If Bush and the Supremes hadn't stolen the 2000 election and Al Gore became the rightful President, how many tens of thousands of the dead would be alive today?

Everybody’s talkin’ ’bout Gravelism…

Late morning today, but I wanted to get this up before I go to work

Leahy's office is reporting they are "taking the next step" regarding the Judiciary Committee subpoenas that the administration has instructed the subjects to either ignore (in the case of Karl Rove), or simply to show up and cry "executive privilege" to any questions that matter (and again, this is in regards to the political firings of US Attorneys).

“I have given the White House’s claims of executive privilege and immunity careful consideration,” wrote Leahy.  “I hereby rule that those claims are not legally valid to excuse current and former White House employees from appearing, testifying and producing documents related to this investigation.  Accordingly, I direct Mr. Bolten, Mr. Rove, Ms. Taylor and Mr. Jennings to comply immediately with the Committees subpoenas by producing documents and testifying or face possible contempt citations.”

Obviously, this amounts to basically a "no, we're serious" from Judiciary, but its Leahy's contention that this is a necessary next step in turning up the heat. Be that as it may, one wonders why it has taken so many months. It has been long enough, one hopes that there isn't simply a strategy of extending the "next steps" over so much time as to run out the clock on the administration, while still being able to claim credibly that Democrats were aggressively performing their oversight responsibilities.

So I'm with you, Patrick – but we're all hoping this process is a means to an end (the end being real accountability), rather than an end in itself. 

UPDATE: All cynicism aside, this may also be an attempt to box the administration in. Leahy also calls the executive privilege canard “surprising in light of the significant and uncontroverted evidence that the President had no involvement (in the firings of the U.S. Attorneys).” This sounds like an attempt to force a choice between releasing the privilege assertion and allowing testimony, or leaving an implicit (if not explicit) acknowledgment on the table that yes, indeed, Bush was directly involved in the firings.

The question remains whether or not Bush cares that anybody might conclude that he was involved, given that impeachment remains “off the table.”  

Please see JD's earlier post on this topic for  background. 

In a nutshell, the owners of the iBrattleboro website (an interactive computer service) are defendants in a lawsuit.  The Plaintiff alleges that the owners of iBrattleboro are responsible for damages caused by content posted on iBrattleboro by a third party.

The suit is going nowhere relative to iBrattleboro & its owners.

The owners of the iBrattleboro website are immune from liability in this situation.  Federal law requires that the claims against iBrattleboro's owners must be dismissed.  Why is this case meritless and why must it be dismissed without further proceedings? . . . below the fold . . .

The following are the facts as I understand them.  I will paraphrase them and I will assume the facts & allegations – as reported thus far – are true for the purposes of the legal issue raised in this discussion.  In fact, I do not care which allegations are true, to what extent they are true or what the bigger context is. The issue to me is liability and the status of the law.  Therefore bear with me and let's assume for now that everything you read in the papers (**cough, cough**) is true. (If Mr. Dunn's attorney or the Plaintiff's attorney wishes to email me with supplemental information or comment here at GMD, they are welcome to do so.  I'm sure we'd all love to learn more about this).

Here goes:

1.  Plaintiff Effie Mayhew is suing David Dunn, and iBrattleboro owners Chris Grotke and Lise LePage for damages caused by what the Plaintiff claims is libel committed/pubished at iBrattleboro.  Mr. Dunn and the owners of iBrattleboro allegedly committed the libel according to the Plaintiff.

2. Dunn posted a comment at iBrattleboro claiming the Plaintiff was flagrante delicto with a co-worker to whom she maintained no state licensed carnal privileges (i.e. they were not married). FN1

3. The Plaintiff says she was not fishing (being fished?) off the company pier. She further states that Dunn’s claims, that she defiled the sanctity of anyone's marriage, are false; and she claims damages in her complaint. FN2

4. iBrattleboro is a website/blog/forum for citizen journalists.  It publishes news.  iBrattleboro also provides a forum for people to submit comments.

5. Most people agree that iBrattleboro is cool, however, that is subjective.

6. Comments to iBrattleboro are third party generated content by registered users.  iBrattleboro and its owners do not edit, modify or promote the content supplied by users within the comments sections.

