text:
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
About The Volokh Conspiracy
Volokh Daily Email
Washington Post Archives
Volokh.com Archives
Facebook Posts Lewdly Insulting Elected Official Are Criminally Punishable (at Least If They Relate to a Private Dispute)
Such speech, whether about elected officials or others, is punishable, the court held, if it "[does] not express social or political beliefs or constitute legitimate conduct" and "could only serve to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant."
Eugene Volokh | 6.25.2019 8:12 AM
In Commonwealth v. D'Adderio, a Pennsylvania nonprecedential appellate decision handed down last week, Kelly Marie D'Adderio posted several items on her Facebook page about Maria Memmi, D'Adderio's ex-husband's current wife and an elected member of the Derry Township School Board:
"Dear Miss Maria Memmi, you were a life-long friend of mine, my son's Godmother even. The day you crossed the friendship line and married my ex was the day you exposed your true colors. Ironically, that was the least of my concerns. Sadly, I find some pleasure that he cheated on you. I kind of feel you had it coming anyway. You seem obsessed with playing mommy to my kids. Let's see how that works out for you. #slouchback #truefriend #hunchcunt #pretendmom #hecheated."
"Dear Derry Township School Board Member, the board president was notified about you turning a blind eye about drug use in my home by some of your students. After being notified, he called it a family matter. That's fine. I would like to see what the PSBA thinks. If they think it's a family matter, then I will let it rest."
Matters deteriorated further:
Ms. Memmi, who did not have a Facebook account at the time, became aware of the posts later that day when her stepchildren showed them to her. Ms. Memmi thereafter reported the posts to Detective Robert Matthew Dotts of the Derry Township Police, who in turn contacted Appellant and suggested that she take them down. Appellant did not follow this suggestion. She continued to post increasingly offensive comments throughout the weekend, referring to Ms. Memmi as "hunch cunt" and "whore," questioning the paternity of Ms. Memmi's minor daughter, and suggesting that Ms. Memmi was carrying on an inappropriate relationship with the detective….
[Appellant's additional comments, posted on Facebook in the following days, included:] "Dear Little Memmi Girl, [referring to Ms. Memmi's 9-year-old daughter,] who is your daddy? The entire town is requesting a paternity test. Many others have told me Phil [D'Adderio] is your daddy. What is the truth? Call the popo hunchback."
"Dear hunch cunt, that's what Phil called you. LOL. You're fat, gross, and ugly. You can arrest me. I really don't care as long as I get the truth out."
"Haha, hunch cunt called the police. I thought you weren't on FB. You whore."
"Dear hunch cunt, talked to the detective. Are you sucking his cock? After all, he is a cutie patootie."
"When you ride Phil's ginormous cock, do you ever think of the last pussy it was in? I would."
D'Adderio was then prosecuted for violating the state criminal harassment statute:
(a) Offense defined.—A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: …
(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures[.]
The "complaint alleged that Appellant directed multiple Facebook posts to Ms. Memmi 'that were vulgar and inflammatory,' and Appellant 'called [Ms. Memmi] derogatory names, questioned the paternity of her child, and challenged her to pursue legal prosecution.'" D'Adderio was convicted and sentenced to "twelve months of probation, one hundred hours of community service, plus fines and costs." And the appellate court affirmed, rejecting D'Adderio's defense:
Appellant insists that criminal liability cannot attach to lewd and lascivious speech "about" another person, because such speech is constitutionally protected…. "Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument." …
Appellant's Facebook posts did not express social or political beliefs or constitute legitimate conduct. Rather, Appellant made lewd comments, including sexualized language and references to the complainant's sexual activity, which could only serve to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant…. Appellant's comments are not entitled to First Amendment protection, regardless of whether the posts were "to" or "about" the complainant….
Section 2709(a)(4) requires an intent to harass, and it seeks to preclude communications lacking some legitimate purpose. As such, the statute does not punish constitutionally protected speech, and the statute is not facially overbroad….
One of the judges dissented, but without an opinion.
Here's my thinking:
1. I agree that there's nothing of value or substance in D'Adderio's barrage of insults; but the statute, as interpreted by the court, would equally jeopardize a wide range of "lewd" public criticisms of political officials—so long as a prosecutor and a jury conclude that the criticisms "[do] not express social or political beliefs," aren't "legitimate conduct," and are intended "to harass, annoy or alarm."
