| |
Main
Date: 10 Jul 2008 17:54:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="Brian Mottershead"]I wouldn't even be so sure that in a forum
that holds itself out as a venue for dues-paying members to comment on
the governance of *their* organization, that censorship of legitimate
views by moderators appointed by the "staff" and the "management" is
necessarily as legal as you suppose. It might not be a matter of
First Amendment rights, but there are other rights besides those
deriving from the Bill of Rights.
Brian Mottershead [/quote]
This is of course the issue here. The USCF Issues Forum has been set
up to allow the members of this organization to discuss its
governance. Yet, the management has imposed extremely biased
moderators who strictly limit what the members are allowed to say. If
the members were allowed to say what they really think, then the tone
of this entire discussion would be completely different.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 08:59:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="sdo1"]We did endeavor to approach each matter judiciously, and
I am shocked that you, of all people, would say otherwise. You were
given wide latitude during my time on the FOC since you were a
candidate for the EB. You were the only person in the USCF to have
attempted to unethically influence my behavior on the FOC before I
took my seat, in fact, even before anyone had told me that I had been
appointed.
=========
[b]EDIT
Moderator Tsawmiller demands proof of the above missive from Sam Sloan
("[i]You were the only person in the USCF to have attempted to
unethically influence my behavior...[/i]"). The post made in fide-
chess may be found at [url]http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-
chess/message/28182[/url] and the forum post where this and the reply
are duplicated is in forum post #58583.
[/b]=========[/quote]
Thank you. I much prefer for the moderators to do it this way,
pointing out an unsupported claim made by Steve Owens and asking him
to provide proof of it, rather than what the moderators usually do,
which is not allow it to appear at all.
I am quite curious and have no idea what Steve Owens means when he
writes, "You were the only person in the USCF to have attempted to
unethically influence my behavior". The record is clear on the fide-
chess group that Steve attacked me almost daily on my group starting
in 2002 up until 2007 when he was made a moderator of the USCF Issues
Forum. I have little doubt that Goichberg appointed him a moderator
based on his long record of attacking me over there. I do agree with
Steve Owens that once he became a moderator here he did not act
unfairly. It seemed that Goichberg was probably disappointed.
Goichberg felt that because Steve attacked me over there he would
delete me here. However, it did not turn out that way. Steve preferred
to respond to my postings rather than merely delete them.
Meanwhile several of my most important postings have not been allowed
to appear here, including "Failure to Disclose Expenses of Board
Members" and "BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the
Board". Also another posting in which I complained that this last
posting had been approved and then instantly had been pulled by a
moderator has not appeared.
Please note that this last posting, which merely copied without any
changes or comments a BINFO by Susan Polgar which is available to the
USCF membership, has not been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues
Forum.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 02:25:18
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian Lafferty wrote:
> >>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
> >>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
> >>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
> >>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
> >>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
> >>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
> >>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
> >>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
> >>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
> >>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
> >>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
> >>> first week.
> >>
> >>
> >> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
> >> of the law.
> >
> > I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
> > standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
> > in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
> >
> >>
> >> SDO1 wrote:
> >>
> >> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
> >> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
> >> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
> >> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
> >> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
> >> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
> >> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
> >> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
> >> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
> >> appoint.
> >>
> >> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
> >> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
> >> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
> >> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
> >> that it would be defended in federal court.
> >>
> >> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
> >> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
> >>
> >> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
> >> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
> >> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
> >
> > I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
> > question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
> > raised here by Motterhead.
>
> I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
> opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
> Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
> from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
> issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
> addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
>
> So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
Brian, did you engage in this sort of _ignoratio elenchi_ when you
were in front of a judge who could sanction you? You're the one who is
asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it. I gave you a
chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
well proves that you can't. I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 13:30:59
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>>>>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>>>>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>>>>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>>>>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>>>>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>>>>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>>>>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>>>>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>>>>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>>>>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>>>>> first week.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
>>>> of the law.
>>> I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
>>> standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
>>> in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>>>
>>>> SDO1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
>>>> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
>>>> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
>>>> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
>>>> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
>>>> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
>>>> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
>>>> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
>>>> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
>>>> appoint.
>>>>
>>>> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
>>>> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
>>>> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
>>>> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
>>>> that it would be defended in federal court.