7. Chris Grotke and Lise LePage neither edited, modified or otherwise contributed to or directed the writing of Mr. Dunn's statement about the Plaintiff.

8. I do not know what iBrattleboro's “Notice and Take-down Procedure” is. Typically notice and take-down procedures allows persons who see their copyrighted material, libel, trademarks etc. used improperly to contact a website's owners.

9. Upon notice of the potentially libelous nature of Mr. Dunn’s comment, iBrattleboro took the “offending” comment down. (It is not clear to me how iBrattleboro’s owners became aware or when they became aware of the offending comment).

Finally- fyi – under Vermont law, libel is tort recognized where there is "(1) a false and defamatory statement concerning another person; (2) negligence, or greater fault, in publishing the statement; (3) publication to at least one third person; (4) lack of privilege in the publication; (5) special damages, unless actionable per se; and (6) some actual harm so as to warrant compensatory damages."

Just for fun, let's also assume and I will state in my personal opinion, that Mr. Dunn's comment was libelous.  I will therefore refer to Mr. Dunn's comment as libel. The point being, regardless of whether Mr. Dunn's comment is libelous, that does NOT impact on whether the owners of iBrattleboro have any liability to the Plaintiff.

Here is the issue. 

Information content providers are liable for the information they generate.  I am responsible for what I publish at GMD or what I personally write in the comments at any particular blog, for instance.  If readers comments below, those readers and I shall be "information content providers." We will all be responsible for what we individually publish, and we are all answerable to anyone who happens to get the vapors from what we write.  The key is that by writing this, I am a "content originator."  I am therefore the liability magnet for anything I say, as it should be.  I am not, however, responsible — nor is GMD — for any of the comments any reader affixes to this post.

The Communications Decency Act, in addition to its unconstitutional parts regarding "decency," states that: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The way courts read the CDA and apply its immunity generally works like this.

(a) Immunity from liability applies to a defendant (e.g. iBrattleboro) who is

(b) the provider of an interactive computer service if

(c) that defendant is being sued based on the comments or information provided by someone else (e.g. a commenter on the website).

Many cases have already decided this issue and I suspect the Windham Co. Superior Court will be well served by a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against the owners of iBrattleboro.  I don't have time to collect all the cases tonight.  If you are interested in legal resources on this issue, I suggest starting at http://onlineliabilityblog.com/significant-47-usc-230-decisions/ and looking that the CDA decisions at this really informative website. I suspect the first person to read all the 47 U.S.C § 230 cases linked on that site will be well prepared to argue the iBrattleboro motion to dismiss in Windham Co.

Here is a further taste of how courts looks at this issue.  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case named DiMeo v. Max, which involved a website that took comments. One of the comments was allegedly "disparaging." The disparaged Plaintiff sued the owners of the website for the comment posted by the third party.  The Court made extremely quick work of the appeal:

Max's website is an interactive computer service because it enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server. See 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(2) (defining “interactive computer service” as “any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions”). DiMeo’s complaint alleges that Max is a publisher of the comments on the website.

However, DiMeo does not allege that Max authored the comments on the website or that he is an information content provider. See 47 U.S.C. § 230 (f)(3) (defining “information content provider” as “any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service”). As such, the website posts alleged in the complaint must constitute information furnished by third party information content providers. Therefore, the requirements of § 230 immunity are satisfied.

In Green, we affirmed the dismissal of a complaint against America Online based on § 230 immunity from tort liability stemming from messages posted in chat rooms by unnamed defendants impersonating the plaintiff. 318 F.3d at 469-70. Similarly, we will affirm the dismissal of the complaint against Max based on § 230 immunity from tort liability resulting from messages by third party message posters.

-cl 

Disclaimer:  This post is not legal advice.  If you want to call someone a asshole on your personal blog or in comments here at GMD, get your own attorney.

—————————— 

Footnotes:

FN 1: Having lived in three jurisdictions where it was against the law for consenting adults to screw without a state license, I consider this to be a material fact.  I acknowledge that Vermont law does not prohibit (consistent with local noise ordinances) the practice.

FN 2: If what the Plaintiff alleges in her lawsuit is true, regardless of liability, she has been seriously wronged by Mr. Dunn's conduct. That, however, is a fact issue for the jury to decide.  The particular legal issue concerning the liability of iBrattleboro's owners is already clear.

