Rut Row!
She's a Cougar!!
A Washington State hockey mom who accused a N.J.-based web firm that serves the pornography industry of a security breach that may have exposed customers? private information to hackers faces a hearing Thursday alleging she slandered the company.
The case against Shellee Hale focuses on forum posts she made about Too Much Media LCC, of Freehold, in a message board frequented by those in the online adult entertainment business. Too Much Media has sued Hale for slander claiming that while there was a security breach, no customer information was leaked.
The case being heard in Superior Court in Monmouth County may help define free speech rights on the Internet, where experts say posters have long asserted First Amendment protections ? regardless of what they write.
In addition, Hale, who writes four blogs, is seeking protection as a journalist from disclosing her sources. She has been writing on internet safety for five years and contributing to such publications as the Wall Street Journal and Business Week. She also obtained her private investigator?s license in 2008, according to court papers.
Litigation like the lawsuit against Hale?s has so far been uncommon in New Jersey, but that may change as blogs, chat rooms and networking sites become ubiquitous.
?It?s rare, but I think it?s going to become more common as that becomes the primary way of people communicating,? said Tom Cafferty, counsel to the New Jersey Press Association.
Hale?s legal troubles started last year when she posted comments on an adult entertainment message board alleging the security breach of customer information gathered by Too Much Media, which the firm denies.
Company principles John Albright and Charles Berrebbi said the postings, which included allegations they had threatened Hale?s life, amount to slander against them and their firm. They want Hale to reveal her sources and pay punitive damages for harming the company?s reputation.
?The issue of libel and slander has been litigated heavily for TV and radio,? said Jeffrey Pollock, the Lawrenceville attorney representing Hale. ?But when it comes to websites, not so much.?
Courts have traditionally recognized slander as spoken defamation and libel as written defamation. Pollock said the standard used in considering the case against Hale should be libel ? which is much harder to prove in court than slander ? because her comments were written.
Pollock is trying to get the case dismissed by asking Superior Court Judge Louis Locasio to declare Hale to be protected by so-called shield laws. Built on court decisions and a variety of state laws, the shield generally protects working journalists from revealing their sources except in the case of a crime.
That?s when she started posting about a breach of security in the Freehold company?s software that potentially could have given hackers access to names and addresses of account holders.
Company officials contend the security breach was brief and did not compromise consumer information, including credit card numbers. Total Much Media gathers that information while helping web companies, including those who offer pornography, track sales on their websites and affiliates.
In his lawsuit filed last June in Superior Court, company attorney Joel Kreizman said Hale ?has embarked on a campaign to defame and otherwise malign the plaintiffs (TMM) in those chat rooms.?
?She has seized upon and utilized the security breach as the underlying theme of her attacks, but they are made without any basis in fact and without any concern for truth,? Kreizman wrote.
Cafferty said Hale?s claim to a reporter?s protections may be dubious. He said just because Hale contributed to publications in the past doesn?t mean she necessarily was shielded for this investigation.
He said a court will most likely look at whether she was disseminating the information through a publication or for her own purpose, because judges realize they have to be careful who gets the protection. If the newsperson?s shield is extended to everyone who posts items on the Internet, ?then everyone is a journalist and the privilege becomes meaningless,? he said.
Too Much Media contends Hale, as a blogger, isn?t entitled to the protection.
Hale gravitated toward internet security issues after hearing her other mom-friends complain about unsolicited pop-ups and spam ? the often-annoying advertisements plugging everything from credit card offers to skin care products, she said in court papers.
Article Here
She's a Cougar!!
A Washington State hockey mom who accused a N.J.-based web firm that serves the pornography industry of a security breach that may have exposed customers? private information to hackers faces a hearing Thursday alleging she slandered the company.
The case against Shellee Hale focuses on forum posts she made about Too Much Media LCC, of Freehold, in a message board frequented by those in the online adult entertainment business. Too Much Media has sued Hale for slander claiming that while there was a security breach, no customer information was leaked.
The case being heard in Superior Court in Monmouth County may help define free speech rights on the Internet, where experts say posters have long asserted First Amendment protections ? regardless of what they write.
In addition, Hale, who writes four blogs, is seeking protection as a journalist from disclosing her sources. She has been writing on internet safety for five years and contributing to such publications as the Wall Street Journal and Business Week. She also obtained her private investigator?s license in 2008, according to court papers.
Litigation like the lawsuit against Hale?s has so far been uncommon in New Jersey, but that may change as blogs, chat rooms and networking sites become ubiquitous.
?It?s rare, but I think it?s going to become more common as that becomes the primary way of people communicating,? said Tom Cafferty, counsel to the New Jersey Press Association.
Hale?s legal troubles started last year when she posted comments on an adult entertainment message board alleging the security breach of customer information gathered by Too Much Media, which the firm denies.
Company principles John Albright and Charles Berrebbi said the postings, which included allegations they had threatened Hale?s life, amount to slander against them and their firm. They want Hale to reveal her sources and pay punitive damages for harming the company?s reputation.
?The issue of libel and slander has been litigated heavily for TV and radio,? said Jeffrey Pollock, the Lawrenceville attorney representing Hale. ?But when it comes to websites, not so much.?
Courts have traditionally recognized slander as spoken defamation and libel as written defamation. Pollock said the standard used in considering the case against Hale should be libel ? which is much harder to prove in court than slander ? because her comments were written.
Pollock is trying to get the case dismissed by asking Superior Court Judge Louis Locasio to declare Hale to be protected by so-called shield laws. Built on court decisions and a variety of state laws, the shield generally protects working journalists from revealing their sources except in the case of a crime.
That?s when she started posting about a breach of security in the Freehold company?s software that potentially could have given hackers access to names and addresses of account holders.
Company officials contend the security breach was brief and did not compromise consumer information, including credit card numbers. Total Much Media gathers that information while helping web companies, including those who offer pornography, track sales on their websites and affiliates.
In his lawsuit filed last June in Superior Court, company attorney Joel Kreizman said Hale ?has embarked on a campaign to defame and otherwise malign the plaintiffs (TMM) in those chat rooms.?
?She has seized upon and utilized the security breach as the underlying theme of her attacks, but they are made without any basis in fact and without any concern for truth,? Kreizman wrote.
Cafferty said Hale?s claim to a reporter?s protections may be dubious. He said just because Hale contributed to publications in the past doesn?t mean she necessarily was shielded for this investigation.
He said a court will most likely look at whether she was disseminating the information through a publication or for her own purpose, because judges realize they have to be careful who gets the protection. If the newsperson?s shield is extended to everyone who posts items on the Internet, ?then everyone is a journalist and the privilege becomes meaningless,? he said.
Too Much Media contends Hale, as a blogger, isn?t entitled to the protection.
Hale gravitated toward internet security issues after hearing her other mom-friends complain about unsolicited pop-ups and spam ? the often-annoying advertisements plugging everything from credit card offers to skin care products, she said in court papers.
Article Here
Comment