From Winograd

From Nathan Winograd
Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Austin, Texas has its highest save rate in August ever by embracing the No Kill Equation: almost 8 out of 10 animals were saved. The Nevada Humane Society is breaking its own adoption records by doing the same. A shelter director in Australia which was saving 93% of all dogs and saved all baby kittens this year takes over a different shelter, immediately dropping the kill rate by 38%. And an open admission shelter in New Zealand is on track to finish the year with a stunning 99% rate of lifesaving.

I spent a half hour with hosts Mike Fry and Beth Nelson on Animal Wise Radio this past week where we discussed the great changes sparked by the publication of my first book, Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation & The No Kill Revolution in America. And the changes have been great, with No Kill initiatives and, more importantly, No Kill success all across the globe. Listen to the interview by clicking here.

Unfortunately, this success threatens the defenders of the status quo. And they are becoming increasingly desperate and increasingly ugly in their attacks. Because they can't attack the message, they are now attacking the messenger:

No Kill Blog

PETA is at it again, calling for the mass killing of animals in shelters by equating No Kill with hoarding. Read "The Butcher Who Cried Hoarder".

Austin is achieving unparalleled success and that threatens the ASPCA. Read "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished." Join the revolution byclicking here

No Kill by the numbers, the decade that changed everything, lessons from an Andy Warhol tote bag, it's a wonderful world, and the truth about the ASPCA, HSUS, and PETA. Read the most influential blog on the No Kill movement by clicking here.

Disclaimer. I do not attest to the truth of all of Nathan's allegations. However, I have had a large number of emails over the years from Pat Dunaway wherein she constantly attacked Nathan, calling him a liar about stats, Reno, Charlottesville, but especially Rancho, calling those shelters abject failures. When asked for proof she could supply none except a few newspaper clippings by reporters who themselves provided no facts.

Apparently some people think they can escape criticism by incessant threats of SLAP suits. There is no way I can check out the fact-validity of every claim and comment sent to this blog whether it be from Animal Services, the lying Republican Party and Teabaggers who distort reality beyond belief, or Mother Tersea.

However, largely I trust Winograd who is one of the few willing to name names an allege facts.

Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?
Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."
What if I republish another person's statement? (i.e. someone comments on your posts)
Generally, anyone who repeats someone else's statements is just as responsible for their defamatory content as the original speaker—if they knew, or had reason to know, of the defamation. Recognizing the difficulty this would pose in the online world, Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet "intermediaries" who provide or republish speech by others. See theSection 230 FAQ for more.

How does Section 230 apply to bloggers?
Bloggers can be both a provider and a user of interactive computer services. Bloggers are users when they create and edit blogs through a service provider, and they are providers to the extent that they allow third parties to add comments or other material to their blogs.
Your readers' comments, entries written by guest bloggers, tips sent by email, and information provided to you through an RSS feed would all likely be considered information provided by another content provider. This would mean that you would not be held liable for defamatory statements contained in it. However, if you selected the third-party information yourself, no court has ruled whether this information would be considered "provided" to you. One court has limited Section 230 immunity to situations in which the originator "furnished it to the provider or user under circumstances in which a reasonable person...would conclude that the information was provided for publication on the Internet...."
So if you are actively going out and gathering data on your own, then republishing it on your blog, we cannot guarantee that Section 230 would shield you from liability. But we believe that Section 230 should cover information a blogger has selected from other blogs or elsewhere on the Internet, since the originator provided the information for publication to the world. However, no court has ruled on this.
Do I lose Section 230 immunity if I edit the content?
Courts have held that Section 230 prevents you from being held liable even if you exercise the usual prerogative of publishers to edit the material you publish. You may also delete entire posts. However, you may still be held responsible for information you provide in commentary or through editing. For example, if you edit the statement, "Fred is not a criminal" to remove the word "not," a court might find that you have sufficiently contributed to the content to take it as your own. Likewise, if you link to an article, but provide a defamatory comment with the link, you may not qualify for the immunity.
The courts have not clarified the line between acceptable editing and the point at which you become the "information content provider." To the extent that your edits or comment change the meaning of the information, and the new meaning is defamatory, you may lose the protection of Section 230.
Is Section 230 limited to defamation?
No. It has been used to protect intermediaries against claims of negligent misrepresentation, interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, intentional nuisance, violations of federal civil rights, and emotional distress. It protected against a state cause of action for violating a statute that forbids dealers in autographed sports items from misrepresenting those items as authentically autographed. It extends to unfair competition laws. It protected a library from being held liable for misuse of public funds, nuisance, and premises liability for providing computers allowing access to pornography.
Wow, is there anything Section 230 can't do?
Yes. It does not apply to federal criminal law, intellectual property law, and electronic communications privacy law.
What are some key Section 230 cases?
Do blog or online forum operators have a legal obligation to post acceptable use guidelines for commenters?
No. Courts have held that Section 230 allows, but does not require, hosts to establish (and implement) standards of acceptable use without risking liability for doing so. But posting guidelines is still a good idea, since people will often appreciate some guidance of what is or is not acceptable.


