Topix Web Site Being Investigated.

[bobbbiez]

Jan 8, 2010 18:31:44 GMT -5 Clipper said:

YOU lose. I am simply a irrestistable, attractive and handsome hunk of beefcake and Kathy doesn't have to shake the sheets to find me, hahaha. (after all, it is MY story, and I get to tell it any way I want to!)

Fine, if ya like reading fiction, fiction, fiction! ;D

[snickers]

Jan 6, 2010 12:54:01 GMT -5 Clipper said:

I read there on boring days. I seldom if ever post there. It is a free for all mess, and really should be shut down. Very seldom do I find any relevant, positive, or useful information there, other than to find a critique of a restaurant or something like that occasionally.

I can't believe that anyone would make a serious threat against either of those two idiots. Arrogance and ignorance have yet to be declared a crime, much less a crime that warrants a death threat.

Roefaro has already pretty much committed political suicide through his lack of leadership and Donna Donovan is simply a biased and self serving pain in the ass of the OD's daily readers. No major crime there either. Heck, they both fuel some interesting, heated, and lively discussion. LOL

Should be shut down? No, sorry. I heartily disagree. Those who post there also are guaranteed their First Amendment Rights. Talkin' stupid ain't a crime. Yet.

[Swimmy]

See, there your misconception... topix isn't government owned or run. Topix doesn't receive federal funding and is not a state actor. Therefore, you have no first amendment rights on that site. Topix could shut down the site or require a credit card to sign up and comment and your rights aren't infringed. And lewd, lascivious behavior is NOT protected speech, neither is libel, nor death threats, nor any speech liable to insight a riot, nor any speech that would create a clear and present danger, etc. So, if a person were to sue topix for allowing such "stupid talk" as you classify it, it would not infringe your first amendment rights. You still have other places to post online, just not on a place that encourages such reckless speech.

[Swimmy]

In fact, topix could shut down the utica site on its own, and your rights are not infringed. Proboards could shut down server 66 an our rights would not be infringed. Ralph, Clipper, and Kim could ban anyone who is black, liberal, and poor and those people's rights would NOT be infringed. I could kick you out of my apartment because you're blond and promote communism. Your rights are not infringed.

[stoney]

Thank you, Comrade Swimmy... ;D I agree 100%. Don't like what they say there? Then don't go there, it's as simple as that. I don't bother with it (I can barely keep up with this place), & I think they should change their name to, "Toxic". But they have every right to be as crass & insulting as they want.

[Clipper]

That's right Stoney. You stay here where you belong. Those wussies over there can't take a good whipping. Besides, I don't like to share my whippings with anyone of them.I work hard to deserve a good lashing.

[Ralph]

[tanouryjr]

tanoury.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/first-amendment-v-harassment/

[gearofzanzibar]

Jan 11, 2010 7:58:44 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Larry, I disagree with you and the OD, as you report their position. A person should be held accountable for his public statements about others. Slander or libel is not free speech.

But they are civil charges, not criminal. Mr. McNamara's decision to investigate the incident was appropriate because of the official corruption aspect, but once that was disproven the criminal investigation should have ended. By the same token, the Topix inquiry is more than justified by the criminal nature of death threats.

It's beyond belief that we're wasting taxpayer dollars on prosecuting a civil matter. Let Mr. Fiorini spring for his own lawyer.

[bobbbiez]

Jan 11, 2010 9:43:11 GMT -5 gearofzanzibar said:

Jan 11, 2010 7:58:44 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

Larry, I disagree with you and the OD, as you report their position. A person should be held accountable for his public statements about others. Slander or libel is not free speech.

But they are civil charges, not criminal. Mr. McNamara's decision to investigate the incident was appropriate because of the official corruption aspect, but once that was disproven the criminal investigation should have ended. By the same token, the Topix inquiry is more than justified by the criminal nature of death threats.

It's beyond belief that we're wasting taxpayer dollars on prosecuting a civil matter. Let Mr. Fiorini spring for his own lawyer.

I agree completely. Actually with this "letter" I felt it should have been a civil suit right from the start and let those upset with the allegations spend their own money to clear their names.

