Charter School Firm Attacks Online Criticism 273
Lane writes "News-Press.com reports that 'Charter Schools USA
is
threatening legal action against parents who use an Internet discussion
board to air grievances about Gateway Charter.'" This despite comments which the parents say are based on the public record, and posted anonymously.
So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?
Looking at some of the comments on that site, I
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2, Informative)
See anything in there mentioning that you're allowed to lie about a company in order to defame it and damage its business?
Given the fact that truths tend to be overblown and exaggerated as they are circulated among groups, damaging the business is precisely the point of criticism.
If you go to Bobs Store and Bob rips you off by falsely advertising
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2, Insightful)
However, if Bob's clerk is rude to you, and you begin parading around town claiming that Bob raped your family and set fire to an orphanage, you are breaking the law.
If CSUSA wants to take Reigelman to court, they must think they have proof that some statements on her message board are false, and they must think they have a legal right to justice.
Now, if
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, the C&D claim there are unlawful, defamatory, and libelous statements being published, but aren't willing to cite specific instances of unlawful, defamatory, or libelous statements. That indicates--at least to my twisted, paranoid mind--that the lawyers know they don't actually have a case, and are hoping to shut the site down with pur
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
They might, but that's not the same as they must. It's hard for one of us on the outside to tell the difference between them having a legitimate grievance about out-and-out falsehoods and them just not wanting any bad publicity and so suing or threatening to sue with a certain confidence the site and the parents can't aff
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually not.
IANAL. There are two standards for libel in the US depending on who
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
You're so worried about "freedom of speech" -- a concept which you seem not to understand -- but you seem to have forgotten all about "due process of law."
As do you. Grandparent was defending the case, you are supporting it.
Almost any discussion on it has preempted due process of the law.
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to c
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2, Informative)
yes
Merely stating the existence of a rumor is not libel. The existence of a rumor is a fact, and as such cannot be a libel.
Suggesting it is true, however, can be libel.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
You also confuse the company's claim that the posts are defamatory with that actually being the case. Since the company refused to identify -- even as an example -- any post on the site that was defamatory, I doubt even they believe they have a case that would stand up in court. They just want to scare people into compliance.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
Looking at some of the comments on that site, I can see why CSUSA thinks they have a case. Most of the worst posts have now been deleted, but the parents were in there accusing teachers of all kinds of horrible crimes, as well as CSUSA of condoning them.
I read through some of that website, the worst post I saw was something about stealing pizza. I didn't see anything approaching libel.
If CSUSA takes Reigelman to court and successfully proves that the parents were falsely defaming CSUSA on that website, then it is an open and shut case of libel, which is against the law.
The proper approach would be to subpoena the forum owner for the names of the libelous parents. Then sue those parents for libel. The vast majority of the posts on this site are nowhere near libelous, so the school has no right to shut down the entire site.
This clearly sounds like it's just a threatening action designed to silence people rather than merely stopping libel. If it were about libel they'd being going after individuals, not trying to shut down the site.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be confused about what libel means [answers.com].
Libel does not have to be `accusing somebody of doing something that's illegal' -- all it has to do is damage somebody's reputation. (It (the claim made) also has to be false.)
If I accuse you of having lots of one night stands with random women, that might damage your reputation, especially if you're a priest or married.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)
Even that is not enough for it to be libel, if one wants to be precise.
One has to knowingly write false information (I believe 'not in good faith' and 'without any evidence' are acceptable substitutes for 'knowingly') for it to fill the criteria.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
Maybe I'm missing something, but since went does accepting money from the government allow libel and slander to become protected by the First Amendement?
Whether or not Charter Schools (or any other corporations for that matter) have in fact accepted money from the gove
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
You need to think more clearly. The "First Amendment" isn't a magic incantation to be waved around willy-nilly. If people are accusing others of libel, and can back it up in court, the First Amendment simply isn't in play, be the libel target government or private. Thus, waving it around in this situation is meaningless. It's not relevant; the First Amendment is never a defense for libel.
