p2pnet - rss feed: p2pnet in new online libel case
p2pnet.net news: Literally 15 minutes after I posted Wayne Crookes sues Google, Wikipedia there was a knock on my door. It was a writ server telling me I, too, have been named in a Crookes lawsuit, alongside the Wikipedia Foundation, six anonymous people and an Arizona proxy service.
What did I do? I linked to an article Crookes says libels him.
If you want to go after someone for libel, Canada is the perfect place.
I’m already in the middle of one defamation lawsuit originally launched against me by Australia’s Sharman Networks and ceo Nikki Hemming, who runs the Kazaa p2p file sharing company. Sharman dropped out, leaving Hemming to proceed by herself. This case is on hold while decisions are made as to the next direction it’ll take.
Well-known Canadian media lawyer Dan Burnett, based in Vancouver, is representing me pro bono in the Hemming/Kazaa case.
However, as I write this, I’m in the same position I was in when the Kazaa lawsuit first broke. That’s to say for the moment, I’m on my own and since it’s Saturday, I’ll have to wait until Monday before I’ll be able to do anything about this new suit.
Stay tuned.
Cheers!
Jon Newton - p2pnet
If your Net access is blocked by governBryan Adams slams Net radio hikement restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the endSurvey: How Did Copyright Infringement Become Equated with Robbery? (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
April 21st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Too bad you aren’t in the US where it is much, much harder to sue for crap like libel.
Anyways, good luck fighting this garbage.
April 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Good luck Jon in defending the lawsuit.
I just wonder if there anyone in USA who would like to set up a site about Wayne Cookes.
April 21st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Good luck Jon in defending the lawsuit.
I just wonder if there anyone in USA who would like to set up a site about Wayne Cookes.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:02 pm
All of these cases are so laughable for the same reason that so many other things we’ve seen posted about are:
One person “enabling” another person to do something does not mean that the “enabler” is responsible for the thing that is done.
Once a gun, a VCR, a DVD recorder, a car, or a comment block is given to someone else, and that other person is given control over what is done with it, the person who provided it is not in any way helping the person who acquired it make those decisions. One would say “but there are control methods available to prevent/limit/filter what can be done with some of those things!” and one would be right, if one were to disregard personal freedoms and responsibility as an option. What you say, what you copy, what you watch, and what you shoot at with a gun are your personal choices, and while controls CAN be placed on what you do by someone else, the very idea of controlling your freedom to choose goes against every free nation’s core principles.
I am reminded of something I read online once that said “A free man does not need to ask permission to have a gun.”
April 21st, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Hi Jon
Horrid that this has happened when the Net is in snooze mode, but you’re not alone in this one. I can’t see Wikipedia taking this lying down. And since when has *linking* to a possibly defamatory article been libellous?
Can’t you countersue for harrassment?
Some people have a problem with freedom of information, and whatever else this guy has or hasn’t done, his progressive credentials are now in question.
Love and support from the UK!
April 21st, 2007 at 6:09 pm
My advice would be the reverse. The best way to deal with an egotist is to ignore him. So delete every reference to the man and encourage all other internet, news and media outlets to do the same. In short, eradicate him from all publicity. Then, when you really have the low down dirt on him, come out hard and strong and bring him down.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Jon Newton is a flack for an undisclosed financier with an agenda. He is also a mouse, attacking his targets from behind a computer in the backwoods of Canada.
He will not disclose his enabler’s identity. Who is the ananymous backer? enemies of Wayne Crook? Enemies of the RIAA, Enemies of other Newton targets such as Hemming? Newton is not telling all and has clear agendas and a sloppy habit of linking to any attack piece that suits the agenda he (or his undisclosed financiar who keeps him in business) sets.
This post probably will not be up for long. But the questions remain. Anything to say for yourself Newton?
April 21st, 2007 at 11:59 pm
You can say all you want but how about not hiding behind a readers write comment. At least give a name or organization if you have one.
Since when is it a crime to link to something???
Has the world come to this?
Thw world is filled with all these gossip mags but yet no one ever sues them. Oh sure the odd star once in a while will but still?
One of these days bloggers will unite and stand u[p for each other. When someone is attempted to be sued for libel from some flake that is hurt cause someone said/wrote something about them.
