| |
Main
Date: 12 Oct 2008 01:51:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
Bathroom Stall Defense".
This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.
I must say that I am shocked by this defense.
Here is the relevant part of the brief filed by counsel for Polgar and
Truong in which they assert this "defense".
H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
Elements of Defamation
In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
(1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. =A7 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).
"A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
1243.
Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".
It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
"publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .
Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
(1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
769 (1986).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Dismiss.
SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
s/William T. Salzer
William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Oct 2008 06:52:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
No wonder Sam likes Susan - She plays Chess & Sues People - it doesn=B4t
get better than that!; Computer Dating by Deep Blue couldn=B4t do
better!
Luck, Walt Dorne
|
| | |
Date: 19 Oct 2008 11:55:55
From: marika
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>No wonder Sam likes Susan - She plays Chess & Sues People - it doesn�t
>get better than that!;
wow!! that really is unusual! did she and her family go to the recent girls
tournament down in Richmond? my niece participated in that one.
>Computer Dating by Deep Blue couldn�t do
>better!
me and Deep Blue gotta get together at some point. at the moment, i'm
swamped here, but DB should call me when it has the time and we'll plan.
mk5000
----- Original Message -----
From: "marika" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: alt.religion.paulo-dimas.misc,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:43 PM
Subject: girl act i want you back
> Actually after I bought my condo (yipes, I had a few pennies left ), I was
> planning to visit my former boss in Orlando, and had a great time
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "marika" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:08 PM
> Subject: Re: try woman's worth
>
>
>> dropped by Romano'sMacaroni Grill the night before they closed, and they
>> had
>> weird signs up
>> about not having a full wait staff and so on. It was done with almost no
>> fanfare
>>
>> turns out that they were closing on tuesdays.
>> not such a big deal except that all the wait staff was crying
>>
>> apparently, they JUST found out. the restaurant has managed somehow
>> to keep this a secret
>>
>> i think it;s astonishing.
>>
>> talked to the manager and he said, they do about 5k at lunch but not
>> nearly as much at night.
>> I wonder how well the Yankee restaurant will do and whether they will
>> care
>> about the take at night. They are right next door to the Rock Bottom
>> Brewery. They aren't always full but Friday and Wednesday they can't
>> possibly be making less than 5k in the evening
>>
>> their neighboring restaurants in the mall, he said, do a lot of happy
>> hour business and so they are busier.
>>
>> Romano's supposed to be a family restaurant so I guess that was the
>> reason
>> they didn't do a happy hour.
>> Yankee bar will be able to do this
>>
>> mall has been there only ten years
>> the manager partly blames parking,
>> why though I don't know. The parking after five is almost free. It's a
>> dollar
>>
>> for those that want a macaroni grill at lunch, there's another
>> somewhere in fairfax
>>
>> and you have to pay far more at lunch for parking so they've mostly got
>> the
>> captive businesses of which there are many
>>
>> anyway, this makes me consider the value of the neighborhood
>>
>> the fact that it took about 2 years to fill that space worries me
>>
>> on the other hand, the Va Tech installation will open later this year and
>> it
>> will be literally across the street from this new restaurant. Around the
>> corner that new condo replacing the bus shelter. That promises to be
>> huge.
>>
>> for obvious reasons, i have scoped out most of the restaurants for
>> night life here to get a feel
>>
>> there's no doubt that the best business is lunch but there's no doubt
>> that the happy hours do betters irrespective of type of restaurant
>>
>> curiously I am tired of the restaurants here and seem to like cooking
>> more\
>>
>> I think what I like about going out now is sitting on the patios during
>> the
>> warm weather and having a drink
>>
>> what does this info make you think on
>> i'm trying to thiink on resale in 5 years, what the neighborhood will be
>> like
>>
>> a lot will have to do with how the new administration does business
>>
>> when clinton was president, he made a lot of temporary employees
>> permanent
>> so the need
>> for permanent residence increased
>>
>> then bush did the war so military residence increased, but that's
>> temporary
>>
>> fort belvoir is expected to open an additional installation but likely
>> residence hit will be on the yellow line, where clarendon and ballston
>> are orange
>>
>> i'm not sure i figured it all out yet
>>
>>
>> since ballston recently opened a skating rink in the mall, i am
>> guessing that whatever supplants it, will probably cater to that crowd
>>
>> a cheaper chain restaurant i guess that will draw more teens?
