PDA

View Full Version : Judge Denies Ron Paul's YouTube Lawsuit




donnay
01-31-2012, 05:59 AM
Judge Denies Ron Paul's YouTube Lawsuit

Republican candidate wanted to sue over phony video
By Neal Colgrass, Newser Staff

Posted Jan 30, 2012 7:05 PM CST

(Newser) – An imposter who claims to represent Ron Paul's campaign is beyond the reach of the law—at least for now. Last week a federal judge denied Paul's campaign the right to unmask “NHLiberty4Paul," a YouTube user who posted a video accusing former Republican candidate Jon Huntsman of being a Chinese agent. The video concludes with an endorsement from Paul. NHLiberty4Paul is also a Twitter handle that has posted several derogatory remarks about Huntsman, Mashable reports.

The judge denied Team Paul on several grounds, saying it must first prove that "NHLiberty4Paul" is an entity or person that can be sued in federal court. The judge also wanted Paul's campaign to do the legwork on identifying the masquerader and build a stronger case against him. See the court's full decision here.

http://www.newser.com/story/138611/judge-denies-ron-pauls-youtube-lawsuit.html


***********************



This is so typical. If Huntsman sued they would have definitely made this a spectacle--front page news!

There is no justice--there is Just Us! :mad:

MRoCkEd
01-31-2012, 06:07 AM
I'm glad... That would set a bad precedent if Judges were allowed to demand online users to be identified.

EaSy
01-31-2012, 06:27 AM
I blame MSM for this. It was just random video on Youtube created by unknown person. They picked it up and made story without any background checking.

Danke
01-31-2012, 06:32 AM
The judge denied Team Paul on several grounds, saying it must first prove that "NHLiberty4Paul" is an entity or person that can be sued in federal court.

lol. Since when has that mattered before to our corrupt courts?

thoughtomator
01-31-2012, 06:35 AM
I'm glad... That would set a bad precedent if Judges were allowed to demand online users to be identified.

that precedent is long since established, and abused up the wazoo in bittorrent mass suits

donnay
01-31-2012, 06:48 AM
In all honesty, I would have liked to see Team Paul (as the article so eloquently put it) sue the media for misleading the Public and slandering Dr. Paul's good name.

Barrex
01-31-2012, 06:53 AM
I'm glad... That would set a bad precedent if Judges were allowed to demand online users to be identified.

Courts do have right to demand those information.

I read judge explanation and I dont agree with it.

Jtorsella
01-31-2012, 07:03 AM
I thought that this only denied expedited discovery, as we came to this conclusion when it came out a week ago.

Liberty74
01-31-2012, 07:34 AM
The judge is a crook as most are.

Feeding the Abscess
01-31-2012, 11:56 AM
I'm with mrocked.

bkreigh
01-31-2012, 12:48 PM
I'm glad... That would set a bad precedent if Judges were allowed to demand online users to be identified.

Agreed. I wish the campaign would have just let this go. Its causing blowback.

oyarde
01-31-2012, 12:50 PM
I am thinking the real problem lies in claiming someone endorses something in public media they do not . That seems like a credible claim to me ?

Lucille
01-31-2012, 01:01 PM
In all honesty, I would have liked to see Team Paul (as the article so eloquently put it) sue the media for misleading the Public and slandering Dr. Paul's good name.

But our black-robed overlords ruled (http://www.dailypaul.com/100623/appellate-court-rules-media-can-legally-lie-under-1st-amendment) that the media can lie with no consequences.


"The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."

Tom in NYC
01-31-2012, 01:10 PM
I'm glad... That would set a bad precedent if Judges were allowed to demand online users to be identified.

It was the right decision. You have to establish jurisdiction over a person to sue him or her, and you have to make a show of exhausting options other than having the media outlet reveal the person - if they can even do so.

On a moral level, if this was Rupert Murdoch trying to get this information, we'd all sympathize with the anonymous poster and YouTube's right to privacy in its user information anyway I think.

HOLLYWOOD
01-31-2012, 01:23 PM
I thought Corporations like Google, Twitter, and YOuTube are people?

The Supreme Court says so... so this Federal Libtard judge just overruled the US Supreme Court.

Every day Media turns over information on IP, Names, Addresses of internet entities that have posted; comments, videos, and communications content avenues to government and/or corporations.


This is the biggest bullshit ruling... the new saying is: "I got Ventura'd by the Crony Judges"



Judge Allows Subpoenas For GeoHot YouTube Viewers, Blog Visitors Information (http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/03/05/1346224/judge-allows-subpoenas-for-geohot-youtube-viewers-blog-visitors) Sony was granted a subpoena to obtain the records of George Hotz's (aka Geohot) Paypal account to determine whether or not the notorious Hacker received donations for his recent exploit of the Playstation 3 gaming console.

Click here to read the related article,
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/playstation-hacker-paypal/


TWITTER HANDS OVER ACCOUNT INFORMATION ON TWO USES Should twitter hand over user information to law enforcement? That's the question being asked after the social networking site received a subpoena from the Boston District Attorney in mid-December. The subpoena calls on Twitter to access account information about two users with the twitter handles @poisonAnon and @OccupyBoston for leaking personal information about some Boston police officers at the height of the Occupy Boston movement. The DA is also looking for any account information on anyone who included #BostonPD and #Doxcake in their tweets. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbmVg_5nMEM

Brian4Liberty
01-31-2012, 02:31 PM
that precedent is long since established, and abused up the wazoo in bittorrent mass suits

That's what I was thinking. Seems that they reveal "anonymous" posters of copyrighted material all the time.

CaptainAmerica
01-31-2012, 02:32 PM
He has a right to sue for slander.

Zippyjuan
01-31-2012, 02:36 PM
If you were to ban all biased or inaccurate or slanderous videos from YouTube you would free up tons of web storage space. Their total files hosted would take a big drop.

Tod
01-31-2012, 03:01 PM
He has a right to sue for slander.

This ^

The judge just denied him that right.

Humanae Libertas
01-31-2012, 03:07 PM
That's good, I don't know what Paul was thinking. He was just setting a bad precedent.

Schiff_FTW
01-31-2012, 03:10 PM
That's good, I don't know what Paul was thinking. He was just setting a bad precedent.

Yeah, how dare he stand up to an orchestrated smear from an opposing campaign.

kylejack
01-31-2012, 03:12 PM
Every day Media turns over information on IP, Names, Addresses of internet entities that have posted; comments, videos, and communications content avenues to government and/or corporations.
Yes, but that's their decision. Google usually goes to the line defending their users from people that want to reveal them.

Humanae Libertas
01-31-2012, 03:15 PM
Yeah, how dare he stand up to an orchestrated smear from an opposing campaign.

Well there's no solid proof over that. I was referring to the fact he wants to force Google/Youtube via courts to hand over the identity (IP Address etc) of the Youtube user account who created a video. Doesn't sound like him at all.

musicmax
01-31-2012, 03:17 PM
I thought that this only denied expedited discovery, as we came to this conclusion when it came out a week ago.

Correct on both counts. Mods should lock as this is a dupli/tripli/quadrupicate thread

bkreigh
01-31-2012, 04:05 PM
Yeah, how dare he stand up to an orchestrated smear from an opposing campaign.

Its politics. It happens all the time. If he would have just swept it under the rug and denounced the video then it would be a dead issue right now. Pick your battles and this is not one.