Answer: yes! (Score:2)
That said the school can kick the offending students out of the school which would be perfectly within their own rights.
Re:Answer: yes! (Score:2, Informative)
Becasue free speech is defined within the bounds of our legal system. It's not, "you can say anything you want to say in any situation you want to say it."
Such things include words that cause a Clear and Present Danger, words that that are Likely to Breach the Peace, Libel and Slander, and Obscenity.
Our legal system is not based on the Bill of Rights alone. It is defined through 200+ years of legal definition as to wha
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:5, Interesting)
These are CHARTER schools, which means that they perform an essential public service, education, with a special dispensation from the government. Their role is not strictly private. They are taking over a service that would normally be publically administered, and therefore open to the same type of broad criticism that public figures and institutions may be subject to. As such their openness to criticism is much greater than your average private business.
The public has an essential and compelling interest in promoting good education. This forum promotes that interest by fostering said discussion, a compelling and essential service. The interest of the corporation in protecting its image is far outweighed by the overwhelming interest of the public to have an open forum to discuss the public service the school provides. This charter school, it should also be noted is publically funded. Their CEO is a political pal of Jeb Bush. The President of the United States uses this organisation as a stage for his attacks on the public school system. CSUSA stinks of sacrificing childrens' futures in the name of political expediency. Like a diseased, filth-ridden sexual deviant, CSUSA sacrifices children in its perverse worship of Mammon. The Chairman and CEO, Jonathan K. Hage, is worse than John Wayne Gacy. (That last remark may be over the top, not in its accuracy, but merely in rhetorical appropriateness.)
The bottom line is that they are using strong-arm tactics to quell legitimate criticism and dissent. It stinks to high heaven and underscores an essential misunderstanding by their management to their public mission. They should have their charter pulled for this kind of legal thuggery.
It is my considered opinion that CSUSA is a rotten organisation with no business educating children. Their operation and their thuggish legal tactics are an affront to all civic-minded people.
This is pretty strong criticism and I stand by it. I find it hard that there was anything worse on the board in question. I can't stand bullies.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
Right, because Slashdot works hard to be much more even tempered and free from zealots than democraticunderground.com.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but I do not understand why lying would not be protected as free speech.
Free speech, as far as I know, is that one is allowed to utter anything, anywhere. I do not understand why lies would not be protected under the same law as truths. Neither do I understand why defaming someone would undermine the protectedness of the statements made.
Otherwise, who is to draw the line
"Due process of law" (Score:2)
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument might make some degree of sense in those cases where there is no connection between the government and corporations. The reality is that "charter school" firms exist solely due to government fiat.
The whole reason there is freedom of speech is to make it possible to criticize government policy. If my lo
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:2)
Also the "discovery" process... (Score:2)
So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
Bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad move (Score:2)
Re:Bad move (Score:2)
1. Want their wasted 5 minutes back
2. Will see what a bunch of whiners the parents on that site appeat to be. Most of the comments seem to be insulting each others' grammar and spelling. The rest are complaining about pet issues ("The principal told my daughter to take off her jacket").
Whoever started that company picked the wrong business to be in. Their primary customer appears
Re:Entirely consistent with a petty "dictator" (Score:4, Funny)
"CSUSA has reviewed the Web site and has determined that your and other slashdotizens' and other Web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and Dr. Nauss,"
"Accordingly, CSUSA hereby demands that you immediately cease and desist your continuous published libel and defamatory accusations, comments and statements."
Call me crazy (Score:5, Interesting)
I would write a letter back saying I have complied and to please let me know if I missed anything.
Re:Call me crazy (Score:2)
Money to blow... (Score:3, Insightful)
difficult to deal with (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad.
Re:difficult to deal with (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad.
It's only sad if they are not difficult to deal with, which from the message board it would seem they are.
I would think the administration would want to deal with their concerns head on. If they are wrong on the message board, that would easily be addressed at a PTO meeting.
