Gatelli gets challenged (Scranton: lawyer, neighborhood, elementary schools)

[NYRangers 2008]

Gatelli's Web claim challenged
BY STACY BROWN
STAFF WRITER
09/22/2007

City Council President Judy Gatelli's attempt to compel disclosure of the identities of anonymous posters to an anti-administration Web site is unconstitutional, according to a public advocacy group.

[cut - don't repost full articles]

[NYRangers 2008]

I think that CHS89 would have to agree on this one. For her to want these people's names disclosed is unconstitutional. You said yourself, you're protected on the internet and it's your right to remain anonymous if you choose. There were no threats like Judy claimed. There were a lot of insults and name calling, but's that's not threatning. As a public official, Judy has to develop a thicker skin and let these comments roll off her.

[SteelCityRising]

As one of these "John Does," I'm morbidly-offended to think I'm currently among 90 other defendants in a lawsuit filed by Gatelli even though I originally joined DohertyDeceit with every intention of trying to harness the negative energies on there and turn them into something positive. As I griped about last week, there truly is NOT "freedom of speech" on that forum anyways, as my pro-city (but still anti-Doherty administration) messages were deleted because they were ruffling the feathers of the uneducated posters on that site who couldn't discern between someone loving the city and someone loving the mayor. It seems as if most people on that site feel as if you only belong there if you are a sourpuss, and that's incredibly sad. I posted some lengthy messages with fresh ideas on what might be approached to help turn the city around, and it was deleted because it wasn't "anti-Doherty" enough. In this sense I must agree with the half-dozen loyalists or so on PilcheskyDeceit who warned me ahead of time that if you don't post juvenile things like "Fatucci" or "Fatelli", that your intentions will be misconstrued and you'll be censored and/or banned. I personally think many of the criticisms these people point out about the current administration and council are validated. However, they immediately lose their credibility when they turn to petty name-calling as a "crutch" to help further their arguments; haven't these people ever taken a course in proper debate?

I know Dan is going to blast me for this message, as he's likewise amongst the 90 "John Does" listed in the lawsuit, but so be it. I never claimed to be "pro-Doherty" or "pro-Council Loyalists"; my message was simply intended to provoke thought about can be done to improve the city WITHOUT governmental meddling, as well as to point out the positives that already exist in the city right beneath many of the noses of the malcontents. Just because I say I like shopping at Poochie, watching smiling kids at Nay Aug Park, or seeing the Electric City sign lit up again doesn't mean that I slept with the "closet-case" Mayor Doherty, and it's sad that so few Scrantonians can make the distinction between "pro-city" and "pro-Mayor." Why must one automatically support the government if they think the city is worth saving? I'd think the city would be a viable place to relocate to even if Adolf Hitler had assumed power as city council president for crying out loud! Regardless of who's in office, you still can't deny that Scranton is great because it has SIDEWALKS (something all of the suburbs lack), streetlights, shade trees, historic architecture, ethnic restaurants, unique boutiques, beautiful churches, great small neighborhood elementary schools, etc. If you want to read about some of the "ills" of suburbia, then check out the thread I recently started in the "General U.S." forum highlighting how the minor leg injury I incurred yesterday while running would have been avoidable if I wasn't living in the poorly-planned suburbs.

I'll stand by my claims that Scranton has a lot going for it and is likely to REALLY bounce back once new leaders are in office. If people like Pilchesky and his loyalists never want to see the city rise from the ashes like the Phoenix so they have something to kvetch about for years to come, then I feel sorry for them. As for me and MANY others, we WANT to see this city become vibrant again, regardless of who is in office. Why must the government ALWAYS be responsible to steer the city to greatness when there are 72,000 great people in its boundaries who are fully-capable of banding together and bringing about positive change THEMSELVES?

[NYRangers 2008]

I might be one of those John Does' also. I have posted on DD a few times against Gatelli and Fanucci. I don't post on there much at all anymore since I found this forum here on City-Data. I think this forum is more insightful than DD on issues more than Scranton politics in general. Sometimes we have to talk about other things besides the state of affairs in Scranton. Still those posters on DD and here are protected under free speech. If the government stops our freedom of expression, than what's next?

[CHS89]

Nope, Ed. I disagree with it. Thanks for thinking that you know enough about me to feel that you're in a position to speak for me though.

Threats are in the eyes of the threatened, I've said it before. A threat does not have to imply death as a consequence, only physical harm, property damage, or emotional distress. I think some of those posts easily meet one or more of those qualifications. But I'm not a lawyer.

I am, however, named in the lawsuit. I'm one of the John Does. I did not authorize Atty. Levy, Public Citizen, or the ACLU to speak on my behalf. I'm an adult. I can speak for myself, thank you very much.

