A novel legal argument is being used to defend a New York man accused of stealing identities and using them to send e-mail messages and make online comments designed to discredit his father’s academic rivals over their interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Associated Press reports. The defense lawyer for the accused man, Raphael Golb, says that most of the charges against his client should be dismissed because to uphold them would imperil pranks, parodies, blog comments made under assumed names, and other freewheeling elements of the Internet. Mr. Golb has pleaded not guilty to charges of identity theft and criminal impersonation, in a case originally detailed in The Chronicle. His lawyer, Ronald Kuby, said in court filings this week that whoever sent the messages under other people’s names — and it wasn’t his client — was putting on an “intellectual prank” protected by the First Amendment.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
9 Responses to Accused Academic Cyberbully Seeks Dismissal of Case as ‘Intellectual Prank’
dead_sea_troll - November 9, 2009 at 12:21 am
The First Amendment motion in this case is available at the following address:http://scrollmotions.wordpress.comIt's a public document and can be downloaded as a pdf file simply by clicking on the link provided.
leontrout - November 9, 2009 at 8:42 am
How about free links to articles that are referenced in pieces like this?
cheard - November 9, 2009 at 5:25 pm
IANAL but I find the defense argument silly. We are not talking about using a “screen name” here, but (a) using multiple aliases that purport to be different people (sock puppets) and, much more seriously, (b) impersonating a real individual (Lawrence Schiffman of NYU) online and making damning “confessions” in his name.
bekka_alice - November 9, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Agreed on silly. Impersonation and slander are not protected speech.
jasonc - November 9, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I guess if he’s going to pretend to be real people that those people should send him all their bills too. :) It’s one thing to make up a persona. If you take a real person’s identity, it’s identity theft which is NOT covered by the First Amendment. Just think, it might imperil all sorts of sites like parody sites, but to allow that defense to work would then allow anyone to steal anyone else’s identity to use online – like with credit cards or any other site.
hjar3588 - November 10, 2009 at 9:48 am
If Golb is innocent, then why is there any need to argue the charges are inappropriate..? Sounds like the lawyer is covering all bases. Perhaps Golb’s dog did it..?But agreed, impersonation is inappropriate. People should have the balls to say what they believe and stand by it.
dead_sea_troll - November 11, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Tzvee Zahavy, a rabbi and professor of Judaism, has commented on this case:Here is some of what he says:”No, as we see it Raphael Golb … is not guilty of any crime or tort… If the professor suffered a loss due to Golb’s actions he has recourse in the civil courts. If he did not suffer a tangible loss, then he was the victim of a strange vendetta, not of identity theft or harassment.”In a postscript, Zahavy adds:”Professor Schiffman called us today … to explain to us how wrong we are and how uninformed about the case we are. He went on and on. We thanked him for his call and wished him a good day.”http://tzvee.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-raphael-golb-guilty.html
sgaetjens - November 11, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Funny, the post from the rabbi is just what I would expect Mr. Golb to say….
dead_sea_troll - December 7, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Further motions have now been filed in this case. They are available at the following links:http://scrollmotions.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/dead-sea-scrolls-controversy-motion1.pdfhttp://scrollmotions.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/email-and-access-motion.pdfThe longer of the two motions contains a detailed account of the Dead Sea Scrolls controversy, and includes, e.g., the following statements:”Lawrence Schiffman actively misrepresented Norman Golb’s theory in various publications, falsely attributing to Golb a far-fetched view which Golb had explicitly rejected (namely, that the Scrolls were the remains of ‘the library of the Jerusalem Temple’); he asserted that Golb had argued for this far-fetched view in an ‘overly aggressive manner’; and he appropriated entire portions of Golb’s actual theory without giving Golb appropriate credit (indeed, without giving him any credit at all).”(para. 55)”Schiffman responded to Avi Katzman’s question concerning his plagiarism with the defamatory assertion that there was ‘nothing innovative about Golb’s theory.’ But see, Professor Jacob Neusner’s statement that Golb ‘raised the fundamental questions and defined the shape of scholarship for generations to come.’” (para. 62)