Which CSU has canceled until the end of the School year.
Seems pretty difficult to deal with to me.
true tort reform. (Score:2)
What legal right does anyone have to do this? If you are innocent until proven guilty, it would be a meaningless action that at most would be intimidation, which is illegal.
Right?
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:true tort reform. (Score:4, Informative)
In short, there is nothing wrong with C&D letters. They should be the first step someone takes when they find someone infringing their copyright, trademark or the like. But they shouldn't be used as a way to scare people away from legal activities, which they often are.
Re:true tort reform. (Score:5, Informative)
With some causes of action, if a potential plaintiff continues the conduct after having been explicitly notified, and if that action is deemed illegal, the defendant can be held to have acted willfully. In most cases, willful conduct results in greatly increased damages. In just about all cases, willful conduct looks very bad to a jury.
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2)
Really? You're kidding me.
What if you do not beileve the action is illegal, and come to find out that the court doesn't see in your favor.
Now you've unknowingly became a
Re:true tort reform. (Score:3, Interesting)
Then you should not be sending cease and desist letters. At a minimun, you should have a good faith belief that all the elements of a legal wrong are present in your case. Ideally, you should have advice of counsel or a legal opinion in hand prior to sending a C&D letter.
There is room in the law for true disputes and differences of opinion. That's why there are courts in the first plac
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2)
Good point, I believe I've just learned something, thanks.
I do have several off topic questions , if you wouldn't mind? Would initialing electing these permanent judges be workable? How else would you select and promote the judiciary? Do you see thi
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2)
And a fool, for not seeking legal advice when threatened with legal action.
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2)
"This would be a civil matter, not a criminal matter, there is no jury."
Please mods, this is not insightful. It's flat wrong. Please save the poster the embarrassment of having his name prominently attached to such a statement.
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2)
Note to anagama: Ally McBeal doesn't equal real-life.
Re:true tort reform. (Score:2)
Innocent until proven quilty is the standard of proof in a criminal trial.
It does not bar a formal rquest to stop what you are doing until the legal issues have been resolved.
Hurting Their Own Business (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.
Re:Hurting Their Own Business (Score:2)
Unless they don't make very much money in which case they are left with Public schools or this.
It's not really the same question of voting with your money when you left with 2 very bad alternatives. One that you can at least attempt to reason with, or another where you are in even a worse position to make change.
Re:Hurting Their Own Business (Score:2)
I would think that libel would hurt them in the long run. Imaging people 'Googling' for 'Charter Schools USA' and 9 of the top 10 results are false comments about Charter Schools employees, accusing them of all sorts of things they didn't do. That's what would hurt them.
I hope that parents will vote with their money and send their kids to school elsewhere.
Why? Because they stand up for their rights not to be libelled? That's a really stupid reason to d
Re:Hurting Their Own Business (Score:2)
'Hey son, you're not going to that good school, you have to go to a shit one instead, because the good one is suing someone who lied about them.'
'But Daddy, that shit school's full of bullies and incompetent teachers and drugs.'
'I'm sorry son, but people's right to libel people on the Internet comes before everything, even you.'
Right, your theory makes perfect sense because
1. All
Fox News Generation! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing is slander anymore, it's just "Your opinion" Watch fox news sometime, they get away with saying crazy stuff all the time by using that legal technique.
Re:Fox News Generation! (Score:2)
Right... (Score:4, Insightful)
-- RLJ
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Thank you for this admission - it will keep this thread shorter.
Back to the original topic: discussing an aggressor attempting to censor protected speech via the legal system by using an unrelated example of sloppy journalism is probably not worth your or my time to discuss. It was a bad example which detracted from the valid (if tired) debate about free speech online.
