't know how you can compare the statements exiled to Siberia to "swearing in Church" ?
     
     I was able to understand Becki to say she "used pen names to create traffic" on her site but punished others for doing the same thing? I have never seen anything like that on Woodstock truth!
     
     Now because I made this statement the Cafe will say I am siding with Powers ,Shultz, Wetzel, etc. Get the picture? No freedom on the Cafe! Becki and John's way or the penalty box .
     
     1. 3/14/2009 10:12 AM Con wrote:
        Maggie,
        I didn't want to ignore your comment directed at me, but I don't recognize or know about whatever you're referencing in your first sentence. Note that my original comment is posted on woodstockcafe and is a lot longer, but because of the space limit on woodstock truth a lot was cut, maybe rendering it less coherent.
        
        Regarding swearing in Church, I wasn't comparing I was saying that deleting or refusing to publish a comment is not impinging on Free Speech, it is exercising discretion because certain comments are simply not appropriate, just like it's simply not appropriate to swear in Church (and that example is an easy illustration of how Free Speech is not the issue).
        
        Finally, I really don't understand the rest of your comment. If by 'punished' you mean the whole 'Siberia' thing, my point is stated several times in my original comment - it's merely saying that clear rules would provide helpful guidance and maybe even help to reduce disputes regarding whether one site, person, Admin, etc. is behaving fairly (and with equal application of such rules) toward everyone.
        
        But, no, I don't 'get the picture' - I was not around for a lot of the back and forth you seem to reference. I'm also not clear on why you say 'No freedom on the Cafe' - from my perspective, if you or others have been treated unfairly, I probably wouldn't be able to find out/know about it if comments are deleted and the like. Anyway, I'm just guessing at what you are intending to say - I'm not an 'insider' and I don't get a lot of insider references.
        Con
        
  3. 3/18/2009 12:52 PM Admin wrote:
     

     Many sites these days are interactive — they permit site visitors to post to the site.

     Forums and blogs would be at the top of most of our lists for types of interactive sites. However, different kinds of sites are also permitting owners to post, such as classified ad sites.

     What happens if a visitor posts a defamatory statement ‘- or statements that are in violation of specific statutes — on your blog, forum, or in a classified ad on your site? Are you liable?

     The Communications Decency Act

     Congress came to the rescue of “interactive computer services” in 1996 with subsection (c) of the Communications Decency Act which provides: “No provider or user of any interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 USCA Sec. 230(c) (referred to below as “Section 230″). Section 230 was intended to overrule prior case law which routinely held that online providers were liable as publishers and speakers for third party content. Now, under Section 230, interactive websites have a shield against liability for visitor’s posts. However, two recent cases show that the Section 230 shield from liability has its limits.

     The Craigslist.com Case Upholds Section 230 As Liability Shield

     In November 2006, a US District Court held that Craigslist.com, an online classified ad site, was not liable for discriminatory practices of its users.The suit had been brought by the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law which alleged that Craigslist.com had a series of rental housing ads containing discriminatory statements. Examples of discriminatory statements by users included “no minorities” and “no children”.

     In March 2008, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision. Essentially, the 7th Circuit held that Craigslist.com was just a “messenger” and is shielded from liability by Section 230 for the discriminatory ads posted by its users.

     The Roommates.com Case Goes The Other Way

     In April 2008, the 9th Circuit reversed a District Court’s ruling and held that Section 230 did not shield Roommates.com from certain portions of the site that gave users limited choices for expressing their beliefs. On the other hand portions of the site that allowed free-form text were held to be shielded by Section 230. Similar to the Craigslist.com case, the users’ statements were alleged to be discriminatory and in violation of fair housing statutes.

     The key distinguishing factor noted by the 7th Circuit was the structure imposed by Roommates.com. For example:questions were posed to users asking for racial preferences; andpull-down menus for user’s profile answers required answers before the user could proceed.

     Does Roommates.com Case Signal a Major Shift?
     
     The question arises: does the Roommates.com decision signal a major shift away from the protections of Section 230? The decision indicated that a major shift was not intended.

     The opinion indicated that the ruling should only apply narrowly to a limited number of sites: “The message is clear: If you don’t encourage illegal content, or design your website to require users to input illegal content, you will be immune.”

     In addition, the opinion contained clear language that a major shift away from Section 230 was not intended. “Websites are complicated enterprises, and there will always be close cases where a clever lawyer could argue that something the website operator did encouraged the illegality. Such close cases, we believe, must be resolved in favor of immunity, lest we cut the heart out of section 230 by forcing websites to face death by ten thousand duck-bites, fighting off claims that they promoted or encouraged — or at least tacitly assented to — the illegality of third parties.”