The insults in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, for instance, might well qualify—Falwell was portrayed as having had sex with his mother in an outhouse, which may well be seen as "sexualized language" and are certainly "references to the complainant's sexual activity"—and they don't really discuss any "social or political beliefs" (at most, they do so by implicitly mocking a political figure, but Memmi was an elected official, too). D'Adderio's insults are more explicit than Hustler's, but the court doesn't explain how much is too much. All we know is that some "lewd" insults of politicians (among others) in Pennsylvania are criminally punishable.
The decision thus strikes me as incorrect, despite the repulsiveness of the speech involved; nor is there any First Amendment exception that would support the court's reasoning (see my Northwestern article for more on this).
2. The nation, to be sure, won't stand or fall based on whether one can lewdly insult people, even politicians. Perhaps Hustler was wrongly decided, or perhaps it was rightly decided but only because the law there (the intentional infliction of emotional distress) wasn't limited to sexual insults. Perhaps even Cohen v. California, which recognized a general right to display vulgarities in public places, was incorrect, and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which upheld a ban on vulgarities on broadcast radio and television, should be applied more broadly. I think Hustler and Cohen were right and Pacifica was wrong, but reasonable minds may differ; or maybe vulgarities about particular people should be treated differently from vulgarities about public policy or other matters (such as the "Fuck the Draft" jacket in Cohen or Carlin's routine in Pacifica).
But at least we should recognize that "criminal harassment" statutes such as the one here, whether broad or narrow, can apply—if they are upheld against First Amendment challenge—to speech about public officials as much as to speech about private individuals. And we should recognize that they jeopardize all public sexual insults (or, in those statutes that lack a limitation to "lewd speech," all insults), and not just ones that are as extreme as those in D'Adderio.
NEXT: A McLaughlin Group for cybersecurity
Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA.
Free Speech Harassment
apedad
June.25.2019 at 9:16 am
Wow Prof. Volokh, I thought you would take a stronger position against this criminalization of speech.
There were no direct threats or fighting words; the speech was not "integral to criminal conduct" (i.e. there was no extortion, etc.), and also there were no real facts alleged – only opinions.
I can see this being overturned in D'Adderio's favor.
Sorry — I'd thought I'd made clear that I thought the decision was wrong, but now I realize I hadn't; I've added a short paragraph at the end of my item 1 to make this clear.
mad_kalak
Totally oblique to this discussion, but I did have to consult Urban Dictionary for "hunch cunt." To do you all a favor, apparently it is a insult related to a woman having a protruding vagina, but separate from a camel toe, apparently.
rsteinmetz
June.25.2019 at 11:33 am
I googled it and only got 2,500 hits, with this posts about this case being the third.
June.25.2019 at 12:05 pm
Heh. Did you have safe search on when you did it? I didn't, and that was a mistake.
JeffreyL
Comment made my morning 🙂
Chem_Geek
*shakes head at the state of permitted discourse*
Cohen was wrongly decided.
Josh R
Eugene,would your analysis be different if Memmi weren't a public official? I ask because at first blush it struck me the fact she was a public official played no role in this case. Instead, it seemed to me the insults were in effect one private party attacking another private party, who incidentally was a public official.
If I were cynical (which of course I am not), I'd suggest that the fact that the insults were against public officials would make prosecution more likely.
Yes, because a school board member is about as low a level public official as there is, and the harassment was unrelated to her duties as an elected official.
James Pollock
Harassment is harassment. I'm not sure it should be protected speech. (Yes, I know, lawyers are primarily arguing over whether it is or is not protected, not over whether it should or shouldn't be.)
This to me it seems clearly there was an "intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: …" and no other purpose.
I wonder whether using the standard expressed above it is ever possible to legislate against cyber bullying. That may or may not be a good thing.
QuantumBoxCat
"I agree that there's nothing of value or substance in D'Adderio's barrage of insults; but the statute, as interpreted by the court, would equally jeopardize a wide range of "lewd" public criticisms of political officials—so long as a prosecutor and a jury conclude that the criticisms "[do] not express social or political beliefs," aren't "legitimate conduct," and are intended "to harass, annoy or alarm."