My point, which evidently was missed (sarcasm can be subtle like that) is
Re:Right... (Score:2)
But no, the original topic is defamation, which, it is rumoured, you seem to be doing quite well. Your point
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Since you do not care about American television politics I am going to quit responding to this thread. That and you seem to be unawares how Google advanced searches work. In order to provide the link, I had to construct the search. In doing so, I was privy to the result set. The first one is the best, see the other thread of this grandparent for a humorous discussion.
To summarize: beating up the little guy w/ the legal system is bad. Making a straw man out of a ne
Re:Right... (Score:2)
-- RLJ
Re:points that they just didn't have the facts?!?! (Score:2)
"Microsoft's $10 billion giveaway": "Rumor has it that Microsoft is considering giving away at least $10 billion of its massive $46 billion cash horde." - it is affecting the share price.
"Bank seizes 'world's most expensive' house": "Rumor has it the crown prince of Dubai snapped up the 90-acre property, which features a heated marble driveway." - not verified, but relevant to the story.
They were the only two news stories that were in the front page and satisfied my p
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Maybe that was a pun, but anyone else find it incredibly ironic?
Re:Right... (Score:2)
It's funny the things one picks up when one reads, yes?
Cheers,
- RLJ
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Re:Right... (Score:2)
Re:Right... (Score:3, Informative)
Hit #2: A book review complaining about the book going from first person narrative to third person rumors. Again apparently critical of rumor.
Hit #3: "Rumor has it that Microsoft is considering giving away at least $10 billion of its massive $46 billion cash horde." Certainly not trying to cloak themselves against slander charges here, and as I recall this was in fact true.
Hi
Re:Fox News Generation! (Score:2)
Did I get it right?
Re:Fox News Generation! (Score:2)
Re:Fox News Generation! (Score:2)
Re:Fox News Generation! (Score:2)
That's the great thing about privatization (Score:5, Insightful)
Accountability!
Oh? Never mind.
Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement (Score:5, Informative)
I have no idea of how good they are as schools, do they have a political leaning, or anything like that. If I was a parent, I'd probably ask some questions too. Definitely an Edu-Corp.
Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement (Score:2)
Re:Charter Schools USA, 20 second judgement (Score:3, Insightful)
The kids are the natural resource. Have you seen how they handle natural resources?
KFG
Simple solution (Score:2)
It worked well for both the Republicans and the Democrats last year.
Gosh guys this is important. (Score:2, Informative)
My guess is that most of you are in your teen's and 20's with no kids that you know of. Right now there is a effort to Privatizating everything! Schools seems to be the best example of why not to privatize.
1) The tax payers almost never get a tax break from the new private charter schools. It's hard to see. but charter schools cost about the same per student as a regular school.
2) Charter schools with open enrollment like to pack the students in. for get
Re:Censored or Mindfucked? What's better? (Score:2)
Privatization means at least one other thing that may be even more important. When you privatize a service formerly performed publicly, you make a good portion of the taxpayers' money alloted to it available for campaign contributions and political lobbying. Getting rich in privatized public services means knowing what backs to scratch. So, in the end, everybody (e.g., business and coope
If they're anonymous, are they really parents? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents? (Score:2)
I don't mean to dimish your point about the MEA union, but have you read the message board?
Most of the complaints are about a child being able to wear a jacket to school, and take
Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents? (Score:2)
Re:If they're anonymous, are they really parents? (Score:2)
What he is saying is that the attacks on the school are really weak and about minor-sounding annoyances. If the teacher's union is trying to slander the school with false accusations, he is claiming they would use much worse things than rules about wearing jackets, thus he is arguing they are not slandering it.
I have no idea or opinion on this case, but am annoyed at responders who do not even bother to comprehend what they are responding
since it is not seen as legitimate as the press (Score:3, Interesting)
What needs to be done is to put up and then attack a site which the 'regime' does not atack as it is clearly a shill. You are not the subject of attack, but some one who suposedly is is getting clobbered.
As long as all the allegetions can be 'arguably' backed up, the proxy fight can continue unabated.
This gets the debate out of the 'close in' arena and gets into first ammendment rights.