     Beware of “Obligation To Monitor” Pitfall

     A word of warning about another pitfall — be careful in assuming an obligation to monitor messages, email, or posts contributed by your site visitors or in exercising editorial control over them. If you assume an obligation to monitor, or if you maintain editorial control, and if you fail to screen out defamatory statements, you may be liable, despite the protections of Section 230.

     For this reason, your Terms of Use should clearly state the extent to which you exercise editorial control, if at all, over messages, email, or posts of site visitors. And it’s always best to reserve the right to monitor postings, but not the obligation to monitor.

     Conclusion

     In summary, there are 2 basic lessons regarding visitors’ posts to your site:

     • beware of placing structure on user’s posts in classified ad sites; there is safety in free-form text, and
     • be careful to avoid an obligation to monitor visitors’ posts.

     ---

     Chip Cooper is a leading intellectual property, software, and Internet attorney who’s advised software and online businesses nationwide for 25+ years. Visit Chip’s http://www.digicontracts.com site for his online contract drafting service, and download his FREE newsletter and Special Reports: “Determine Which Legal Documents Your Website Really Needs”, “Draft Your Own Privacy Policy”, and “Write Your Own Website Marketing Copy — Legally”.
     
     This article courtesy of SiteProNews.com
     
     
• 3/14/2009 6:07 PM Newcomer wrote:
  Admin,
  
  I read your cover letter and the 2007 Cafe posting that John had done at the time. I'm sorry but I'm not following you that there's anything sinister in there. I honestly think it's misleading to take his statements of isolated experiences and then stretch them to demonstrate a drug problem and drunken lifestyle. In his piece, he was describing "TRYING" Hash in the 60's and stopping into a bar. I mean, if we tried to round up everyone who tried Hash in the 60's, we'd be hard-pressed to find anyplace large enough to hold that many people in one gathering. And stopping into a bar as a college student on a European adventure is hardly indicative of a drinking problem. I'm not a fan of nudes of the human form as art subjects either, but I don't think it's the same thing as pornography. Maybe it was at the time it was painted but unfortunately, it's tame in this day and age.
  
  I realize that this all came about during an election and obviously you aren't a supporter of his. I personally was turned off by the personal attacks on and from all sides in that election. If you didn't want me to vote for John, I would have preferred you distributed a flyer to me that said his background was in science moreso than education. I voiced this complaint at the Cafe around election time as well (and got into a tiff with Snuffy as a result, if I recall correctly), so please don't feel that I'm singling you out. I'm only sharing my personal opinion and that is that to me, attacking someone on the issues and their resume/qualifications is fair game all day long. But the personal stuff really gets ugly in this town. To me, it's a turn-off.
  
  1. 3/14/2009 7:31 PM Admin wrote:
     Don't entirely disagree with your feelings on this, however, you have to wonder what the hell he was thinking in putting this up just prior to the election. More to the point is the fact that the BOE condones using the Cafe as an outlet while they were trashing everybody who was not drinking the Kool-Aid, and with stuff like this popping up you have to wonder what the hell they were/are thinking as well. No excuse on that one in my book.
     
     I have never met or spoken to this man- I've had limited exposure to Becki and that was enough for me...as it appears that they have changed tunes again, if it holds I have nothing more to say about them, however, I will not allow further attacks to go unanswered. All in all, I was pointing out that this was self-inflicted, I didn't make it up. Fine art is not porn but the comment was a bit lecherous in context don't you think? The other painting was described as "fitting with his lifestyle", again, I didn't make it up. I didn't ask for this fight in the first place, but it was brought to my door and I don't shrink from a fight...they just picked the wrong guy- their misfortune.
     
• 3/14/2009 8:47 PM Newcomer wrote:
  Well, I'll stay away from the personal stuff because I missed most of whatever went on with your case (assuming that's what you're referring to). You probably already know from my postings at the Cafe that I haven't lived here all that long (3 1/2 years now). In addition to that, whatever has happened with you and the Leavitts personally is simply none of my business.
  
  I am curious to know more specifically what you mean when you say that the BOE uses the Cafe as "an outlet". I know the Cafe publishes the same public notices and announcements that go home to the families in the kids' backpacks. In addition to that, Kevin Ford and once in a great while, Mr. Corden and Mr. Blackmar contribute comments. But Kevin opens himself up to questions and attacks in the Cafe and he's still willing to make himself available in a public forum. I see that as much-needed. I'm glad someone from the BOE is available to answer the public's questions.
  
