Family Forum / Parenting / Children's Health / February 2006

Then we can assume you aren't planning on being present for the April
25, 2006 hearing in Alameda?

I pointed out that you are incorrect in saying that I am Will Ketcher.
Examine the NNTP posting hosts and you will see for yourself.

As for the factual issue of whether there is an appeal still pending in
that suit:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=3
12161&rc=1

Court Case Search Results - Supreme Court
Court data last updated: 02/18/2006 02:53 PM

Case Summary
Supreme Court Case:  S122953

Court of Appeal Case(s):  First Appellate District, Division Two
A096451
Case Caption:  BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL
Case Category:  Review - Civil Appeal
Start Date:  03/01/2004
Case Status:  fully briefed
Issues:  Petition for review after the Court of Appeal vacated in part
and otherwise affirmed an order granting a special motion to strike.
This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Communications
Decency Act (47 U.S.C. section 230) confer absolute immunity on an
Internet "provider" or "user" who republishes statements made by third
parties, or can liability still be imposed under traditional common law
principles where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the
defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet? (2)
What is the meaning of the term "user" under the Act? (3) For purposes
of the issue presented by this case, does it matter whether the "user"
engaged in active or passive conduct?

---------------

Thus, the court records clearly support that there is still a pending
appeal.

As for the merits of the case...

I have told you numerous times that, as a believer in the First
Amendment, and as a person who considers Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
to have been one of the finest SCOTUS jurists, I support your position
wholeheartedly, as I hope that the decision is a win for everyone to
exercise their rights under the First Amendment.