A new threat to First Amendment freedoms:

[Theophylact]

In this case of battling web sites (The New York Times, FRYYY), a judge has decided that privacy rights trump freedom of speech.

The beauty queen and the cad both have Web sites.

Katy Johnson, who was Miss Vermont in 1999 and again in 2001, uses her site to promote what she calls her "platform of character education."

"She is founder of Say Nay Today and the Sobriety Society," the site says, "and her article `ABC's of Abstinence' was featured in Teen magazine."

Tucker Max's site promotes something like the opposite of character education. It contains a form through which women can apply for a date with him, pictures of his former girlfriends and reports on what Mr. Max calls his "belligerence and debauchery."

Until a Florida judge issued an unusual order last month, Mr. Max's site also contained a long account of his relationship with Ms. Johnson, whom he portrayed, according to court papers, as vapid, promiscuous and an unlikely candidate for membership in the Sobriety Society.

The order, entered by Judge Diana Lewis of Circuit Court in West Palm Beach, forbids Mr. Max to write about Ms. Johnson. It has alarmed experts in First Amendment law, who say that such orders prohibiting future publication, prior restraints, are essentially unknown in American law. Moreover, they say, claims like Ms. Johnson's, for invasion of privacy, have almost never been considered enough to justify prior restraints.

[RADAR1797]

I wouldn't say this is unheard of. There is a web site out there called www.captainamerika.com which chronicals his ex wives bad behavior. I believe he was forced to take down certain adult pictures. Unfortunately I cannot visit the site where I am at, so I cannot find out the deal now.

-RADAR

Couldn't what he said be considered slander?

[Theophylact]

It's not slander, because it's not spoken. A whispering campaing, even if truthful, can be slander. Slander required a lower standard probably because, at least until recent times, it left no trail except in the memory of those who heard it. Print, however, lasts.

It's not libel, because (a) it's truthful (and truth is an absolute defense against libel) and (b) she's a public figure (two-time Miss Vermont) and you can't libel a public figure even with false information unless you were reckless in failing to check out the the information or you had provably malicious intent in using it.

Gotchya. I'm a bit sketchy on legal stuff like that.

[M_Six]

I don't know which one of these bozos disgusts me more. Mr. Max exhibits extremely low-brow humor and has no problem with getting his kicks by trashing others. On the other hand, Ms. Johnson's website makes me gag. Check out the last cartoon in that series. It shows the words "Free Speech" flashing across a US flag, but the message promotes anything but Free Speech. Not only is the site sickenly condescending, its message is confusing.

So once again we see that two pieces of crap always manage to find each other on their downward spiral towards the sewer.


EDIT: Probably a tad hypocritical of me to trash two people because they were trashing each other, eh?

[M_Six]

This brings up a good point of debate, though. At what point does your right to privacy take a back seat to my right to free speech? Put yourself on the receiving end of someone's abuse. What if an ex-partner of yours decided to open a site dedicated to trashing you. Nothing false, just facts twisted to make you look like doo-doo. We all have skeletons in the closet. What if someone decided to expose yours? Would you feel they were within their rights to do so?

What if someone suddenly stumbled upon logs detailing EVERY site you've ever visited and decided to publish them online? And what if such publication ended up costing you your job, marriage, or whatever? Would that person still be within their rights?