![[Politech logo]](http://www.politechbot.com/image/logo.gif){kind=logo}
Politech is the oldest Internet resource devoted to politics and technology. Launched in 1994 by Declan McCullagh, the mailing list has chronicled the growing intersection of culture, technology, politics, and law. Since 2000, so has the Politech web site.
Previous Politech message: "Churches sue critic for linking" http://www.politechbot.com/p-03192.html --- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 01:05:00 -0500 From: "The Very Rev. Tony Begonja" <tbegonja@earthlink.net> To: declan@well.com Subject: Update on "Churches sue critic for linking" Declan, This round, this case, draws to a close, I think, at least for now: On June 12th, after sifting through a blizzard of paper and sitting through two hearings, U.S. Magistrate Judge Shaffer made his recommendations. The gist of it went like this: he granted both remaining Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and he denied the Plaintiff's erroneously-named motion for "interlocutory injunction". His recommendation, archived at http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/pdfs/020617_recommend_on_mtd.pdf noted that "It is difficult to believe that a reasonable Internet user would conclude that the disparaging remarks on Defendant's web sites regarding Plaintiff's churches and leaders were endorsed by Plaintiffs or that such remarks would likely cause confusion as to their source." (p. 18). His recommendation went further to defend fair use and freedom of speech on the Internet: "Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief sweeps too broadly under the guise of protecting Plaintiff's alleged copyrights. Applied literally, Plaintiffs motion would prevent Defendants from using Plaintiffs' service mark even under circumstances that would not be commerical in nature, or would not be likely to cause confusion, or that might be protected under the fair use doctrine. ... Fair use is also a limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce copyrighted works. ... As a practical matter, it would be extremely difficult for this court to fashion an order that would be certain not to chill protected speech." (p. 20) On June 24th, the Plaintiff's objected to the magistrate's findings. This objection is posted at http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/pdfs/020620_pls_object_to_%20recom.pdf Finally, on July 5th, U.S. District Judge Miller made his brief ruling. Rather than deal with the Plaintiff's June 24th objection, Miller granted Defendant Griffith-Mair's motion to dismiss for lack of venue -- which automatically covers all Defendants -- and he denied Plaintiff's request for "interlocutory injunction". Miller's ruling is posted at http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/pdfs/020705_order_on_recommend.pdf ============================================================= One comment I wish to make on Magistrate Judge Shaffer's recommendation: While some of the remarks on my website regarding the Plaintiff churches and leaders may seem "disparaging", I stand by them, because they are quite true. ============================================================= I'm glad Judge Shaffer expressly told the Plaintiffs during the two hearings that he would not entertain any further attempts to add ISPs and their upstream providers to this case. You see, the Plaintiffs not only tried to add as a new Defendant the upstream provider of my new ISP, but also harassed the Electronic Frontier Foundation itself (EFF) since the owner of my new ISP has his day job with them.) It is unclear, though, to me what will happen regarding the defaulted-Defendant ISP "Direclynx". ============================================================= >From PACER: 6/12/02 116 MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATION gr #22 Begonja's mtn to dism; gr #85 Griffith's mtn to dism; den #4, pla's mtn for inter inj; deny as moot #21 Begonja's mtn to str; #22 Begonja's mtn to quash; #72 pla's mtn to str; #73 pla's mtn for lv to file; #88 Griffith's mtn .. to prohibit by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer concerning Begonja's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [22-1] Griffith's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [85-1] pla's motion for Interlocutory (preliminary) injunction re: infringment of copyrights [4-1] Begonja's motion to strike pla's motion for Interlocutory (preliminary) injunction re: infringment of copyrights [4-1] [21-1] Begonja's motion to quash service of process [22-2] pla's motion to strike executed waiver of service [16-1] by Directlynx, Inc. [72-1] pla's motion to amend pla's complaint [3-1] [73-1] Griffith's motion for order prohibiting conduct of harrassment by plas or atty against myself and Canadian Internet service provider [88-1] ; to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [22-1], to motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [85-1], to motion for Interlocutory (preliminary) injunction re: infringment of copyrights [4-1], to motion to strike motion for Interlocutory (preliminary) injunction re: infringment of copyrights [4-1] [21-1], to motion to quash service of process [22-2], to motion to strike executed waiver of service [16-1] by Directlynx, Inc. [72-1], to motion to amend pla's complaint [3-1] [73-1], to motion for order prohibiting conduct of harrassment by plas or atty against myself and Canadian Internet service provider [88-1] (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 6/13/02 (db) [Entry date 06/13/02] 6/24/02 117 OBJECTIONS by plaintiffs to Magistrate's Recommendation [116-1] (db) [Entry date 06/25/02] 7/5/02 118 ORDER by Judge Walker D. Miller adopting [116-1] - Magistrate's Recommendation granting in part and denying in part dft's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [85-1], denying as moot motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [22-1], motion for Interlocutory (preliminary) injunction re: infringment of copyrights [4-1], motion to strike motion for Interlocutory (preliminary) injunction re: infringment of copyrights [4-1] [21-1], motion to quash service of process [22-2], motion to strike executed waiver of service [16-1] by Directlynx, Inc. [72-1], motion to amend pla's complaint [3-1] [73-1], motion for order prohibiting conduct of harrassment by plas or atty against myself and Canadian Internet service provider [88-1] dismissing case (cc: all counsel) ; entry date : 7/8/02 (db) [Entry date 07/08/02] ============================================================= The major pleadings and complete PACER record of this case, along with many other relevant items, are posted at http://www.ind-movement.org/lawsuit/ ============================================================= One last thing: The original Politechbot posting trigger some serious discussion on one of the Harvard Law School "OPENLAW" Discussion Lists, particularly about the Plaintiffs complaint that posting the Cease & Desist letters they sent violated their copyrights: http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg16935.html http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg16950.html http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg16969.html http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg16972.html http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss2/msg16975.html Tony ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------