>> "marika" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> ballston mall. ballston neighborhood,.that's where the romano's
>>> restaurant was. It closed when I first moved here. I still don't see
>>> their space filled. But there's a sign that says they;ll soon be filled
>>> by
>>> a Yankee something or other bar
>>>
>>> Romano's was a franchise, and if it's $ intake had changed,
>>> obviously easy for them to take the hit on closure especially if lease
>>> is
>>> over.
>>>
>>> it's two metro stops away from Nic's restaurant, in clarendon. Rira
>>>
>>> when I was locating here, i "knew" that the trends are changing, and
>>> with
>>> about half a year to
>>> look and decide, that's good
>>>
>>> I was personally looking in ballston and clarendon neighborhoods. Both
>>> on orange line. Clarendon seems more trendy and therefore future
>>> resale is good, but i take a hit on travel, adding some time to total
>>> commute. But if clarendon is a more solid resale the additional
>>> minutes are worth it.
>>>
>>> I picked Ballston though and generally I am happy about that
>>
>
>
> .
>
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2008 13:03:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC Attorney for Defendants,
BY: William T. Salzer, Esquire Paul Truong and Susan Polgar
Identification No. 42657
Two Liberty Place- 28th Floor
50 South 16th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 564-5190
_______________________________
GORDON ROY PARKER, a/k/a "Ray
Gordon", a/k/a "Ray Gordon, Creator of the
Pivot," d/b/a Snodgrass Publishing Group,
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION
vs.
NO. 08-00829
SAMUEL H. SLOAN, WILLIAM
GOICHBERG, CONTINENTAL CHESS
ASSOCIATION, PAUL TRUONG, SUSAN
POLGAR, SUSAN POLGAR
FOUNDATION, UNITED STATES CHESS
FEDERATION AND JOEL CHANNING,
Defendants.
___________________________________
MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANTS PAUL TRUONG AND SUSAN POLGAR
Moving defendants, Paul Truong and Susan Polgar, by their undersigned
counsel and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(2),
(5) and (6) seek dismissal of this action against them. In support of
this motion, defendants aver as follows:
1. The plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 20, 2008,
alleging claims of defamation, tortious interference, fraudulent and
negligent misrepresentation, gross and simple negligence, Lanham Act
violations, civil conspiracy and RICO conspiracy. On September 2,
2008, upon consideration of the defendants' motions to dismiss the
Complaint,
G Truong and Polar Are Not Employers Under Title VII or PHRA
In Count IV and V, plaintiff avers a farcical claim of retaliation
under Title VII or the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act in which he
contends that certain postings were made by persons other than Polgar
and Truong in retaliation for his having filed Charges of
Discrimination with the EEOC and PHRC. Polgar and Truong, as
individuals, are not subject to suit under Title VII. Sheridan v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F. 3d 1061, 1078 (3d Cir. 1996). Neither
individual is an "employer" under the PHRA nor is alleged to be
employer or prospective employer of plaintiff.
H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
Elements of Defamation
In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
(1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. =A7 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).
"A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
1243.
Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".
It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
"publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .
Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
(1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
769 (1986).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Dismiss.
SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
s/William T. Salzer
William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 13:39:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
Donna Alarie wrote me asking me to send her a complete copy of the
Polgar and Truong "Bathroom Stall Defense".
When I sent it to her in PDF Format (which means that it could not be
altered or forged), Donna replied:
I am actually amazed that this is the attorney's response to Mr.
Parker's complaint. I really do not see where the attorney states
that the defendants deny making the postings. Also, quite seriously,
I thought you made up the part about the bathroom stall...sometimes
truth really is stranger than fiction...hard to believe that this
response was actually written by an attorney.
Donna
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 22:40:42
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Donna Alarie wrote me asking me to send her a complete copy of the
> Polgar and Truong "Bathroom Stall Defense".
>
> When I sent it to her in PDF Format (which means that it could not be
> altered or forged), Donna replied:
>
>
> I am actually amazed that this is the attorney's response to Mr.
> Parker's complaint. I really do not see where the attorney states
> that the defendants deny making the postings. Also, quite seriously,
> I thought you made up the part about the bathroom stall...sometimes
> truth really is stranger than fiction...hard to believe that this
> response was actually written by an attorney.
>
> Donna
Defendants are arguing, correctly, that the statements are not defamatory.
