Replies

The conclusion of this article is the same as the suggestion I posted as a First Amendment lawyer, on another thread. Everyone who comes on FreeRepublic and signs in to use the Freepmail (and to get posting privileges) reads the Terms of Use. MD4Bush was on notice not to five his information to any "third party."

More importantly, Matthew Mosk, reporter for WashPost was also on warning. He was on warning that MD4Bush COULD NOT grant permission for a third party, namely Mosk, to access that account. So, regardless of the "permission of the intermediary" which the Post claimed to have, they still did not have valid permission to access MD4Bush's account.

I conclude, strongly, that FreeRepublic is within its rights, on the circumstances of this particular situation, ro reveal to the public all information it has about the various times of access on this one particular account -- regardless of whether the person on the keyboard was MD4Bush, Mosk, or anyone else, signing in as MD4Bush.

If there is any blowback from that release, I will be happy to testify in court or in deposition that on the circumstances and facts of this situation, that action is legitimate.

John Armor, Esq.

*IF* Jim decided to release all MD4Bush's info, as you say, I would only hope that Jim would, 1)Notify us FReepers, in advance (at what time/day), that he will do so, & 2) Then release that info in exclusive-like fashion for the members.

Of course, Jim is supported either way he decides.

If there is any blowback from that release, I will be happy to testify in court or in deposition that on the circumstances and facts of this situation, that action is legitimate.

The problem though, as I see it, is that FR doesn't have the funds for a legal battle. We have agreed to limit posts from various media outlets, that is clearly within our rights to quote under the "fair use" clause. JimRob has chosen not to take on the legal battle that we would obviously win, simply on the basis of FR's financial status. If MD4Bush sues, he will have the full backing of the demoRAT party. We don't have that kind of money.

FreeRepublic need not release this person's identity in anyway what would cause blow back. They could simply file a public suit for breach of the rules and subsequent damages to FreeRepublic by loss of revenue and contributors because of worries of loss of confidentiality, and being subjected to this sort of illegal behavior.

This is a public filing and must therefor contain the name of the parties involved, placing that fact in the public record.