>>>>
>>>> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
>>>> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>>>>
>>>> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
>>>> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
>>>> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
>>> I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
>>> question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
>>> raised here by Motterhead.
>> I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
>> opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
>> Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
>> from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
>> issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
>> addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
>>
>> So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
>
>
>
> Brian, did you engage in this sort of _ignoratio elenchi_ when you
> were in front of a judge who could sanction you?
Stupid one, I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a
corporate litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was
never reversed by the courts.
>You're the one who is
> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get yourself
a hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and control
issues discussed as any law student who has taken corporations can tell
you.
>I gave you a
> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
> well proves that you can't.
I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly
rate and retainer requirement.
>I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof for
what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times in the
past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>
> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the USCF
forums if you're interested.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 21:02:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="sdo1"]The short answer was that the USCF owns the forum and
that it may decide what is or is not "proper speech" and is within its
rights to allow or not allow any post on whatever grounds it deems
necessary. The entities with the authority to govern the parameters
of what is or is not allowed are those who are responsible for
managing the organization and those they appoint.
Steve Owens [/quote]
However, that is not the issue. What was going on during the election
campaign, and as far as I know you were not guilty of this but other
moderators were guilty of this, is that forum participants were not
allowed to post anything negative about certain candidates or anything
positive about certain other candidates. Certain moderators were
notoriously known to favor certain candidates. Certain questions could
not be asked of certain candidates, such as whether they were married
to each other or not. If there had been rules that were uniformly
applied to all posters, nobody would have complained. However, the
moderators appointed by management used their powers to favor certain
candidates for election.
Did the attorneys you consulted tell you that it was OK for management
to do that?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 15:21:10
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
> first week.
As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
of the law.
SDO1 wrote:
"Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
"proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
appoint.
"As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
that it would be defended in federal court.
"The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
"If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 23:55:43
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>> first week.
>
>
> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
> of the law.
I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>
> SDO1 wrote:
>
> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
> appoint.
>
> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
> that it would be defended in federal court.
>
> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>
> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
raised here by Motterhead.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2008 15:02:29
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>>> first week.
>>
>>
>> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
>> of the law.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
> standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
> in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>
>>
>> SDO1 wrote:
>>
>> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
>> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
>> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
>> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
>> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
>> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
>> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
>> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
>> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
>> appoint.
>>
>> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
>> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
>> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
>> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
>> that it would be defended in federal court.
>>
>> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
>> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>>
>> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
>> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
>> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
>
> I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
> question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
> raised here by Motterhead.
I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 15:16:32
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
> > that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
> > supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
> > sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
> > i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
> > you offer any evidence to the contrary?
> >
> > John Hillery [/quote]
> >
> > If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
> > the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
> > granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
> > Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
> > in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
> > Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
> > shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
> > turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
> > disagrees with the management position.
> >
> > Brian Mottershead [/quote]
> >
> >
> > That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
> > but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
> > point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
> > corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
> > I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
> > to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
>
> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
> first week.
Then cite some case law on point. Find a case in which a court -- any
court -- ruled that moderation of an on-line forum (not mentioned in
the corporate bylaws) constituted as "(allowing) one group of
shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage with regard to
the election of directors. Don't blow smoke, cite facts and law. Or
have you forgotten how?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 23:50:51
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
>>> that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
>>> supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
>>> sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
>>> i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
>>> you offer any evidence to the contrary?
>>>
>>> John Hillery [/quote]
>>>
>>> If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
>>> the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
>>> granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
>>> Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
>>> in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
>>> Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
>>> shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
>>> turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
>>> disagrees with the management position.
>>>
>>> Brian Mottershead [/quote]
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
>>> but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
>>> point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
>>> corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
>>> I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
>>> to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>> first week.
>
>
> Then cite some case law on point. Find a case in which a court -- any
> court -- ruled that moderation of an on-line forum (not mentioned in
> the corporate bylaws) constituted as "(allowing) one group of
> shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage with regard to
> the election of directors. Don't blow smoke, cite facts and law. Or
> have you forgotten how?
>
There is plenty of case law having to do with the integrity of corporate
processes leading to the seating of corporate directors and obtaining
corporate control. Any law student who has taken a corporations course
can attest to this.
