What others have had to say about Ilena
Link
Bloggers and Section 230
The California Supreme Court issued their ruling on
Barrett v
Rosenthal today which determined that web publishers are not liable for
publishing material written by someone else and recovery for defamation must
be sought from the original source only. This was a reversal of a lower court
decision and is considered a huge victory for upholding First Amendment rights
on the Internet...in other words bloggers and blog commenters do not come as a
set in the courts.
The case began as a dispute on Ilena Rosenthal's now defunct
Humantics Foundation for Women.
Stephan Barrett and Timothy Polevoy, two doctors, were impugned by
member's of Rosenthal's on line discussion group. Rosenthal published the
comments even though the two doctors had informed her that statements being
made were false.
The reference to Section 230 is Section 230 of the Federal
Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 230 protects Internet publishers from
being held liable for allegedly harmful comments written by others.
Link
"And who is this Ilena Rosenthal you refer to, who keeps posting on your
site? It would appear the two of you have quite a past!"
Ilena Rosenthal is the titular head of a one-person operation called "The
Humantics Foundation for Women" - an organization that purports to advocate
for women harmed by voluntary breast implantation. Except they do little in
the way of actual advocacy. For instance, in the two most-recent series of
public hearings on the matter in Washington, DC - the most important events
in the breast implant issue - Ms. Rosenthal was markedly absent. This would
be like your organization missing the most important public meetings on
substance abuse policy at HHS, two rounds in a row.
The organization was recently suspended by the state of California (then
reinstated some time later), during which time Ilena Rosenthal continued to
try and raise money for the organization. She may or may not be currently in
the United States. The organization's only public address is a mail-drop box
in San Diego, California, and there is every indication that for some time
Ms. Rosenthal has been living in Central and South America.
Ilena Rosenthal and I went toe-to-to on Usenet some time ago. When she began
to delve into personal details about my life, I began doing some research
into her organization. When I pressed her on questions regarding financial
irregularities on her organization's publicly-available financial documents
(IRS Form 990s - the equivalent of non-profit tax returns. By
irregularities, I mean that in successive years, Ms. Rosenthal's forms
failed to account for monies left over from previous years, as called for on
the form's instructions), Ms. Rosenthal e-mailed my wife.
This e-mail, filled with mistruths and the most alarming rhetoric, was
written with the intent of having my wife put a stop to my inquiries into
the operations of her non-profit - in other words, to bully me into silence.
It didn't work. I don't take kindly to such bullying, especially from folks
who I believe are abusing a public trust. What's funny is that despite her
protestations that if simply left alone, Ms. Rosenthal would leave me alone,
she has never done so. I have routinely gone weeks, months ignoring her (I
have said a number of times that I've grown tired of the general lack of
civil discourse on Usenet, and for all sorts of reasons have posted less).
Yet, despite her promises, Ms. Rosenthal continues to post on usenet about
me.
She's a usenet kook of the highest order. I certainly hope you're not
considering befriending her. As someone who's known you a long time, has
mutual friends with you, still has some measure of affinity with you (though
you are certainly trying desperately to destroy that) - I'd strenuously
advise you against it.
Just about every ally Ilena Rosenthal has ever had has had that friendship
either abused or completely blown-up. They have, by and large, all regretted
ever coming into contact with her.
|
