"Josh" we speak a different language for sure. Uneducated to me means that you didn't educate yourself on the facts and law on the matter we are discussing. I am sure you are prefectly learned. The court did not reverse the supression order - it merely didn't confirm the TPO because the leak had gone too far at that point and it was out of the court's hands as to which media outlets had discvered it.
Sorry to burst your bubble. I am no PR plant. You might want to search lawyers instead of pr, but you will find I have no affiliation with any parties in this legal case. I do however, wish to find out how this ends for one of my own cases. Indeed, the developers' names were redacted by court order sir whereby making it illegal to leak it. This is a fact. Scooter Libby leaked state secrets that were protected by legal orders - it is no different, my friend. Search away on me and I will give you two guesses on how I feel about uneducated anonymous commenters.
Sorry to impose -- the true facts. Check to see if that "leak" was legal -- As Scooter Libby learned, you cannot illegally leak classified information. Of course, this document published to Wikileak was redacted by court order, Chap. It was not legal -- at least one thing that Libby exposed that was correct- our legal protections. In this matter, the legal consequences are basic.
Sorry to impose -- the true facts. Check to see if that "leak" was legal -- As Scooter Libby learned, you cannot illegally leak classified information. Of course, this document published to Wikileak was redacted by court order, Chap. It was not legal -- at least one thing that Libby exposed that was correct- our legal protections. In this matter, the legal consequences are basic.
A few opinions here about this matter - and I think that the author did a decent job of sorting this out. One, the internet was not designed to be annonymous - it's the same as your phone or computer or mail (all traceable). Second, what integrity should be afforded to someone who does not reveal their name yet makes accusations with innuendo failing to cite sources? I think none. Third, this is a slippery sloop, the internet blogging/gossip, it guarantees the lowest life forms to "report" whatever they want at the expense of whomever they wish. Bring them into the light and let that cleanse the dirt from their hands. I am not even going to comment about the legal remedy guaranteeing an accused to face his accuser. The nerve.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Rick Pool.
"Josh" we speak a different language for sure. Uneducated to me means that you didn't educate yourself on the facts and law on the matter we are discussing. I am sure you are prefectly learned. The court did not reverse the supression order - it merely didn't confirm the TPO because the leak had gone too far at that point and it was out of the court's hands as to which media outlets had discvered it.
Search away
Sorry to burst your bubble. I am no PR plant. You might want to search lawyers instead of pr, but you will find I have no affiliation with any parties in this legal case. I do however, wish to find out how this ends for one of my own cases. Indeed, the developers' names were redacted by court order sir whereby making it illegal to leak it. This is a fact. Scooter Libby leaked state secrets that were protected by legal orders - it is no different, my friend. Search away on me and I will give you two guesses on how I feel about uneducated anonymous commenters.
Re:
Sorry to impose -- the true facts. Check to see if that "leak" was legal -- As Scooter Libby learned, you cannot illegally leak classified information. Of course, this document published to Wikileak was redacted by court order, Chap. It was not legal -- at least one thing that Libby exposed that was correct- our legal protections. In this matter, the legal consequences are basic.
Re: Not a blogger
Sorry to impose -- the true facts. Check to see if that "leak" was legal -- As Scooter Libby learned, you cannot illegally leak classified information. Of course, this document published to Wikileak was redacted by court order, Chap. It was not legal -- at least one thing that Libby exposed that was correct- our legal protections. In this matter, the legal consequences are basic.
Google at fault?
A few opinions here about this matter - and I think that the author did a decent job of sorting this out. One, the internet was not designed to be annonymous - it's the same as your phone or computer or mail (all traceable). Second, what integrity should be afforded to someone who does not reveal their name yet makes accusations with innuendo failing to cite sources? I think none. Third, this is a slippery sloop, the internet blogging/gossip, it guarantees the lowest life forms to "report" whatever they want at the expense of whomever they wish. Bring them into the light and let that cleanse the dirt from their hands. I am not even going to comment about the legal remedy guaranteeing an accused to face his accuser. The nerve.