  Are you referring to something else when you say that the BOE condones using the Cafe as an outlet?
  
  1. 3/14/2009 9:46 PM Admin wrote:
     Not talking about the case, that will take care of itself from here on out. Sock Puppets Part 2 answers most of your questions, including how the use of the Cafe was/is in violation of BOE policies. 
     
     Officials have posted anonymously and in their own name; it is innapropriate in my opinion considering the sideshow the site can be. Read the link to John's article again and you will see a page from BOE minutes wherein the Cafe is deemed 'official' and these notices are there before anywhere else. Sorry, innapropriate.
     
     Mr. Ford appears to be a little different story.  Part of the new communications committee and the apparent mouthpiece, he has proffered no understanding of the budget or the issues except to follow the leadership blindly. This is not a wonder as the only reason he's on the BOE is because his name is not John Leavitt (his words not mine), he is also a Breen minion...not much else to say.
     
     Relevant links-
     http://woodstocktruth.com/2008/03/30/kevin-ford-and-the-boes-fuzzy-math-put-to-rest.aspx
     http://woodstocktruth.com/2008/12/29/kevin-ford-opens-mouth-and-inserts-foot-once-again.aspx
     
     As for Mr. Corden, I think these say it all-
     http://woodstocktruth.com/2008/06/25/the-other-half-of-the-story.aspx
     http://woodstocktruth.com/2008/06/26/from-steven-rosendahl.aspx
     
     
• 3/15/2009 6:27 PM Newcomer wrote:
  OK. I've read all of the posts in your above reply to me with the exception of the 2 posts regarding Mr. Corden. I simply haven't gotten to those yet. But I can reply to what I've read so far, if you like.
  
  My general opinion so far is not that you take issue with the things that you do. I guess I have a general disagreement with you as to how you go about it. Not trying to insult you, but I do believe in giving my honest opinion to your face (online face, as it were). That's the only fair way for each of us to have an open opportunity to address any differences we discover.
  
  As far as the BOE altering their policy to now include the Cafe as an 'official' publication...One way to respond to this is to call attention to it as being offensive. But another way to handle it and possibly reach a few more people in town is for you to submit a request to the Superintendant and the BOE. Is there anything stopping you from submitting a written request for your blog to be given the same submissions on the same date as the Cafe receives? In other words, ask the BOE to add your blog to their list of local media outlets. Personally, I would have done that first and then, if shot down, there might have been a case to be made as to bias. As it stands now, the Cafe asked to be recognized as a publication source. If you have not done so yet, why not give it a try? That may rectify the problem. It may also force the BOE to formally amend/update their current policy to include local blogs frequented by Woodstock residents. Perhaps that's something overdue that they haven't had a chance to address yet? Anyway, no harm in asking, I say.
  
  It seems to me that BOE officials do now use their real names (again, such as Kevin Ford and Mr. Corden) when they post. So to me, they've corrected that part of your complaint. I have no proof that they posted under pen names at one time, but I'll assume you do for this discussion. I'm a strong believer that one must be able to prove accusations, this one included. This kind of thing would be pretty tough to prove though, I would think.
  
  As to Kevin Ford and your budget discrepancies with the BOE. Again, there are other possible ways to handle this. To me, there needs to be some sort of ongoing discussion about this. Maybe request a special meeting between the BOE and the public to have an open exchange about budget questions. If that's too demanding on our volunteer board members, maybe some sort of live chat could be set up one night? I have no idea how those things are run or how costly they are, but if they aren't expensive to do on a local level, maybe it could be an option? Then the whole community could participate without leaving their living rooms. The result would be a better informed public and a BOE that better understands how the entire community feels. Right now, they mostly get feedback from their ardent supporters and opposition, but not alot from all of the folks in between.
  
  1. 3/15/2009 10:03 PM Admin wrote:
     As you can imagine, to do this sort of thing in your name requires a certain amount of fortitude, so don't worry about insulting me, you haven't.
     
     As to your opinions, you seem to infer that I am somehow envious of this 'official' designation. I have no interest in spreading the Superintendent's propaganda nor would I accept the invitation. From my point of view we have given the BOE every opportunity to take responsibility for their actions and to deal with the public/taxpayers in a responsible manner, as yet I don't see any signs of that happening.
     
