TalkLeft's Unusual Comment Policy on Trials
When I'm interested in a high-profile trial, one of my go-to sources for analysis is the liberal blogger Jeralyn Merritt, whose TalkLeft focuses on crimes with political implications. Merritt is a criminal defense attorney in Denver who has been running the blog for over a decade.
While reading her posts on the George Zimmerman murder trial, I was surprised by a comment she made to a user of her site:
I have repeatedly warned Ricky not to ask readers to help prove the prosecution case. ... He is sounding more and more like a stealth commenter. Commenters may not use this site to try and build a case for the prosecution in areas they fall short.
Despite being a TalkLeft reader, I wasn't aware that comments were treated differently based on what they express about a prosecution. This was such an unusual policy that I asked her about it in email: "Given the way you allow commenters who are sympathetic to the defense to talk, it appears to me that by design you impose more limits on a pro-prosecution commenter than on a pro-defense commenter. If this is true, why do you think that's necessary?"
Here's her response in full:
I have decided to take your question seriously and respond.
TalkLeft is not a neutral site. It's mission is to promote the rights of those accused of crime. Our "about page" clearly states our mission.
That said, I take great pride in the accuracy of TalkLeft's reporting. If I see something that is incorrect or that misstates the known facts or evidence, it is deleted regardless of the views of the person who posted it. If I make a mistake, I correct it as soon as someone makes me aware of it.
Personal attacks are not allowed on anyone. Nor are discussions about prejudicial information that neither side is seeking to introduce at trial. For example, this is one of the few sites where you will not see a discussion of Trayvon Martin's Twitter feed. I have been very strict in not allowing attacks on Martin or his parents. If the defense moves to introduce such evidence it will be discussed in the context of its applicability to issues in the case, not to denigrate him or them.
I am also adamant that TalkLeft will not be used to spread misinformation or to promote guilty verdicts. People can watch the mainstream media coverage if that is what they suppport. TalkLeft views the proceedings though the lens of the Constitution. The point is for George Zimmerman to get a fair trial. Unless the trial is fair, the verdict will lack integrity.
None of us have all the information available to the state and defense. But due to Florida's open records law, most of the discovery is available as is every filed pleading. All of the hearings have been televised and live-streamed. Most readers, reporters, commentators and bloggers have not read every single pleading, examined every piece of discovery that is not under seal (I have because I purchased it from the state), watched every moment of every pre-trial hearing, jury selection and the trial to date, or extensively researched Florida case law and jury instructions as have I and many of those participating in our forums.
Our rules for commenting are clearly stated. Because of the amount of misinformation being spread about this case, and the tendency of commenters to think their use of a pseudonym allows them to engage in gross speculation and personal attacks, I created special rules for commenting on this case. For example, if a witness' identity has been protected by the Court, you will not see it exposed on TalkLeft. Nor will you see them "doxed." If you have not read the rules, they are here.
Our coverage is about the legal aspects of the case, not race issues or larger social justice issues. Zimmerman is not charged with a hate crime and the state never alleged his actions were racially motivated. Unfortunately, because lawyers and a public relations firm with an agenda inserted themselves into the case early on, held press conferences accusing the police of not conducting a fair investigation less than a month after the shooting, announced they had found a witness who "blew the defense claims out of the water" and made unfounded and untested accusations against Zimmerman in their attempt to influence official action and have him arrested and beyond, and the media repeatedly falsely portrayed the facts (like the mis-editing of Zimmeran's call to police), debunking of those efforts has also been included in our coverage.
I have also set up forums where the rules are relaxed a bit and every facet of the case can be discussed.
A lesser factor for not wanting armchair prosecutors opining how they would prove the case: The state combs the internet coverage of sites focusing on the legal aspects of the case. Even if they haven't seen something here, if it's helpful to their case, one of their supporters will send it to them. I have no interest in tipping them off as to how they can improve their case or what they have overlooked.
This is not the only case TalkLeft has covered in depth. The Duke LaCrosse case is probably the most similar to this because of the huge interest in it, the extreme positions people took against the defendants and the prejudical (and demonstrably false) media spin. The only two cases I have had to set up separate forums for are the Duke La Crosse case and Zimmerman.
There are hundreds if not more internet sites covering this case. The information in my posts is accurate and informed. My conclusions and opinions are clearly stated as such. While I monitor comments as best I can, since I have a full-time law practice, I cannot read every comment. Stating the rules upfront, and disclosing we are not a neutral site, allows readers to know what to expect here. If they don't approve, they are free to visit one ot the many other sites covering the case.
I hope this answers your question.
Another Girl Abducted and Killed in Jacksonville
I was jolted awake this morning shortly before 5 a.m. by the squawk of the emergency broadcast system on the television. An Amber alert relayed the news that an eight-year-old Jacksonville girl, Charish Perriwinkle, had disappeared from a Walmart on the city's north side at 11 p.m. Friday night. Police feared she was in the company of a registered sex offender, Donald James Smith.