(Eeeeeeeenteresting… – promoted by odum)

Ironically, while American politicians and even consumers are spending critical time and resources attempting to band-aid economic and climate issues surrounding oil energy with everything from carbon offset policies to back-to-the-woods survival techniques, our counterparts in other countries — including engineers, businesspeople, and energy providers — are tackling the problem the old fashioned way by redesigning technologies and at the same time inventing new ones.

Over the holiday weekend, as I was trying to figure out new ways to lower my fuel bills, I found this really amazing hot water boiler and electricity generator invented in New Zealand by a company called WhisperGen.  As soon as I saw it, I was reminded of a television commercial from the early 1980s in which actor Lorne Green is drumming up the exciting features of a slick new sports car that had fuel efficiency of 70mpg.  But instead of ending the commercial with a "Buy one now" call to action line, Mr. Battleship Galactica closed with this punch in the gut:  "There's only one catch.  You can't buy it." 

So why is America so intent on not commercializing energy efficient products, anyway?  Below the fold:  Discover WhisperGen, but remember — you can't buy it.  Not in Amerca.

The WhisperGen apparently seems like such a promising energy appliance that New Zealand's primary electrical utility, Meridian Energy Limited, bought controlling shares of the company.  Interestingly, not only is Meridian the largest power provider in New Zealand, it also happens to be the only one in that country certified as carbon neutral by virtue of its 100% use of renewable energy resources.  While the WhisperGen as a standalone is not carbon neutral, it produces 20% less carbon than standard oil-fired boilers and has an overall efficiency rating of 95%.

Whisper Gen makes only two products:  a hot water and power generating appliance for residential use and another version of the same device for off-the-grid homes, boats, etc.  The residential unit is close in size and appearance to a standard dishwasher and it operates a little more quietly.  As a heating appliance, the WhisperGen is designed to replace an oil-fired boiler for both hot water and home heating purposes.  The residential unit kicks out about 1.2 kW AC, is wired to the grid and is generally promoted as a supplemental source of electricy for residential use.  The unit would therefore replace any emergency gas-fired  generator reserved for occasional power outages.

The engineering that went into the design of this product may be considerable, but some of the underlying technology is actually old and relatively well known.  Domestic hot water and room heating are achieved by way of a liquid propane or natural gas burner.  No big deal, right?  But in the WhisperGen, excess hot water is used run an internal power generator device known as a Stirling Engine, which was invented and patented by Robert Stirling in 1816.  Both of these technologies have been around for quite a long time. 

What makes the WhisperGen very interesting is the way company engineers were able to commercialize the Stirling Engine by converting the linear motion of the pistons housed in the Stirling Engine to a rotating motion needed to turn an alternator.  They were able to do this with a microchip and a cast iron "wobble yoke" invented for this purpose.  Significant new engineering introduced by the WhisperGen is in this globally patented wobble yoke and the algorithms stored in the Electronic Control Unit assuring smooth, low-vibration operation between the linear piston movement and rotating alternator drive.  The invention of the wobble yoke alone is likely to serve a host of other industrial applications.  In fact, according to an article in Eureka Magazine:

The curious thing about this unique design is that Whisper Tech and its technical director Don Clucas, developed the Stirling engine and wobble yoke design first, then looked for suitable applications, not generally considered the best way of bringing a product to market.

There are currently about 400 hand built WhisperGen units in the United Kingdom and Europe, with a timeline to supply and install 80,000 mass-manufactured units over the next 5 years in the United Kingdom.  The manufacturing facility will be located in Spain.  And so far, there doesn't seem to be any effort to distribute WhisperGen in the United States.  At the present time, all orders are on hold until early 2009.

At the time of this writing the US dollar is plummeting, so perhaps it's not a good time to be considering import goods due to a weaker buying position.  That being said, here is cost information for current models iin Europe.

Early handbuilt WhisperGen units run at 3000 British Pounds, converting today into $6226 US Dollars.  But price and savings will improve as manufacturing ramps up and energy costs rise.  If it were installed today it could save between $300 and $400 in fuel and elecrical bills annually.

