[ckucia]

Originally Posted by Duntov

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I know the above is an American ideal, but only a US law, however; if Hotrodders supports it as it is written, at least the underlined part, I will be a more staunch supporter in the future than I have been in the past.

The moderation of Free speech is analogous to "political correctness",<<an atheistic concept,<> which is destroying the Greatest Nation on the earth.

It can slip in anywhere.... Will someone clarify?

Sincere congratulations Jon

I sincerely support Jon in his lawsuit defense. However, you'll note that the first word in your quote is "Congress". The first amendment applies to government restricting the rights of its citizens.

The Streetbeasts lawsuit, unfortunate as it is, is not a first amendment issue. Missapplication of the law? Possibly. Meritless lawsuit? Almost definitely. But no government entity is telling Jon to shut down this site because they disagree with the content. A private individual is misusing the court system - probably a good argument for tort reform and possibly some rethinking of libel laws, but not an issue of "free speech" or even "freedom of the press" within the context of the Constitution.

I have no idea what Hotrodders.com or Jon has to do with Congress respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is a private site owned by Jon and he can make whatever rules he wants regarding whatever subjects he wants as long as he remains within the (pretty broad) limits of libel law.

[MARTINSR]

Thanks for your explaination, very clear. It is often misunderstood when referring to "found guilty" or "found not guilty". I will express my opinion in the OJ murder case and get a very loud "He was found not guilty" like that is all that matters. Yes I understand in the eyes of the law he was "not guilty" but in my eyes he was as guilty as sin. Two totally different things.

Brian

[cboy]

Originally Posted by ckucia

...The Streetbeasts lawsuit, unfortunate as it is, is not a first amendment issue.

With all due respect, I disagree. Not to get too enmeshed in the legal detail, but I'm guessing we can both agree the pertinent portion of the first amendment, as it applies to this case, would be "Congress shall make no law respecting...or abridging the freedom of speech..." This amendment applies equally to federal powers as well as all powers left under state control and jurisdiction. For example, congress can not pass laws allowing Democrats to purchase TV advertising for their candidates while prohibiting Republicans from purchasing such advertising. And just as importantly, STATE legislatures can not pass laws intended for such a purpose either. Thus the "reach" of the First Amendment goes well beyond the word "Congress" and applies to all law, be it state, federal or local.

Where this comes to play in this instance is that Mr. Levin (and his lawyers) are attempting to use state and/or federal courts along with state and/or law to prevent Jon (via the wiki and the web site) from exercising his (and our) free speech.

While I have not read the pleadings in this case, I can virtually guarantee that Levin's lawyers have cited one or more "laws" created at the federal or state level to argue Jon should not be able to say whatever it is he said. If they did NOT do so, then the suits are obviously without merit and would have been tossed out long before now.

Or to put it more simply, all court actions must hang their hat on a specific law or laws. And since no law, local, state or federal, can abridge the freedom of speech, the first amendment does becomes an integral part of any such pleading or argument and any court judgement relating to such a pleading.

[willys36@aol.com]

That's a coincidence; Levin's $60,000/mo living expenses are almost exactly equal to mine. He probably doesn't have the standing order for Fresno State T-shirts I have so his are slightly lower.

[FASTFORD]

that is good news !

congratulations Jon !

[eloc431962]

Great news Jon, Glad it's finally giving way. Keep up the good fight.


Cole

[86GMC]

Count me in. I've gotten enough information from these pages over the last few years that I definately owe you guys, and this is as good a cause as any.
Donation sent.

[Jon]

Hey thanks 86GMC -- and all the other new donors from the past couple of days

[crashtech]

Under Levin's settlement, he would turn over 85 percent of his assets, estimated at $100 million to $200 million, after the first $5 million, which goes directly to the trustee. Levin also would get to keep his Fort Lauderdale house, $750,000 in personal property and $60,000 a month in living expenses.

Only $60,000 a month? How can a guy live on so little? How heartless.

[Berliner Bel Air]

Levin and Rothstein, hmmmm, those names...

[dinger]

Sent another 50 to help out. I think we should give this a push to help Jon clear the debts he's incurred, Shoot the guy an early Christmas gift. Thanks for the site and sticking to your guns, Jon. A lesser man could have made this all go away by giving in and deleting the pages, you have the backbone to stand up for your rights and I would be willing to be there are other sites watching all this closely. Circle the wagons, guys.

[Johnunit]

I'm glad to see my meager 5 or 10 bucks went to fighting the good fight. This place has been a great resource for me since before I had my drivers license.

[Duntov]

Originally Posted by ckucia

I sincerely support Jon in his lawsuit defense. However, you'll note that the first word in your quote is "Congress". The first amendment applies to government restricting the rights of its citizens.

The Streetbeasts lawsuit, unfortunate as it is, is not a first amendment issue. Missapplication of the law? Possibly. Meritless lawsuit? Almost definitely. But no government entity is telling Jon to shut down this site because they disagree with the content. A private individual is misusing the court system - probably a good argument for tort reform and possibly some rethinking of libel laws, but not an issue of "free speech" or even "freedom of the press" within the context of the Constitution.

I have no idea what Hotrodders.com or Jon has to do with Congress respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is a private site owned by Jon and he can make whatever rules he wants regarding whatever subjects he wants as long as he remains within the (pretty broad) limits of libel law.

Point taken and I agree, not disregarding Cboy. I just find it a great ideal to aspire to....

Also agree with Johnunit that this site is an excellent resource..... I've found that there are at least a dozen top engine techs here; maybe more.. And dozens more sharp people to keep them challenged to explore the science.. Even suspected a few times that some have put TI to reading and calculating and thinking. Yeah, Great site and it earns our support!

[Docc]

Originally Posted by Berliner Bel Air

Levin and Rothstein, hmmmm, those names...

Berliner Bel Air
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Berlin, Germany

Hmmm...that location...

[agtw31]

an board i frequent was threatened with legal action from a parts vendor because the board owners let people complain about the vendor's products and customer service,or lack there of.

we do not even mention the name of the company anymore on the board,because the owner just didnt want to spend the money on an attorney.

this type of legal harrassment is ridiculous.

good for you for standing up to these dirtbags