For hours, the local station provided updates as I half-slept. Around 9:30 a.m., police said the sex offender was caught in his van on Interstate 95 near the Interstate 10 exchange, but the girl wasn't with him. An hour later, the terrible news was reported that her body was found at a church 10 minutes' drive from the store. The cop making the announcement to the media kept pausing to fight back his emotions as he relayed the news.
In the 16 years I've lived in the Jacksonville area, there have been three of these tragedies that happened to girls around the same age. Somer Thompson, 7, was abducted during her walk home from school in Orange Park in 2009, attacked and killed by a 24-year-old neighbor. Maddie Clifton, 8, disappeared from her Lakewood home in 1998 and her body was found a week later in the waterbed of her 14-year-old, next-door neighbor.
I'd like to be an unequivocal opponent of the death penalty, because I believe it's a barbaric punishment that is administered with racial bias, takes too long in the courts, costs too much and occasionally results in the execution of an innocent person -- an outcome no one should be able to abide. But crimes like the one today make it extremely difficult to hold to this belief. Any man who could abduct, rape and murder a child is going to be a monster until he takes his last breath.
The photo accompanying this blog is a Google Street View of Smith's residence. There's a man watering the plants with his approximate build outside the nicely tended house, his face blurred by Google's privacy algorithm. From one angle, the man appears to be watching a child ride past on a bicycle.
At the Annual Dancers' Ball ...
I'm making a second attempt to read The Marriage Plot, a novel by Jeffrey Eugenides about a book-obsessed English major at Brown University in the early '80s. The protagonist, Madeleine Hanna, is given this logic puzzle in a GRE test prep guide:
At the annual dancers' ball a number of dancers performed their favorite dance with their favorite partners.
Alan danced the tango, while Becky watched the waltz. James and Charlotte were fantastic together. Keith was magnificent during his foxtrot and Simon excelled at the rumba. Jessica danced with Alan. But Laura did not dance with Simon.
Can you determine who danced with whom and which dance they each enjoyed?
Frederik Pohl Remembers Jack Vance
Frederik Pohl, one of the founders of science fiction, is still writing novels at age 93 and has a blog he updates regularly. The Way the Future Blogs recently noted the death of another legend of the genre, Jack Vance. Pohl recalls being editor of Galaxy magazine in the early '60s when a Vance manuscript came in:
... "I've got a new story from Jack Vance that I love. It's called The Dragon Masters, and it's about a race of dragon-like creatures from a distant planet who are at war with the human race. The dragons have captured some humans and the humans have captured some dragons and they both have genetically modified their captives to fight for them. Altogether there are around a dozen modified races, and I want a portrait of each, plus anything else you want to draw. I think Hugos will rain for this, so come get the ms."
I'm an avid reader of Pohl's blog. I recently read All the Lives He Led, his 2011 novel, and would like to say good things -- but it was a mess. There's some fun in Pohl describing a world so nihilistic in 2079 that acts of terrorism are committed daily by ridiculously silly groups, but his main character is a passive dolt who makes a series of dumb decisions.
At one point, after he's escaped police forces under a cloud of suspicion and smuggled himself by airship from Pompei, Italy, to Egypt, over the course of several chapters, he just turns himself back in. The protagonist's so inconsequential to the events of the novel that the last third consists of him watching video of what other people did and telling you what he sees.
Marsha Blackburn Writes Mozilla on Do-Not-Track
During last year's trip to D.C. with the Interactive Advertising Bureau's Long Tail Alliance, I met Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and a staffer who assists her on issues related to the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
At some offices we had to explain basic stuff like cookies, but Blackburn and her staffer were well-versed on the subjects of ad tracking, contextual ads and privacy concerns. We talked to the Congresswoman about do-not-track and how small publishers think it will affect our businesses. This year, she's quoted in an AdWeek story on our visit to Congress. Blackburn and three other Congressional Republicans wrote a letter to Mozilla urging it not to turn do-not-track on by default in its browser:
The third-party cookies that Mozilla Firefox would block are what allow the U.S.-based Internet publishing industry to sustain original, free content on thousands of small business websites in every corner of America.
Mr. Cadenhead Goes to Washington
I'm in Washington, D.C., to meet with members of Congress on Tuesday to advocate against legislative changes that would affect independent web publishers whose sites are funded by ads. The primary concern over the years has been that Congress would pass legislation to require a do-not-track setting to be turned on by default in all web browsers, a move that would prevent contextual ad services such as Google AdSense from tailoring ads to a user's interests.
As someone who published ad-supported websites before contextual ads, I think such legislation would cause thousands of sites to fold. If ads can't know anything about a user, ads get worse and more intrusive. They also make considerably less money.
I understand the concerns of people who don't like third-party ad services to use cookies and other tracking to learn more about their interests. I just think that should be an opt-in feature on browsers, not the default.
If you receive all or part of your income running websites with ads, let me know of your concerns and comments so I can share them on Capitol Hill.
The event is organized by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, which has established a Long Tail Alliance for small web publishers to have a voice in D.C. Memberships are availablen in the alliance, which describes its purpose this way:
We feel very strongly that interactive advertising is essential to growing your online business. The Long Tail Alliance was created to help small businesses and online publishers develop a better understanding of this essential portion of internet growth.