Let them all "spring for their own lawyers."

[tanouryjr]

I think Gear summed up my feelings. Dave, I understand where you're coming from. Trust me, I am not sypathetic to these guys. But I have tried my hardest to be fair and look at the long-term ramifications.

Bobbie - There are many lawyers but only one prosecuter. There were serious allegations of criminal conduct in that letter, not just smears. They warranted an investigation. If they were true then we should have all been prosecuted and you would have certainly called for it. You seemed to imply earlier that you thought this was going to expose much more. Well, it hasn't. It had the exact outcome that I predicted. And remember, I was the one that asked for an investigation into myself. So, yes, the original investigation was 100% warranted due to the criminal allegations. If you ask the D.A. to investigate a murder you witnessed, should he say no and tell you to get your own attorney to prove it first?

[corner]

gear or others does anyone know the exact posts on topix where threats were made?

[bobbbiez]

Jan 11, 2010 10:58:58 GMT -5 @tanouryjr said:

I think Gear summed up my feelings. Dave, I understand where you're coming from. Trust me, I am not sypathetic to these guys. But I have tried my hardest to be fair and look at the long-term ramifications.

Bobbie - There are many lawyers but only one prosecuter. There were serious allegations of criminal conduct in that letter, not just smears. They warranted an investigation. If they were true then we should have all been prosecuted and you would have certainly called for it. You seemed to imply earlier that you thought this was going to expose much more. Well, it hasn't. It had the exact outcome that I predicted. And remember, I was the one that asked for an investigation into myself. So, yes, the original investigation was 100% warranted due to the criminal allegations. If you ask the D.A. to investigate a murder you witnessed, should he say no and tell you to get your own attorney to prove it first?

Larry, thinking back I think I was referring to the coming election between you and Hendricks. Thinking it was gonna be to your benefit in wining the election.
Like I stated, this letter as far as I'm concerned should have been a civil suit (which usually is a way to go when someone wants to clear their name) or hashed out between our legislators first. Just reminds me of grade school on who said what and who did what, but at the taxpayer's expensive. Wouldn't even compare it with a murder in any form which is usually investigated first then brought to the DA's office and so on and so on.

That's just my opinion since there was no proof of blackmail on your part to start with and you wanted your name cleared.

[Swimmy]

1. Corner, I think the offending provisions were deleted upon being reported to topix from what I read.

2. I will take the bait. Why would a criminal prosecution not be appropriate? Penal Law s. 240.30 is fairly clear on what constitutes aggravated harassment. Even under the most narrow views of the statute, how can it not qualify as aggravated harassment? You have two public officials, who presented false allegations as fact for the purpose of "revenge against the republican party for not supporting me 2 years ago, and my disdain for tanoury." There is your intent. That's the difference!

We can't be prosecuted for our allegations of corruption because we usually have a factual basis for it, e.g. reed, cleveland, etc. We can cite to actual documentation supporting our statements. And, we are private citizens. Why not hold these two idiots accountable for their behavior? Unlike many of us, they know how to deal with such allegations. Larry handled his suspicion of fiorni appropriately. And after the letter came out, Larry again handled himself appropriately by asking for the investigation. Hendricks and Barry didn't do that because they wanted to exact revenge and have personal disdain for Larry. That's the key difference in all of this. If they truly has concerns, they should have done what Larry did, ask for an investigation and let the news break through the DAs office, not by sending the falsified letter to every news outlet.

3. the taxpayer is not paying for the defense attorneys. And if it were handled in civil, most likely, the plaintiffs' attorneys would be working on a contingency basis, therefore not costing the plaintiffs legal fees unless they were successful. The taxpayer would still be paying for the court time and all the other processing expenses regardless of the venue chosen.

4. I may end up chewing my words, but I don't buy the whole "free speech" defense in this instance. The freedom, like the rest of those constitutionally guaranteed, is not absolute. And this letter was not mere criticism, but false allegations portrayed as fact for the purpose of revenge and personal disdain. It can't fit into a non-protected speech category more easily than a greased up 2-inch round peg going into a 4-inch round hole.

[stoney]

I think we're talking about 2 different issues here: Topix & Hendrick's letter.