Your elements appear to be a bit different than the Pennsylvania Superior Court's articulation. In reviewing the constitutional challenge to this law the Court cites its own prior opinion, where it interpreted and upheld a prior version of the same statute.
"In enacting 18 Pa.C.S. [§] 2709(3), our legislature did not intend to proscribe isolated acts which would be of only minor annoyance to the average person, or which are constitutionally protected. The statute requires . . . acts which would seriously offend, we find, the average person; it requires the fact finder to infer a specific intent on the part of the accused, and it specifies that the conduct must be of a non-legitimate nature—conduct which is not constitutionally protected."
Reasonable people may disagree with the law, but the way you phrase the elements (as support for your overbreadth argument) leaves out that the conduct not be of only minor annoyance to the average person, but rather would "seriously offend" the average person. Perhaps this doesn't change anything, and the statute would still cover a "wide range of lewd public criticisms" (but you never explain how wide is too wide!).
Or, maybe the community standards in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, serving as the context in which the jury rendered its verdict, are different than the ones in Los Angeles, California, residing 2,600 miles away.
Assuming that the case should be decided based on Memmi being a public official, and also assuming you are correct that the statute should be interpreted to only include acts which would seriously offend the average person, I nonetheless think Eugene's overbreadth argument is supported by Hustler.
In Hustler, the Court held that to succeed on a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a public official had to show the defendant made a false statement of fact. Now perhaps the Court went too far and could have reached the same result on the basis of the attack being satire, leaving open the possibility that some opinions directed at public officials could be actionable as intentional infliction of emotional distress. But instead, the Court applied the same rigorous standard used for libel from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
June.25.2019 at 2:38 pm
I think we read the opinion from very different perspectives then. My approach towards it was not "I see fact X as relevant therefore the court should have decided Y." Rather, i try to read it to understand what the court parties framed as relevant, and then court's reasoning from there. The sub-title of EV's post states:
"Such speech, whether about elected officials or others, is punishable, the court held, if it "[does] not express social or political beliefs or constitute legitimate conduct" and "could only serve to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant."
From a fact pattern to legal application framework (see generally "How To Read a Legal Opinion" by Orin Kerr), claiming that the courts "holding" included the application of the speech in question to an elected official is incorrect. It is factually true since Memmi was, at the time, an elected official. But that was never once mentioned in the substance of the opinion. Memmi may have also been been other things during the period in question, things that may have had a legal significance if introduced, but they weren't. Nor did the lawyers for either party appear to frame the legal issue around Memmi's role as an elected official. The court did not hold anything as it pertains to lewd speech about an elected official.
If a student was called on to give the holding of the case and said that court held that an individual could be criminally punished for lewdly insulting speech about an elected official, I think the response would be "where does the court say anything about an elected official?"
If you were defense counsel in a similar case involving an elected official, where you framed the issue around your client being an elected official, and the states' attorney argued that, while non-binding, Commonwealth v. D'Adderio held that the law applies even towards elected officials, would you concede the point? According to professor Volokh, the states' attorney is correct.
Pride and Prejudice Prong
I would assume that mutual friends were alerting Memmi to the posts, especially as later posts were directed to Memmi as an open letter of sorts.
Bah, hit wrong reply button. That was supposed to be to James Pollock below.
They said it was the kids who alerted her. Does it matter who did so?
I agree nothing in the writing explicitly addresses that, but the court referenced an independent review to ensure the conviction isnt a forbidden intrusion on free speech. It's unclear how far ranging that inquiry was/is.
I agree with you that the opinion could be read that Memmi's status as an elected official played no role. And at first blush, that sounds reasonable to me. However if I was the defense attorney, I would on appeal argue the court incorrectly did not take into account Memmi's status as an elected official.
Does the harassment statute have an "it's OK if the target is an elected official" clause in it? Because if it doesn't, what are you hoping to accomplish by pointing out that the harassed person also happens to be a public official?
"Assuming that the case should be decided based on Memmi being a public official"
I don't know that this assumption holds water. She isn't being attacked for being a public official, she's being attacked for being the ex-husband's new wife.