If people have a problem with Jon. p2pnet, other contibuters etc. then dont come here and read the stories. This isnt CNN so take into consideration who the story is written by, sure parts may be bias but so is CNN, MSNBC, CBC, Aljeerza, etc.
Ill always support this site in any way I can and if once again if people dont like the stories they can always not read them or try to give their opinions to the matter with respect.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 am
You forgot the don of bias the totally unbiased Fox News.
Compared to Fox News this site is not bias.
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 am
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:49 am
” He will not disclose his enabler’s identity. Who is the ananymous backer? enemies of Wayne Crook? Enemies of the RIAA, Enemies of other Newton targets such as Hemming? ”
As I have said before, Gach ….
Disclose YOUR identity ,
I bet you can come up with a LOT of great reasons, that
equally apply to anyone else who want their identity kept
private.
As for the Kind soul who helps keep this site alive,
perhaps his only motive for staying anon is simply
that he doesn’t want to be constantly hit up for cash
from others ?
Now YOUR reasons for staying hidden, i’ll wager, are much more
interesting
Once again .. I see you .. lol
” This post probably will not be up for long. But the questions remain. Anything to say for yourself Newton? ”
And, once again, as you well know, your flame filled
troll bait post will stay up, as it ALWAYS does.
So, whadda ya say, Gachnar … you first
Real name ?
“He is also a mouse, attacking his targets from behind a computer in the backwoods of Canada. ”
LOLOLOL TFF !!!!!
We all know who YOU are named after ;P
Hiding behind YOUR internet tuff guy KB.
And you ARE about as weak , ineffectual, and impotant
as your ( squished ) namesake.
Dreddsnik
Boycott-RIAA.com
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I have a famous saying, Ignorance can be fixed, but Stupid is forever. Granted I don’t know a thing about canadian law, but here in the US, what this gutless coward is doing is defimation of character, and in the US you can be hit with a civil suit, and possibly criminal charges. Besides it is not a crime to link to an article, and above all else, it may show that he is quite possibly hiding something.
April 22nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Yes, much easier to sue them for all other crap.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
a) you’ve got a lot of big names with you in this one
b) you posted a link. a link is a fact*. facts are not libelous
*for those who may not think this is true, a link, url or Universal Resource Locator to give it its full name is a string of text which tells you how to find something on the internet. If you allow someone to be sued for posting urls then you open up the possibility of suing people for giving directions… (if i tell you where to find the nearest bank am i responsible if you rob it?)
April 22nd, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Mr. Newton (and all of his readers may reply as well), it is with great pleasure that I read the articles written daily on this very Website. Your integrity and passion are evident in most of the articles. But one must ask what exactly do you stand for.
Gachnar (if that’s his real pseudo name) raises a valid point. Why the secrecy? Why do you REFUSE to reveal the names of your backers. Who is donating cash money to your Swiss bank account?
On the WWW, most of us like unbiased comments to remain intact so I fully support you in your war against this crook(es?). But I must say that I find it ironic that people are demanding that Gachnar (again, if it’s really him) reveal himself when you, Mr. Newton, refuse to reveal the intricate details of your financial backer.
As a blogger, you have a duty to reveal these things if you wish to still be considered unbiased. I implore you to do the right thing. To sweeten the pot, if you decide to reveal your backers (all of them) I shall deliver Gachnar to you. His (or possible a Her) identity will shock you and the effects will resonate across the WWW.
Secrecy is a double edged sword. We all tell secrets but the time comes when we must whisper them into each others ears.
What do you stand for? Let’s find out. Let us all rally against the crookes and fiends who attempt to stifle the free flow of information. Let us stand united against the propaganda machine which drowns the voices of those of us who really count. Let us stop keeping secrets.
I await your response.
Regards,
Franklin Tootenberry
Former High Ranking Member of the Church of Scientology
Current Member of the Reis Movement
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 am
Former High Ranking Member of the Church of Scientology
I have total respect for you then, NOT.
Lets have un-bias look at Scientology and law suits in the past and present.
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:07 am
‘Backers’ is the wrong word. One guy is helping me out, and what he’s providing just about covers the mortgage and expenses. That’ll improve once we open p2pnet under the new cms/layout, which I hope won’t be in the too distant future. But right now …..
And Swiss bank account? hehehehehe. My daughter, 10, will get a kick out of that when I explain it to her.
