View Single Post
Old
12-25-2009, 11:30 PM
  #47
bstreetbully
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 28
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainpaxil View Post
its my understanding that yes he was the first blogger to publish this story as content and not in a message board or other interactive forum which would fall under section 230. and by stating individual sources and not a hypertext link he placed himself as the original author of it being published.breaking the story. further links later all go back to His site and not one brought up previous. your newspaper example would have the same report by the AP simply reprinted not authored by someone new and attributed to them as such.

my uncle was a crminal attorney and i used to help out around the office alot. im not an attorney and my experience is elswhere in the field but this looks like a case to me
Various internet archive sites have already cleared Brennan as being the first to publish this rumor. He even identified it as such and further stated "if it were true" before his mention of the rumor.

I don't see a plaintiff able to make a prima facie case here at all. If the Flyers, Hartnell, or Carter approached our firm, we would honestly not take a case like this at all.

bstreetbully is offline   Reply With Quote