I Don't Get It -- The Petition Drive

[Guest guest]

Hi all:

I just don't understand this petition drive regarding Deb/ciar1. On

the other hand, I'm also not sure I understand why she is

being " censored " in the first place.

Before writing this, I went back and read as many of Deb's post-op

posts as I could find. Several of the statements Deb made do appear

to be potentially defamatory -- probably close enough for a judge to

give the question to a jury at a trial, IMHO. (By the way, everybody

keeps referring to " slander, " which applies to spoken defamation; the

proper term for written defamation is " libel. " )

Included in the Terms of Service, (which we all

electronically " signed " when we joined up), is the following: (Note,

where I edit a portion of the Terms of Service (TOS) for length and

relevance to the present topic, I shall insert " ... " )

" You agree to not use the Service to:

a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any

Content that is ... tortious, defamatory, ... libelous. "

IMHO, a few of Deb's statements arguably crossed this line.

In addition, the TOS includes the following Indemnity Clause:

" 9. INDEMNITY

You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo, and its subsidiaries,

affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and

employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable

attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of

Content you submit, post, transmit or make available through the

Service, your use of the Service, ... your violation of the TOS, or

your violation of any rights of another. "

In other words, if somebody were to sue Yahoo for something that one

of us posted, that member could get stuck paying all of Yahoo's

damages.

Okay, so, from what I've read, Deb could get Deb in a lot of trouble

with her posts.

BUT, I have been unable to find anything in the TOS that would put

the moderators at risk, and certainly the rest of us are in no danger

simply from reading what Deb writes.

Perhaps the moderators fear being sued under some general, common law

theory of tort -- i.e., for facilitating the publication of Deb's

libelous statements. I suppose such a thing is possible, however

unlikely. I think this was the fear expressed by one of the

moderators when he/she commented on the issue a while ago. (Or was

it someone else attemting to comment for her/him? I get confused

about who is or is not a moderator.)

In any event, if this is the position the moderators have taken, then

I think we should respect it, given that they are the ones who at

least feel as though their keisters are hanging on the line over

this.

And so, with all due respect to the 1% of list members who have

signed the petition, I really think it should be amended to say that

Deb should be uncensored if she promises not to make factual

statements and accusations the veracity of which she cannot possibly

know.

So, warriors for free speech, what say you?

Tom

[Guest guest]

Hi Tom -

I guess that this is really written to the group because you have

already decided that there is nothing anyone can say to convince you

that your position is incorrect. Anyway, here goes.

Deb may have crossed over the line. Then again, maybe not. Only

she, Dr. Ren and God know what happened. You missed the part about

truth being an absolute defense to an action for libel/slander, too.

The more important issue is that too many people on this board

prejudged the situation with much less information at their

fingertips than that available to Deb.

These do-gooders worried about the tone of the posts and the words

she used. They were unconcerned about Deb's situation and her

feelings.

Censorship, based upon the fact that someone says something that you

wouldn't say (or at least claim that you wouldn't say) and that the

person used language that a pure and right thinking person like

themselves wouldn't use, is just plain wrong. There is too strong an

ingredient of self-righteousness in Deb's critics.

This group has a lot of good going for it. The information is

usually useful, and most people are willing to share information.

It's just too bad that so many people got caught up in the censorship

drive.

Best -

Nick in Sage

[Guest guest]

> You missed the part about truth being an absolute defense

> to an action for libel/slander, too.

I didn't miss it. The problem is, the mere fact that Deb BELIEVES

something to be true does not make it provable in a court. Please

understand, I take issue with only a very few of the statements Deb

made.

For example, I have no problem with any of the following, which I

quote from post #91465.

" let me tell you about my day so far, no lets make it

my past two days. I've puked at least 4 times. I have

constant chills from dumping anything I eat, even pure

protein. I have no energy cause my blood sugar keeps

crashing, more dumping effects. My esophagus burns

nearly non stop despite 2, 30 mg prevacids a day. Let me

describe waking up choking on the reflux twice last nite.

It feels like your drowning, only it's not water, but

intestinal and gastric contents washing up my esophagus,

i wonder if i will end up like Max in Canada, she needs

to sleep in an elevated position, of course she lost her

stomach from the DS procedure,and has her esophagus connected

to her intestines, like a tube, not unlike my configuration,

there is a constant risk for aspiration pneumonia. Let me

tell you about the constand pain in my stomach and right

upper quad. Might be a marginal ulcer forming. You can

twist my words attempt to refute whatever I say, but again

let me remind you, Jane, this is not about you. Oh and

about my anger, you bet your ass I'm fucking pissed. "

It's only with the second half of the next sentence that Deb crossed

the line by saying:

" I no longer have any quality of life cause of your dear, sweet,

capable Dr. Ren. "

Believing that all of the above horrors are the fault of Dr. Ren is

quite different from being able to prove that all of the above

horrors are the fault of Dr. Ren.

> The more important issue is that too many people on this board

> prejudged the situation with much less information at their

> fingertips than that available to Deb.

I think you are correct here. But I also think that there were

several occasions when Deb went beyond what she KNOWS and stated her

OPINIONS as though they were FACTS.

> These do-gooders worried about the tone of the posts and the words

> she used. They were unconcerned about Deb's situation and her

> feelings.

Again I think you are correct, at least in regard to some list

members. There are quite a few people on this group who do not wish

to hear anything negative, and there are also quite a few people who

take any expression of opinion contrary to their own as a personal

attack.

For example, look at the flack I received a few days ago for stating

my opinion that some of the DS surgeons in California are better

qualified than another DS surgeon in California.

Similarly, look at the way Nan has been attacked for expressing her

opinions of late. Shouldn't she have the same right to express

herself as does Deb?

> Censorship, based upon the fact that someone says something

> that you wouldn't say (or at least claim that you wouldn't

> say) and that the person used language that a pure and right

> thinking person like themselves wouldn't use, is just plain

> wrong. There is too strong an ingredient of self-righteousness

> in Deb's critics.

True. But then there is too strong an ingredient of self-

righteousness in quite a few of our list members, no?

Regards,

Tom

[Guest guest]

These do-gooders worried about the tone of the posts and the words she used. They were unconcerned about Deb's situation and her feelings.

Excuse me, but I don't think anyone is unconcerned about how Deb is feeling.

I think you are assuming that anyone who might have a reservation or two about Deb's actions is unsympathetic to her plight. THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

Nan E.

[Guest guest]

This group has a lot of good going for it. The information is usually useful, and most people are willing to share information.

It's just too bad that so many people got caught up in the censorship drive.

You just haven't been paying attention to what people have been posting.

Please go back and read them with an open mind. You may call yourself SAGE, but I am sure you mean the herb now.

Nan E.