Ben of Houston
I have to disagree with this ruling for one reason. This was posted to a private Facebook page. One that Memmi does not have access to. It cannot be harassment if the speech is not communicated to the harassed. Now, it might be libel, though a lot of this is clearly opinion. While she is a public figure, almost none of this is relevant to her position on the school board.
However, if she did submit false reports of Memmi inviting students to use drugs in her home (the wording is unclear), as the 3rd paragraph indicates, that is a major game changer, and agree definitely constitutes criminal harassment. If these reports are true, then it's simple reporting and that obviously isn't a problem.
"One that Memmi does not have access to."
In point of fact, she did have an avenue of access to it.
An indirect avenue through someone else. By definition. Harassment is directed at a person. This is private ranting on her own page. This is comparable to speaking foul things about someone in your own home and then one of your guests relaying the complaints. It could be slander or libel. However, since it isn't sent to that person, and they must go out of their way to access this defamatory activity, it cannot be harassment more or less by definition.
I don't buy it. She refers in the course of the harassment to the fact that she knows the target has access to it. Kind of blows your argument away like smoke.
For harassment purposes, what difference would it make if the "target has access to" an online message? The victim doesn't need to read somebody else's facebook page. Can I harass you by posting comments on my own blog?
"For harassment purposes, what difference would it make if the "target has access to" an online message?"
If I send a whole bunch of random insults to Ludwig von Beethoven, it can't be harassment because he's dead and I know it. There's no way he CAN be harassed, so there's no way I could have INTENDED to harass him.
If I paint up a bunch of signs with harassing messages for a Masai tribesman, and set them up on the side of I-40, that's not harassment because Masai tribesmen rarely travel that corridor.
The point that was offered is that if there's no way for the messages to reach the target, then they're harmless venting rather rather than harassment. That's true enough. If I write a bunch of letters full of harassing content to somebody and then never print them out, and never send them, there's no liability. There's no path from sender to (non-) receiver, so no harassment.
BUT, in this case, the messages DO reach the target, and the harasser knows this, and chooses to continue. So the "harmless venting" is not so harmless, and the venting can become harassment.
Knowing the recipient of the message has access to it is a necessary condition of harassment, but it isn't sufficient. If I put the sign on my property, knowing that the victim will drive by and see it, it still isn't harassment. It's my property, I can say on it what I want. It's only when I call the victim, or show up at his work, or stand outside his house, that it becomes harassment.
Do you think I can sue you for harassment because of things you post on this website?
No. Harassment is criminal law, not tort. So you have to convince your DA that you've been harassed, and I don't think you can do that.
[Eugene Volokh] Facebook Posts Lewdly Insulting Elected Official Are Criminally Punishable (at Least If They Relate to a Private Dispute) – Jehtro Lewis – Blog
[…] from Law https://reason.com/2019/06/25/facebook-posts-lewdly-insulting-elected-official-are-criminally-punish… […]
Utility Maximizer
Can I still refer to elected officials as syphilitic goat-fuckers?
Once. When you show up at their office with your megaphone every day for a month, you're probably going to come to regret it.
Mr. Jwpvysig, Jr.
If you haven't had at least one girlfriend in your life like D'Adderio are you even living?
Stephen Lathrop
I can't figure out from the description whether this was published commentary, or private.
If it was published, then once again, it isn't something the law is prepared to cope with, and it would have been far better to do what was done for centuries previously—let private editing take care of it. To do that, all you have to do is repeal Section 230, and make internet publishers liable for everything they publish. Until that happens, the default will be that every scurrilous private attack, every libel, every copyright violation, every Nigerian scam, and every foreign election interference will get published without hindrance. Very little of it will ever be corrected, and, once published, none of it can ever be effectively withdrawn.
If to protect themselves from libel claims, internet publishers had to read everything before publishing it, whether the scurrilous stuff described in the OP was or was not libel, or criminal harassment, or something else, would be irrelevant. It wouldn't get by a private editor in any case.
Eventually it is going to dawn on even free speech utopians that the internet—as long as it runs without private editing—has changed the practical need for legal oversight of speech. That is a bad thing, but unavoidable in the face of obstinate determination to continue enabling publishing without editing—a novel situation to which the law of speech is not accustomed, and with which it has not been designed to cope.
It is understandable that many bystanders would equate free speech, with which they are familiar, with publishing, with which they are not. They are not at all the same. Publishing has far greater power to do private damage, and to disrupt society, than does personal speech.