     As said before on the blog, I stand behind every word with source material, I'll leave it at that. You are free to handle anything you wish to initiate however you would like, and my hope is that you will take action, that goes for everyone else too.
     
     In the meantime, I will continue to post facts on the site with commentary as I see fit. Your suggestion of a citizen run forum is a good one and was done in the past. In fact, something exactly along these lines is in the early development stage as we speak but not by me.
     
     I still maintain that the larger problem is a lack of interest by parents and the citizenry; the site is having an impact in examining the issues in far more detail than ever before- and that cannot be a bad thing. What folks do with it is up to them. I didn't sign up to be a messiah or a potentate.
     
     1. 3/16/2009 8:58 AM Newcomer wrote:
        Not so much 'envious' of the official designation; more like equal treatment as an alternate information source. Most of the BOE postings that I can recall off the top of my head are notices of meeting date/times - that sort of thing. I wouldn't classify that as propaganda. To me, it's more like regular info sharing.
        
        I saw a comment from someone else on your blog in one of those links you attached a few exchanges ago. I would basically echo what that person said. I don't take issue with anyone seeking taxpayer accountability. I agree with your other commentator that how one goes about pursuing said accountability makes a difference. I think that if these efforts are undertaken as an attempt to help and improve the board to serve the students, it would receive far broader support then any sort of attack style campaign. I think there's some degree of unaware parentry in our town. I certainly wasn't aware of any of this until someone told me about the Cafe as a potential place to discuss the cell tower issue. Once I started reading what else was posted there, I couldn't believe how all of this controversy and vitriol could be going on and how I could have been so unaware of it all.
        
        1. 3/16/2009 9:35 AM Admin wrote:
           I don't consider the site "an attack style campaign"...I just call'em like I see'em. Let's take the FAQ's for instance- pure propaganda. If you read them carefully you will see that there are major contradictions from what was said just last week- response coming soon.
           
           You can play patty-cake with this board all you want, in my opinion you are going exactly nowhere...you don't see the vitriol here, which makes my point. 
           
• 3/15/2009 9:58 PM Newcomer wrote:
  I notice that you haven't yet had a chance to respond to my last comments. I don't mean to pile on here, it's just that I've now had a few moments to go back and read the links you attached under Mr. Corden. I also have a few minutes now to respond. Hope that's OK.
  
  Actually, I don't have so much of a response this time as I do more questions. There were a couple of references made to things I'm not clear about in those links that you supplied.
  
  The first was when mention was made to a "liability" issue regarding the BOE providing notices to a blog run by a BOE employee/bus driver. If the information the BOE is providing to the Cafe is priveledged information, then I can see the liability exposure. But to my knowledge, it isn't. Since the BOE is merely providing a copy (even if it's in advance by a day or 2) of notices intended to be distributed to the public, I'm not seeing where the liability aspect comes into play. Maybe you could clarify this for me?
  
  The other thing that caught my eye was mention of the "Breen party". I thought all of this would be in the past by now. Mr. Breen no longer holds elected office in Woodstock and he resigned (or whatever) as DTC chair (at least I think that's the position he used to hold. Feel free to correct me if I'm recalling this inaccurately). As a matter of fact, he and I got into one of our little "back-and-forths" not too long ago. I forget the exact topic but somehow we got onto a string about me always making suggestions and not stepping up to do anything. I answered him that I felt someone with his experience ought to still be involved somehow. His reply to me surprised me but he said in pretty plain language that he's done with it all. Bear in mind, I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but you get the tone of the exchange. I wish I could find that exchange for you so you could read it for yourself. I was convinced. I still am. He wasn't blowing smoke - he's fed up. At least that's how I read his remarks. My question then is maybe overly simple: What Breen party?
  
  1. 3/15/2009 10:23 PM Admin wrote:
     On the liability issue, I really can't go into a lot of detail for you as the bullet remains in the chamber, unfired for now, but if you dig deep enough you can figure it out if you wish.
     
     On the Breen thing, and please don't be offended, but are you really that naive? Mr. Breen still holds far more influence on certain issues/people than you may think- and the proof is irrefutable. It appears to me that there may have been some sort of tiff within Aljazeera as the "Arrogant Attempts" article seems to reveal and 'Snuffy' has been very quiet. I remember reading what you are referring to- you say he's fed up, I say he's been beaten...for now. It seems to me that if you really want to know what's gone on in the past and how that has evolved to the present, you have a lot of work to do...
     

Leave a comment

Comments are closed.