Then you get press without involving the lawyers.
This is a job for 'offshore ISP' (Score:4, Interesting)
An enterprising person in a (relatively) stable nowheresville sets up an uncensored ISP. Then charges micropayments for access. In return the ISP ignores all threats and warnings of civil actions from countries with overdeveloped legal systems. This could be in a country like Nigeria that is super-corrupt and has its own resource base, or UAE in the Gulf where there is so much wealth that they immune to any bullying. Or a place like Botswana that has stability and no money. Or maybe a microstate like Litchenstein that has traditionally provided these various discrete services to their powerful neighbors.
And again, you could fight this in court of law. You do have democracy, freedom of speech, tradition, and all that jazz on your side. But American courts run on money. It would be a lot cheaper in the long run just to hold the discussions on an offshore site in neutral territory. And it would send a strong message to lawyers that in the information age there is a new limit to the extent that they can use legal means to harass and intimidate people just for money.
And why not? (Score:2)
Any why not? Afterall, the records speak for themselves anyways. Doesn't matter who points out the facts in those records.
Text of the legal threat: (Score:3, Informative)
Tripp Scott (law firm)
RE: CHARTER SCHOOLS USA
OUR FILE No. 980058.0001
Dear Mrs. Reigelman
Please be advised that the undersigned law firm represents Charter Schools USA, INC. (CSUSA) in regards to the defamatory and libelous web site you created and have publishedin disparagment of CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and Deborah Nauss. Since we are reprsenting CSUSA, we respectfully request that you direct any further communication through us.
CSUSA has reviewedthe web site and has determined that your and other parents' and other web site participants' published accusations, comments and statements are unlawful, defamatory and libelous against CSUSA, Gateway Charter School and DR.Nauss.
Accordingly, CSUSA hereby demands that you immediatly cease and desist your continues published libal and defamatory accusations, comments and statments about CSUSA, Gateway Charter Scool and Dr.Nauss through any means, including a web site. If you fail to heed this demand, you will leave CSUSA with no altermative but to proceed with all legal actions to protect CSUSA against your continues false, libelous and defamatory publications.
PLEASE GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.
Very Truley Yours,
Lisa D MacCLUGAGE
For The Firm
Phone number is 954-760-4906
e-mail: ldm@trippscott.com [mailto]
In my experience... (Score:4, Interesting)
(What happened to me)
http://www.textfiles.com/uploads/incident.txt [textfiles.com]
Re:In my experience... (Score:3, Informative)
and obedient sort of person is exactly what mainstream schools were
designed to turn out. From:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/8e.htm [johntaylorgatto.com]
"The first exhibit for your perusal is the U.S. Bureau of Education's
Circular of Information for April 1872, which centers around what it
calls the "problem of educational schooling." With whose interests in
mind did the bureau view education as a problem? The amazing answer is:
from a big business perspective
Having read the forum... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, these people are citizens of the Hangin-Chad state o'
Congratulations! (Score:2)
Update: Now that I know what you do (and more importantly, how you do it), I hate you even more.
But hey, all publicity is good publicity!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:First Amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
Yes, please. This sort of thing is hardly new. The aquaria community was rocked by a similiar debacle not too long ago:
http://www.libn.com/Column_details.cfm?ID=1249 [libn.com]
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
I looked around for what the hubbub is all about. You might say that the schools actions were flagrantly shocking, despicable, and almost too egregious to publish. Alternatively, it might be related to the current trend of parents becoming more and more obnoxious. Anyway, if you suffer nightmares easily, stop reading here. If you are a spelling nazi, you migh
Re:who gives a fuck (Score:3, Interesting)
My words for the CSUSA: If someone so powerful like the tobacco companies couldn't keep a shameful secret hidden, what thinks you can? So sue them. Dig your own grave.
Re:free ... huh ... something ? (Score:2)
Re:free ... huh ... something ? (Score:2)
Re:free ... huh ... something ? (Score:2)