All of this is nonsense, from a carpernter thinking he's suddenly an expert in constitutional law, to a council woman who should know enough that paying attention to childish tantrums only feeds into them.

[CHS89]

SWB, you are almost certainly not a John Doe. The defendants were named based on copy-pasting names of the participants in a three random threads from last December, regardless of the content of the post. A very lazy example of lawyering, IMO, and not a large enough sampling to get a true feel for the insanity contained therein.

You joined DD earlier this month. You're not even close to being a defendant.

[weluvpa]

Judy is just whining like a little baby about those that pick on her....Poor Judy. CHS89 how could you, being a huge Judy fan, be named in the lawsuit?
Your a big boy huh? Well what are you going to do if they win this case and your identity is revealed to Mr. Rhiener and Mrs. Gatelli and then you will be slapped with a defamation suit based on being named in the suit? Well my friend maybe you should be in touch with atty. Levy, the suit is big and she is looking for blood from all that are named and if she gets her hands on your real name and links it to the user name on DD your ass is going to be in the sling. Its no time to think you know everything my friend if your named then they have a good post that they want your ass to hang on. There are close to 2000 registered users on DD and they only hand picked 90. There is alot more involved then just cut and paste buddy, from what I hear they have read alot of posts and picked those that are specific to attacking Judy or those that made statements that they felt were melacious or made while knowing the falsity of each one. Again I thought you were a friend of Judy? I thought you liked Judy as a person? Your post must have had some defaming statemenst against her to be named. Rhiener is no slouch of lawyer and if your named then they had a good post to hang on you, nice friend you are. I guess there is always two faces to a coin.

[CHS89]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

CHS89 how could you, being a huge Judy fan, be named in the lawsuit?

See my post above: "The defendants were named based on copy-pasting names of the participants in a three random threads from last December, regardless of the content of the post."

Well what are you going to do if they win this case and your identity is revealed to Mr. Rhiener and Mrs. Gatelli and then you will be slapped with a defamation suit based on being named in the suit?

I e-mailed her and her attorney the day the suit was posted on line, told her who I was, and informed her that I was included in the suit as John Doe whatever number it was.

Well my friend maybe you should be in touch with atty. Levy, the suit is big and she is looking for blood from all that are named and if she gets her hands on your real name and links it to the user name on DD your ass is going to be in the sling. Its no time to think you know everything my friend if your named then they have a good post that they want your ass to hang on.

Thanks for the advice, Attorney, but I'm not worried in the least. The content of any of my posts in any of those threads is of very little consequence, or relevance for that matter; neither are the posts of several John and Jane Does. In fact, no post of mine from any of those threads was singled out in the complaint, as many others were. The suit is "big"? Both will eventually get tossed for frivolity. That's how "big" they are.

There is alot more involved then just cut and paste buddy,from what I hear they have read alot of posts and picked those that are specific to attacking Judy or those that made statements that they felt were melacious or made while knowing the falsity of each one.

Consider your source, "buddy". He probably knows less about this than you do, I'd wager. That's saying quite a bit.

Again I thought you were a friend of Judy? I thought you liked Judy as a person? Your post must have had some defaming statemenst against her to be named. Rhiener is no slouch of lawyer and if your named then they had a good post to hang on you, nice friend you are. I guess there is always two faces to a coin.

I do like her as a person. I also love my family. But when they do something stupid, I'm going to call them on it. And then when they whine about it, I'm going to tell them to grow up. Where's the defamation there?

Now, can we go back to ignoring each other?

[NYRangers 2008]

I think the whole thing is stupid. Judy has to stop worrying what people post about her on some website. I mean, get over it already. She is a public official and she has to put up with comments made about her. If she can't take the heat, she should really resign her position on council. She may not like what people have to say about her, but what's posted on DD is protected under free speech.

[Mr Yuk]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

There are close to 2000 registered users on DD and they only hand picked 90..

2,000 posters? I doubt that. 1,925 of them are most likely Pilchesky himself. Those people on DD need a life. If Scranton sucks so bad, in their opinion, then why don't they do something positive in this city? NO...they would rather wait for the serial plaintiff himself, the cult leader, to file another lawsuit, while they sit on that message board laughing like a bunch of Beavises and Buttheads.

I'd rather do positive things that make living in this city better. Spend time with my family....volunteer with school and PTA....pick up trash at the playground, coach sports, etc etc. Those a$$wipes on DD are nothing but wastes of space and are doing nothing but making this city a laughingstock. They need lives. Its pretty darn pathetic that those people have nothing better to do than stalk public figures, smear their families (including children), and post juvenile insults. Too bad they don;t all move...the only reason they don't is laziness.