Monitored Alarm Systems: Edwin Mellen Press Demonstrates How Not To Respond To Criticism: With Lawsuits & Bogus Threats

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Edwin Mellen Press Demonstrates How Not To Respond To Criticism: With Lawsuits & Bogus Threats

10:47 AM | Posted by ProJ | | Edit Post

Well here's a story that would fit with what our friend Ken White with asshats Popehat generously called censors activity. There is a lot of activity in this tale bad, it's almost hard to know where to start - so let's really work backwards and reveal each new layer of censorship activity one step at a time. It begins with this: cooking blog scholarly Scholarly Publishing Society, published a blog post this morning, saying he had deleted some messages from your site because of threatening letters from a lawyer representing Edwin Mellen Press, an academic publishing house. While I disagree (strongly) the decision to withdraw the kitchen learned these positions, they do not publish letters at least legal, Amanda R. Amendola, we'll post it here:

There are all kinds of wrong here, but we only insiders in the rabbit. Firstly, it is quite weak Kitchen scholarly folded after receiving a single legal letter, not even alleged any violation of the present law. As the letter makes clear, they are simply overwhelmed what was written, but even they do not think the original ticket has reached the level of defamation. Instead, they simply love it, and promise that "we demand that the time Mr. Anderson publishes or makes a statement about our society or authors is that any defamatory, continue any action court only against him but also his organization. "And Kitchen scholarly bent and worn poles. Good job, Edwin Mellen Press to create scary effects on freedom of expression. He also said that if you post something that then causes a defamatory statement may sue ... well, this is an exaggeration. Then this line is pure crap:

We take this information to your attention because they are both editors of the declaration of Ms. Hunt and Anderson blog. As such, it has a legal obligation to control this type of comment. To limit the damage these facts, we demand the immediate withdrawal of Mrs Hunt, comments on your blog.

As Hunt said, in particular, Amendola is simply incorrect. Or she knows nothing, or chooses to simply ignore section 230 of the CDA and piles on piles on piles of jurisprudence makes clear that blogger

not

the opinions of the publisher and the user have

no legal obligation

for monitoring. But in any case, is wrong. Whether or not applicable to Anderson blog, which is at least a little fuzzy. Is

possible

the blog itself can result in liability to the owner of the blog, but there are also many cases involving people mail forwarding defamatory, courts felt that it is protected by section 230. Guest Post publishes a blog on the same e-mail? Seems to have a strong enough argument for it, but anyway, the argument

matter here

Amendola has already admitted they can not find anything defamatory in the original blog entry Anderson. course, this made me curious. What was in the original blog. While a kitchen scholarly loose collapsed and fell to the post, the Google cache still has, at least for now. As the text of the latter and the comments at the bottom are fundamental to understand all this, I have kept the text in PDF format and embedded here:

scholarly kitchen Censored Blog Post About Edwin Mellen

document

Page > Notes