My m8, the backer, has excellent reason for wanting to remain anonymous. But it’s not permanent and you and anyone else who cares will know who he is soon enough.
Cheers!
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Very well Jon, I have no quarrel with you! If you say you do not have a Swiss bank account I’ll take your word for it and leave it at that.
As for your backer, I will not press you on this issue if he is indeed clean, then there is still the element of surprise. When I was taking courses during my time at the Church of Scientology in New York, we were promised a meeting with a very wise man if we successfully completed a course. Well, this wise man ended up being a drunken fool with a very hairy back. So please do not attempt to hype up this mysterious backer for I will not fall for this trick again.
In response to the other individual who attacked me simply because of my religious beliefs, I will not stoop to your level and I have not come here to start a virtual dust up.
One of the reasons I left the Church of Scientology is because they refuse to allow the information which can save lives to be free. They prefer to profit on this information and remain stuck on the old ways of doing things. They do not have the ability to see the big picture and they seem to be indifferent to the widespread human suffering which they can cure.
This is why I joined the Reis Movement. We have similar beliefs but a completely different mentality and goal. We do not accept donations from the poor and we do not attempt to raid the rich hollywood actors for every penny they have. They can keep their money, it is of no use to us.
On behalf of the Reis Movement I hereby announce that Jon has our full support.
Regards,
Franklin Tootenberry
Former High Ranking Member of the Church of Scientology
Current Member of the Reis Movement
April 26th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Your analogy to the bank would be true only if the intermediary liability for robbery were as draconian as it is for defamation law. Defamation law stands out against nearly all other law in its reverse-onus (you have to prove you are innocent of defamation, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove you are guildy), and the extreme intermediary liability.
I think that people should take this seriously and be writing their Canadian members of parliament to alert them to this problem which must be fixed in the law itself.
May 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 am
Mr. Crookes (if you are reading this)
By going after Jon, you are going after the wrong person.
All Jon has done is link to the information that you are suing Google
and Wikipedia.
Posting links to this story, written by others, isn’t libel, Mr. Crookes.
Did you ask Jon to remove the allegedly libelous content? It appears not.
Did you ask Jon to cease and desist to mention you? No, you did not.
Are you a public figure, Mr. Crookes? It would appear so.
Jon has exercised what is called the “neutral reporting privilege” to report on the fact that you are suing Google and Wikipedia, on a matter of public interest, pertaining to a public person.
By using the neutral reporting privilege to state that legal action is being taken about those allegedly defamatory statements isn’t libel.
I think you are misusing and abusing the libel laws, Mr. Crookes. Jon didn’t make the allegedly defamatory statements; at absolute worst, he has only reported the fact that they were made.
I am involved in a libel case myself in Canada, and I am aware that the neutral reporting privilege will no doubt be used to report the defamatory statements which the libeler originally published. But I am not going to be so foolish as to sue the news media for reporting the facts of the case.
The libel laws exist to protect both public and private persons from being victims of defamatory and false statements of fact. I have an interest in what happens here, as I fear your abuse of the Canadian defamation laws will erode the legitimate right of claim by victims of libel, against those who act with recklessness and malice to destroy peoples’ reputations. Your hysterical actions threaten to invoke the creation of similar laws in Canada to that dirty and corrupt piece of legislation in the United States, the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. 230) which totally holds ISPs and web hosts completely immune for any wrongdoing.
Unlike the filthy Google organization, Jon is not reckless in the way he runs his site, and he is responsive to complaints. Why didn’t you ask Jon to remove the comments if you found them to be libelous? Wikipedia will also act to remove libel if you ask them; they do have a Biography of Living Persons team to examine such allegations.
Since the corrupt Google organization does neither, and operates recklessly and negligently with complete disregard for not only the public, but its own policies, I’ll make a deal with you, Mr. Crookes:
Drop the suit against Jon (who has no money), Michael Pilling, Wikipedia, and the other bloggers… and I will join in your suit against Google, where I have enough evidence of their evidence of their recklessness and negligence to make the case financially rewarding to both of us.
What do you say?
Please reply initially on this board, and then I will telephone your office. But please don’t take too long - my attorneys are preparing my own case against Google, and I am prepared to go it alone if necessary.
This isn’t a troll; I am dead serious. If there’s no response here by the weekend, I’ll presume you aren’t interested.