<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Digest Comment: Determining the Proper Scope of Prior Restraints against Blogs in Defamation Cases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/digest-comment/digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/digest-comment/digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases</link>
	<description>A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 23:37:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tunnel Rat</title>
		<link>http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/digest-comment/digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases/comment-page-1#comment-1138</link>
		<dc:creator>Tunnel Rat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 03:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/digest/?p=727#comment-1138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am one of the John Does attacked by Plaintiffs Apex Technology Group in this case.

In short, I set up a web site whose purpose is to share information about the rampant abuse in the H-1B program and its use to displace U.S. workers.  The EndH1B.com web site had features that allow people to post links to information posted on other web sites. Visitors to EndH1B.com used these features to share information and make people aware of information on H-1B visas posted to other web sites.  

An anonymous person came to my site and posted information about the plaintiff&#039;s allegedly illegal bonded contracts.

Plaintiffs demanded that I turn over information to help them track down this &quot;culprit&quot;.  

I refused.  

I got sued.  

I never got served.

Plaintiffs are a criminal enterprise (they illegal sponsor H-1Bs and place them at 3rd party sites, in violation of USCIS rules).  They even sued U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others, in a case that was dismissed.

I&#039;ve gotten frequent death threats on my websites.  I believe plaintiffs sued to uncover my identity and turn the information over to other parties that intend to do me harm.  If you hear about me getting killed, please contact authorities about this message.

Regards,
Tunnel Rat]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am one of the John Does attacked by Plaintiffs Apex Technology Group in this case.</p>
<p>In short, I set up a web site whose purpose is to share information about the rampant abuse in the H-1B program and its use to displace U.S. workers.  The EndH1B.com web site had features that allow people to post links to information posted on other web sites. Visitors to EndH1B.com used these features to share information and make people aware of information on H-1B visas posted to other web sites.  </p>
<p>An anonymous person came to my site and posted information about the plaintiff&#8217;s allegedly illegal bonded contracts.</p>
<p>Plaintiffs demanded that I turn over information to help them track down this &#8220;culprit&#8221;.  </p>
<p>I refused.  </p>
<p>I got sued.  </p>
<p>I never got served.</p>
<p>Plaintiffs are a criminal enterprise (they illegal sponsor H-1Bs and place them at 3rd party sites, in violation of USCIS rules).  They even sued U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and others, in a case that was dismissed.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve gotten frequent death threats on my websites.  I believe plaintiffs sued to uncover my identity and turn the information over to other parties that intend to do me harm.  If you hear about me getting killed, please contact authorities about this message.</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Tunnel Rat</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hooproll</title>
		<link>http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/digest-comment/digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases/comment-page-1#comment-819</link>
		<dc:creator>hooproll</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 02:35:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/digest/?p=727#comment-819</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;The Difference Between Blogging And Freedom of Speech...&lt;/strong&gt;

The blogging spectrum has increased within these recent years. With the increase of this in demand profession, the amount of libel litigation cases against bloggers has increased as well. Apparently, since 2000, there have been well over 310 lawsuits t...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>The Difference Between Blogging And Freedom of Speech&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>The blogging spectrum has increased within these recent years. With the increase of this in demand profession, the amount of libel litigation cases against bloggers has increased as well. Apparently, since 2000, there have been well over 310 lawsuits t&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drifter</title>
		<link>http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/digest-comment/digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases/comment-page-1#comment-818</link>
		<dc:creator>Drifter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 14:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/digest/?p=727#comment-818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although your editorial reviews the impact of free speech, defamation and scope, there are several mitigating factors in this case that should be brought to light.
 
Apex was known among the people that they employed that their business ethics were in question. This was the basis for the entire case, as several  negative opinions from those in Apex’s employ had appeared on websites (other than those involved in the case) that reviewed consulting firms. The posts were simply republished on ITGrunt and EndH1B, unedited. Had Apex treated their consultants ethically to start, would there have been so many disparaging comments from the employees about how they were being treated? The employees are merely trying to inform others of potential harm and/or loss. The domain owners were targeted for re-posting opinions, not writing it.

Apex sent a grammatically substandard letter to the owner of EndH1B demanding that the posts be taken off the website and requesting the name of the person that wrote the original posts. How is the person that simply copy/pasted the text from one website from another supposed to know the original authors name? Further, the letter was signed ‘legal department’ as if to compel or intimidate where it was blatantly obvious that the writer was not a practicing attorney or even a law clerk.
 