From that, it would take a case with facts similar to the USCF's forum
situation to be presented to a court for determination. While there may
not yet be a case on all fours with the USCF situation (then again,
there might be), there are plenty of cases that involve unfair
communication practices in takeover battles and proxy battles that would
speak to what has happened to communication withing the USCF in the
context of the election last year and the present recall eforts.
If you'd like me to research the subject, I'd be happy to. My hourly
rate for such work is $450.00 per hour with a minimum retainer of
$7,500.00. If you're interested, PM me on the USCF forum.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 05:27:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
you offer any evidence to the contrary?
John Hillery [/quote]
If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
disagrees with the management position.
Brian Mottershead [/quote]
That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
John Hillery [/quote]
Nobody is saying that the USCF Issues Forum should be completely
unmoderated. Even without a moderator on duty, any obscene word is
blocked. For example, I have not been allowed to relate the story of
the little Dutch boy who put his finger in a hole in the dyke.
However, allowing the management to appoint moderators who are known
to favor one candidate or oppose another candidate or who delete
embarrassing questions such as asking what happened to all the money
does raise legal issues. If the USCF were a publicly traded
corporation listed on the stock exchange it would be in deep trouble
for doing this in last year's election. The SEC would probably have
brought proceedings for election irregularities already. The question
is whether such rules apply to a 501(c)(4) corporation like the USCF.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 13:19:18
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
> that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
> supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
> sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
> i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
> you offer any evidence to the contrary?
>
> John Hillery [/quote]
>
> If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
> the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
> granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
> Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
> in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
> Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
> shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
> turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
> disagrees with the management position.
>
> Brian Mottershead [/quote]
>
>
> That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
> but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
> point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
> corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
> I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
> to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
first week.
>
> John Hillery [/quote]
>
> Nobody is saying that the USCF Issues Forum should be completely
> unmoderated. Even without a moderator on duty, any obscene word is
> blocked. For example, I have not been allowed to relate the story of
> the little Dutch boy who put his finger in a hole in the dyke.
> However, allowing the management to appoint moderators who are known
> to favor one candidate or oppose another candidate or who delete
> embarrassing questions such as asking what happened to all the money
> does raise legal issues. If the USCF were a publicly traded
> corporation listed on the stock exchange it would be in deep trouble
> for doing this in last year's election. The SEC would probably have
> brought proceedings for election irregularities already. The question
> is whether such rules apply to a 501(c)(4) corporation like the USCF.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 03:53:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"]
And I wouldn't even be so sure that in a forum that holds itself out
as a venue for dues-paying members to comment on the governance of
*their* organization, that censorship of legitimate views by
moderators appointed by the "staff" and the "management" is
necessarily as legal as you suppose. It might not be a matter of
First Amendment rights, but there are other rights besides those
deriving from the Bill of Rights.
Brian Mottershead[/quote]
I think that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or
case law supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the
first sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states
[i]could[/i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they
haven't. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?
John Hillery [/quote]
The USCF is a tax-exempt public corporation which exists for the
public benefit. I think there are legal questions which arise when an
extremely partisan person like Gregory Alexander is appointed as a
moderator, who deletes unfavorable references to candidates he
supports or favorable mentions of candidates he opposes.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 07:34:43
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
> The USCF is a tax-exempt public corporation which exists for the
> public benefit. I think there are legal questions which arise when an
> extremely partisan person like Gregory Alexander is appointed as a
> moderator, who deletes unfavorable references to candidates he
> supports or favorable mentions of candidates he opposes.
>
> Sam Sloan
Wouldn't the main legal remedy be to elect a new board?
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2008 19:49:58
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="Brian Mottershead"]I wouldn't even be so sure that in a forum
> that holds itself out as a venue for dues-paying members to comment on
> the governance of *their* organization, that censorship of legitimate
> views by moderators appointed by the "staff" and the "management" is
> necessarily as legal as you suppose. It might not be a matter of
> First Amendment rights, but there are other rights besides those
> deriving from the Bill of Rights.
>
> Brian Mottershead [/quote]
>
> This is of course the issue here. The USCF Issues Forum has been set
> up to allow the members of this organization to discuss its
> governance. Yet, the management has imposed extremely biased
> moderators who strictly limit what the members are allowed to say. If
> the members were allowed to say what they really think, then the tone
> of this entire discussion would be completely different.
>
> Sam Sloan
Yeah, there'd be calls for your lynching again. Quit while you're
ahead.
|
|