As a consumer of oil energy paying $3.11 a gallon this heating season, when I consider upgrading my home heating system, you can bet that I'm looking around for anything that doesn't burn oil.  For my needs, the prospect of owning a WhisperGen or another device similarly efficient and economical should come sooner rather than later.  I can feasibly wait until 2009 to begin standing in line to order a unit from Europe, but it doesn't appear that the majority of Americans will either be completely unaware of this product even if wehave the opportunity to buy one.  Waiting for the WhisperGen to come to America may take as much patience as waiting for the manufacture and distribution of a reasonably priced electric car.  With the year 2012 set by international climate reports as the year everyone on the planet should be carbon neutral, it's disappointing that we may not see either the WhisperGen or the Chevy Volt until somewhere around the same time.

The engineering success of the WhisperGen should be heralded worldwide.  But there's also a somewhat disappointing side of the story as well — a disappointment that has nothing to do with oil or alternative energy technologies.  For me, a lot of national pride is at stake here.  American technology reached its symoblic peak when Armstrong first stepped on the moon.  Nothing, including recent Chinese rocketry, can take that away from our self-conception as leaders in science, innovation, and human achievement.  But the space race is over, and the next race is for energy.  

As a result, there is a significant quesiton of how quickly the United States is falling behind in the development of new energy and carbon reducing innovations. France and Japan lead the international effort to harness the power of the sun through a massive experiment in nuclear fusion and plasma technology, from which — even if it fails to reach it's goal — is likely to provide other useful, unaticipated energy appications.  The entire continent of Europe virtually owns wind technology.  And of course, the Toyota Prius has already become an iconic symbol of the American consumer's new  interest in carbon reduction.  And now it is the small, isolated, progressive island-nation of New Zealad that is delivering — and will profit generously from — the AC WhisperGen microCHP.  

As for American technology?  Well, we're still waiting for the Chevy Volt.  And even here in the once-leading-edge State of Vermont?   We're battling wind farms and returning to the hard-scrabble ways of calloused hands and wood-fired stoves.

Paradise Lost?  I think we can make that connection here in America.

Respectfully submitted, 

Nate Freeman

According to public, campaign finacning regulations tommorow, November 29th, is the last day to receive matching funds through public financing.

So if you make a contribution tonight or tommorow to Dennis Kucinich, this means that your $50 contribution becomes a $100 contribution, $200 equals $400 … up to $250.

From the Kucinich campaign:

There are literally just weeks left before the primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada. We are proud of how far we've come, and the way the American people have embraced our message of "Strength through Peace." According to recent polls we are in 4th place in New Hampshire. You could help put us over the top in New Hampshire by making a contribution today, and Double Your Impact, by taking advantage of the federal matching funds program.

Your support is essential as you can help us:

* Run advertisements and media * Hire field coordinators and staff * Provide housing for volunteers willing to come to New Hampshire to help get Dennis' message out. * Have all the resources we need to compete in New Hampshire and other early primary states

 

You know our campaign does not take contributions from corporations or from special interest groups. We have relied on people like you to help support our campaign. You have always come through during our end of quarter drives.

This is such an important opportunity for us and we cannot let it go by. Kucinich has disporpotiantely been supported by small donors and so the fact of doubling our contribution is something that we simply need to take advantage of. Even a small donation now becomes more significant. If you have already donated, I sincerely thank you. But, if you can make the extra committment for Mr. Kucinich's leadership, it will go twice as far until tommorow.

Let us not forget what Kucinich's leadership has been:

The only Democratic Candidate to oppose the War and the subsequent Occupation

The only Democratic Candidate to show the judgement and Constitutional integrity to vote against the Patriot Act

One of only six House members to vote against the Homegrow Terrorism Act

The only Democratic Candidate who is taking the threats to our Democracy seriously and actually holding this Administration accountable through Impeachment

The only Presidential Candidate offering a truly universal, not-for-profit health care system

The only Democratic Candidate who will cancel U.S. involvement in job killing, deficit building, human expoliting, environmental raping trade agreements, NAFTA/WTO

Really it goes on. We have seen this leadership. Kucinich has been the heart and soul of this party; the only Democrat willing to stand up for the party's principles, rather than play party politics; the only one willing to put the Constitution and all Americans ahead of politics.

We need to support Dennis because he is speaking for us. And we need to support him now before it is too late. Please follow this link and make your contribution now.

Thank you for your support!