Apex exercised an opportunity to attempt to shut down some websites that oppose foreign workers. In doing so, Apex’s cries of ‘libelous defamation’ served only to further damage their own reputation - the original negative opinions had been republished along with the case details far and wide beyond the three websites so really, what have they accomplished here?  There are now apparent violations of First Amendment Rights at the cost of Apex’s brand, to defeat those who oppose a program that earns them income. It would appear the suit is more about squashing challenges to the ‘Indian Bodyshop’ business model rather than recovery of an alleged reputation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although your editorial reviews the impact of free speech, defamation and scope, there are several mitigating factors in this case that should be brought to light.</p>
<p>Apex was known among the people that they employed that their business ethics were in question. This was the basis for the entire case, as several  negative opinions from those in Apex’s employ had appeared on websites (other than those involved in the case) that reviewed consulting firms. The posts were simply republished on ITGrunt and EndH1B, unedited. Had Apex treated their consultants ethically to start, would there have been so many disparaging comments from the employees about how they were being treated? The employees are merely trying to inform others of potential harm and/or loss. The domain owners were targeted for re-posting opinions, not writing it.</p>
<p>Apex sent a grammatically substandard letter to the owner of EndH1B demanding that the posts be taken off the website and requesting the name of the person that wrote the original posts. How is the person that simply copy/pasted the text from one website from another supposed to know the original authors name? Further, the letter was signed ‘legal department’ as if to compel or intimidate where it was blatantly obvious that the writer was not a practicing attorney or even a law clerk.</p>
<p>Apex exercised an opportunity to attempt to shut down some websites that oppose foreign workers. In doing so, Apex’s cries of ‘libelous defamation’ served only to further damage their own reputation &#8211; the original negative opinions had been republished along with the case details far and wide beyond the three websites so really, what have they accomplished here?  There are now apparent violations of First Amendment Rights at the cost of Apex’s brand, to defeat those who oppose a program that earns them income. It would appear the suit is more about squashing challenges to the ‘Indian Bodyshop’ business model rather than recovery of an alleged reputation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rodney</title>
		<link>http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/digest-comment/digest-comment-determining-the-proper-scope-of-prior-restraints-against-blogs-in-defamation-cases/comment-page-1#comment-813</link>
		<dc:creator>Rodney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 06:28:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/digest/?p=727#comment-813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Harry,

You must be joking.  Please find ONE First Amendment prof who agrees these sites should be shut down.  Just one!

In paragraph 5, you write about the sites&#039; lack of diverse opinions as a reason to shut them down.  That&#039;s just stupid.   
In America, the most protected type of speech, political speech, usually never is diverse.

The defendants did not appear in court. They lost.  Plus, the judge is old - meaning his mind is old too, has since retired.  Watch to see if judge goes to work for plaintiff&#039;s law firm, Herten Burstein.  HB once offered a job to a judge before he ruled in which the firm was the prevailing party.  True story.  Google it.



Also, about Vivek Wadhwa: He&#039;s a twice-failed businessman.  Why does anyone take him seriously?  Answer: no one does.  His one, single interest is promoting the interests of his fellow Indians.

One site is back up at ITGrunt.net.

About H1B: Go to YouTube and search Cohen &amp; Grigsby. Their attorneys show employers how to legally NOT hire Americans.  It&#039;s disgusting.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Harry,</p>
<p>You must be joking.  Please find ONE First Amendment prof who agrees these sites should be shut down.  Just one!</p>
<p>In paragraph 5, you write about the sites&#8217; lack of diverse opinions as a reason to shut them down.  That&#8217;s just stupid.<br />
In America, the most protected type of speech, political speech, usually never is diverse.</p>
<p>The defendants did not appear in court. They lost.  Plus, the judge is old &#8211; meaning his mind is old too, has since retired.  Watch to see if judge goes to work for plaintiff&#8217;s law firm, Herten Burstein.  HB once offered a job to a judge before he ruled in which the firm was the prevailing party.  True story.  Google it.</p>
<p>Also, about Vivek Wadhwa: He&#8217;s a twice-failed businessman.  Why does anyone take him seriously?  Answer: no one does.  His one, single interest is promoting the interests of his fellow Indians.</p>
<p>One site is back up at ITGrunt.net.</p>
<p>About H1B: Go to YouTube and search Cohen &amp; Grigsby. Their attorneys show employers how to legally NOT hire Americans.  It&#8217;s disgusting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