All of our members are small businesses and online publishers who sell directly, indirectly, or through a network, with revenues under $1 million.
I've been a member for four years. In addition to this event, the IAB offers webinars throughout the year for small publishers.
Villains & Vigilantes Creators Win Rights to Game
After a 20-month legal battle, the creators of the super-hero roleplaying game Villains & Vigilantes have prevailed in their court fight with the game's longtime publisher. Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey of the U.S. District Court for Arizona ruled on January 15 that Jeff Dee and Jack Herman own the rights to the game based on the 1979 contract they reached with publisher Scott Bizar of Fantasy Games Unlimited. The court also found that Bizar never had the right to sell derivative products or ebook PDF editions of the game, two things he has been actively doing in recent years.
Villains & Vigilantes, one of the first super-hero roleplaying games, was created by Dee and Herman when they were teens in 1979. Bizar published the game and a subsequent 1982 edition and it was commercially successful, selling thousands of copies during a tabletop gaming boom sparked by the popularity of Dungeons & Dragons. But in 1987, Fantasy Games Unlimited curtailed most of its business activities after encountering difficulties with distributors. Bizar became a high school teacher and ran a game store in Gilbert, Ariz., selling the games by mail order and online for part of the last two decades. The store closed in 2007. Bizar shut down Fantasy Games Unlimited as a New York corporation in 1991 and founded a sole proprietorship of the same name in Arizona that continues to market games he published in the '70s and '80s.
In 2010, Dee and Herman started Monkey House Games, LLC and published a new edition of the game. Dee told Ain't It Cool News that they had never been informed by Bizar that Fantasy Games Unlimited, Inc. was dissolved as a corporation, which under the terms of their publishing contract should give them all rights to the game. "[T]he contract clearly stated that if FGU, Inc., ever ceased to exist, then the publication rights reverted back to us," Dee told the site.
Judge Aspey did not rule on that argument, but instead found that the 1979 contract between Bizar, Dee and Herman only gave Bizar the right to publish the 1979 and 1982 editions of the game in printed form. "Because Defendants Dee and Herman hold the copyright to the characters and setting, Defendants presumably may create and market derivative works and obtain the financial benefits therefrom," the ruling states. "Additionally, because the marketing rights to the game do not appear to have been transferred, defendants hold the right to produce and sell or license such items as clothing, video games, card games, and movies or television programs."
Both parties in the lawsuit attempted to register Villains & Vigilantes as a trademark in 2010, prompting a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board case that was put on hold until the suit was decided. Judge Aspey ruled that because Bizar did not sell any copies of Villains & Vigilantes from 1990 to 1994 and 1999 to 2004, he lost any rights he might have had to the trademark. "The court therefore concludes that any right to the trademark 'Villains & Vigilantes' was abandoned by plaintiff at least when he ceased to use the mark from 1999 to 2004," he states.
The ruling calls Bizar the plaintiff and Dee and Herman the defendants because he sued them in Arizona and two other suits were consolidated with that one. Judge Aspey concludes, "[O]ther than possessing a license to produce and market the printed book forms of the 1979 and 1982 Works, Plaintiff has no right to the copyrighted works of Defendants. Specifically, Plaintiff was not licensed to produce or market a PDF form of the 1982 Work or to produce or market such items as comic books, apparel, or other merchandise utilizing copyrighted elements of the Villains and Vigilantes role-playing game created by Defendants."
Bizar is currently selling PDF editions of the game and over 40 supplements through the Fantasy Games Unlimited website and RPG ebook retailers. He's also selling some of those products in print editions on his site. Bizar's attorney Sterling R. Threet appealed the decision Feb. 19 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
With the judgment, Monkey House Games appears likely to be granted its registered trademark and can continue to sell printed and electronic editions of Villains & Vigilantes and related products. Unless he wins the appeal, Bizar cannot sell anything but printed copies of the original 1979 and 1982 editions of the game.
The case could have an impact on Bizar's other games. All of them originally were released in the late '70s and early '80s, long before electronic publishing rights were anticipated by most publishers. In the 2002 case Random House vs. Rosetta Books, the New York state court of appeals ruled that unless a publishing contract explicitly grants ebook rights to the publisher, those rights are retained by the author. Even a contract that gives a publisher rights "in book form" would not be interpreted to cover ebooks. The court ruled, "[T]he law of New York, which determines the scope of Random House's contracts, has arguably adopted a restrictive view of the kinds of 'new uses' to which an exclusive license may apply when the contracting parties do not expressly provide for coverage of such future forms."
Another thing working in Dee and Herman's favor is a provision of copyright law that enables authors to cancel publishing contracts they entered into 35 years earlier. In 2014, authors can employ these termination rights for works published in 1979.
Social Media
Subscriptions
Blogroll
Projects
RSS Advisory Board
How to Read an RSS Feed with Java Using XOM
The RSS Advisory Board Just Turned 20
Downloading 50,000 Podcast Feeds to Analyze Their RSS
Tara Calishain Explains: What is RSS?
Be Unique And Use RSS Guid Like Everybody Else
Statistics
This blog has been published since Nov. 7, 1999 (a span of 8,951 days).
Thank you for visiting Workbench.