ITFP they are not meant to be factual: they are merely insult. And ITSP they
can not damage Gordon's reputation because Gordon's reputation is shit, of
his own making, in usenet, where no one thinks Gordon is anything but a
slug, with or without chatter on an obscure blog. Plaintiffs have the burden
on all six elements of the cause. Defendants failure to deny an element is
not sufficient to prove it, and even if proven the single element by itself
is insufficient to support judgment. It doesn't matter that they "did it" if
"it" tortious.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Oct 2008 15:35:38
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:39:45 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Donna Alarie wrote me asking me to send her a complete copy of the
>Polgar and Truong "Bathroom Stall Defense".
>When I sent it to her in PDF Format (which means that it could not be
>altered or forged), Donna replied:
>I am actually amazed that this is the attorney's response to Mr.
>Parker's complaint. I really do not see where the attorney states
>that the defendants deny making the postings. Also, quite seriously,
>I thought you made up the part about the bathroom stall...sometimes
>truth really is stranger than fiction...hard to believe that this
>response was actually written by an attorney.
The law has gone to pot.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 13:14:25
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:f952a557-f100-4bbc-8fc1-5ddf336f13b7@y79g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
Bathroom Stall Defense".
This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.
I must say that I am shocked by this defense.
=======
What's shocking is that anyone's bothered developing a legal argument, when
it would have been easier for counsel to quote your defunct website, where
you state that you do not find it at all troubling when people impersonate
you on the internets and in fact are flattered by such impersonation. That's
have been a slam dunk. If counsel has missed this posting, wherein you
disavow the possibility of pecuniary damages from such things, you'd best
hope he and his clients and their allies don't read this newsgroup.
"Takeoffs on Sam Sloan
We Are Not Amused Department
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and so I am not really insulted
when somebody imitates my style or publishes or posts a parody of me.
Some of them are rather good, such as those by "SlamStoan" which appear from
time to time in the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics."
http://web.archive.org/web/20000823043526/www.samsloan.com/takeoffs.htm
Here is the relevant part of the brief filed by counsel for Polgar and
Truong in which they assert this "defense".
H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
Elements of Defamation
In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
(1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).
"A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
1243.
Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".
It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
"publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .
Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
(1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
769 (1986).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Dismiss.
SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
s/William T. Salzer
William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 14:15:20
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
samsloan wrote:
> In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
> District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
> Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
> which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
> Bathroom Stall Defense".
>
> This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
> were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
> find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
> taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.
>
> I must say that I am shocked by this defense.
>
> Here is the relevant part of the brief filed by counsel for Polgar and
> Truong in which they assert this "defense".
>
>
>
> H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
> Elements of Defamation
>
> In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
> (1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
> statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
> application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
> of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
> recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
> and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
> publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. � 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
> Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
> U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
> F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).
>
> "A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
> associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
> reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
> v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
> if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
> public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
> or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
> 291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
> statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
> 609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
> Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
> Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
> 674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
> 1243.
>
> Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
> was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
> blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
> old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".
>
> It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
> multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
> "publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
> sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
> are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
> called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
> status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .
>
> Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
> meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
> that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
> graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
> reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
> hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
> Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
> (1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
> 769 (1986).
>
> III. CONCLUSION
>
> For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
> Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
> their Motion to Dismiss.
>
> SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
> s/William T. Salzer
> William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
> Paul Truong and Susan Polgar
This is exactly the right argument. Unfortunately the guy
can't write very well.
If anybody takes anything seriously that he gleens from
rgcp and similar sources, in particular the nonsense
posted by Sloan and Parker, no matter if fake or real,
he can't be helped by a court of law - he needs psychiatric care.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 02:56:21
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
On Oct 12, 3:51=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
> District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
> Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
> which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
> Bathroom Stall Defense".
>
> This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
> were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
> find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
> taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.
>
> I must say that I am shocked by this defense.
I assume that somewhere in the motion they state "we didn't do it?"
|
| | |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 13:54:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:56:21 -0700 (PDT), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
>> were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
>> find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
>> taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.
>I assume that somewhere in the motion they state "we didn't do it?"
Not necessarily.
If they claim one or both of them didn't do it, they might have to
produce ISP and phone records. This tactic seems to escape any denial
under oath. If it succeeds, they can continue with various denials in
settings that have no legal consequence.
This seems a more competent version of Innes' satire defense.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2008 02:22:50
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Polgar and Truong's Cyber-Bathroom Stall Defense
|
Shades of Flynt and Falwell.
|
|