don't get suckered Ed. said...

Nathan is not currently licensed, but he does know that redistributing hate publications is against the law. Did you know he signed your name on a blog ? What a pal !!I hate to see you get another cease and desist letter, but I suspect one is heading your way. People are attacking Nathan because he attacks them, the people who work at shelters are real people, and they are sick of his crap. Don't put yourself in the middle with this Ed. The ALF is a recognized terrorist organization under watch by the FBI, and you thought you were safe to post their propaganda. You are responsible for what you post, here I will cap it for you. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU POST, NOT THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT !! Winograd won't take the heat for this, you will; and the little troll knows that. Stay with the decent people like Jimmy or Ron Mason, use your blog to help them, you're a good man, don't get suckered.

Ed Muzika said...

Look slander and libel involve allegations of fact, proven or unproven. Lawsuits bring out that proof. I happen to support a lot of what ALF is doing, as well as various socialist parties and even anarchist thinking. But that does not mean I am them or support all that they do or say.

If presented with a cease and desist letter I will ask Nathan for any proof he has and will post that as a response and will conduct a deeper investigation, just as Phyllis Daugherty's cease and desist letter led to me investigating the truth of her "evidence" presented about other municipalities' laws on pet limits.

I discovered she just made up and manufactured evidence about Santa Monica's limits, and I published what the S.M. City Attorney sent me, as well as a S.M. Councilmember, who said that what Phyllis said was pure bull.

In fact, Dana Bartholomew showed me the latest version of P.Daugherty's evidence, and she writes the same crap, but cite's the ex shelter director as evidence, who is long gone. In other words, she adjusts her lies and uses as a source someone no longer there as opposed to the people who are there who says she is full of it.

In my opinion, P.D. has a psychopathology that has proved extremely dangerous to the animals in Los Angeles.

Anonymous said...

I respect Nathan's advocacy on behalf of shelter animals, and I fully support his no-kill equation, but it is simply not accurate to include the Charlottesville shelter in the list of "no kill" successes. This shelter has a very low euthanasia rate, which is to be admired, but the fact is they do kill healthy feral cats and dogs who fail their behavior tests. That may still qualify as "no kill" in some people's minds, but not in mine. Higher adoption rates are wonderful, but that is not the end of the story. As long as a shelter is killing physically healthy animals who do not pose a threat to public safety (that would include feral cats and many dogs with issues like food aggression), it is not "no kill," not even according to Nathan's equation. Let's be honest in our use of language. I'd like to see Nathan put more of an emphasis on spay/neuter and TNR for feral cats, because I'm almost positive that feral and stray cats make up the majority of the millions of animals killed in shelters every year.

Anonymous said...

Don't you read what you post? said...

Because I like you so much, and you do help the animals, I contacted a lawyer. He says the republishing of hate is a sticker, and he would be willing to go for it. Now I am not interested in sueing or " ceasing" anybody, just trying to help a fellow blogger. you have been wrong before little buddy. Remember Boks ?

kcaccsharon said...

What a hoot! The little guru is saying people are being mean to HIM ? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. I don't know what is. His hatchet women up here at KCACC Exposed did character assassination everybody and anybody with malice. When Brenda Barnette gets through with you, Ed she's gonna spit you out just like she spit out everybody here. And Winograd is already setting her up for the fall. I read this on another blog, so it isn't original, but I think it's amazingly true. For Winograd to accuse people of not being able to bomb his message,wake-up!! Shooting his message, is like bombing Afghanistan, there is nothing there to hit. I haven't seen any personal attacks on him, and in King County we notice that kind of thing. Has anyone sent you the video yet of him running around the Kent shelter taking pictures? Every time you throw mud, you drop a little on your own shoes. Pretty soon you're just sinking in your own crap.