For centuries the law dealt with that disparity by avoiding it—through the expedient of handing off publishing responsibility to private editors, and holding them responsible. Now the private editors are gone, and the law is at a loss.
It hardly seems possible that society will choose to endure today's status quo. Either publishing without editing must end—with a general return on the internet to the regime of private editing which still governs ink-on-paper publishers—or the law must be greatly and intrusively expanded to make it do what the editors used to do.
Neither alternative will strike free speech utopians as attractive, but surely the former is far better than the latter. It is remarkable to find a problem seemingly so complex and multi-faceted which is in fact amenable to such a simple solution—repeal Section 230. All that stands in the way is public willingness to indulge utopians—and that cannot last forever. If they are reflective, the utopians themselves may fairly soon notice that cases like this one present urgent problems which society cannot afford to ignore—and for which the utopians do not have solutions.
" To do that, all you have to do is repeal Section 230, and make internet publishers liable for everything they publish."
Fuck, no. That's the end of being allowed to comment publicly on the Internet.
Why? It was never the end of being able to comment publicly in print. What are you worried about?
"What are you worried about?"
Idiots like you being put in charge of important decisions.
David Nieporent
Why? It was never the end of being able to comment publicly in print.
Yes it was. And why are you being disingenuous? The entire point of your argument is to prevent this speech.
James Pollock, you don't like private editing. What's your preference, government censorship? Utopianism?
What's wrong with exploiting internet technology to improve and expand the scope of publishing as it was previously practiced? That is a system which proved over centuries that it could work and endure—indeed, it was widely regarded as one of the principal ornaments of civilization.
Why do you want to pitch that out in favor of the kind of swill the OP offers, or in favor of monopolistic control of the national publishing enterprise, or in favor of the practical abolition of copyright, or in favor of scams to bilk the credulous and senile? What makes you want a world where absolutely nothing published can be believed, because technological tricks beyond practical analysis preclude verification, except by independently researching from scratch the alleged facts? That is where today's internet is headed. It will get there pretty quick.
Do you suppose public life and self-government can endure while almost no one has any notion what is true and what is false?
Internet utopians seem to have no notion of the stakes they are playing for.
"James Pollock, you don't like private editing."
Tell me more about what my opinions are.
"What's wrong with exploiting internet technology to improve and expand the scope of publishing as it was previously practiced?"
Nothing. Which is why I think you're an idiot for wanting to repeal it.
James Pollock, if you don't want to engage my questions, why not just say so, instead of pretending to change the subject.
But let's try once more, with just three questions:
If you do like private editing, what is your objection to using private editing instead of using government censorship?
Or do you suppose that is a false choice? If so, what do you propose to do to turn aside the growing pressure to censor the big internet platforms?
" if you don't want to engage my questions, why not just say so, instead of pretending to change the subject."
You started out by badly mis-stating my opinions, had that pointed out for you, and now YOU want to lecture ME about being unwilling to engage?
False dichotomy.
"what do you propose to do to turn aside the growing pressure to censor the big internet platforms?"
Telling people in favor of censorship to fuck off.
"…let private editing take care of it."
The comments were privately edited. By D'Adderio. She read it before she published it.
"It is remarkable to find a problem seemingly so complex and multi-faceted which is in fact amenable to such a simple solution—repeal Section 230."
It's remarkable how many times you repeat this stupid fucking position, despite it being explained to you dozens of times. Before Section 230, distributors were not liable at all. Case study: CompuServe took the position that it would never regulate what users posted on its services. Prodigy took the opposite approach. CompuServe was held to be a distributor (like a book store) and thus not liable. See Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc.. Prodigy was held to be a publisher, and liable. See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services, Co.
Repeal of 230 won't do away with Internet distributors. It will simply ensure that Facebook does not police anything it distributes.
You and Lincoln's 5-legged dog. A distributor is not a publisher, and Facebook is a publisher. Those are facts which calling a tail a leg in Section 230 can't change.
The methods and effects of the activity define which it is. Do you assemble an audience? Do you attract contributors who want to reach that audience? Do you sell advertising to businesses which want that audience's attention? Those are publishing activities, and they produce different effects than do distributing activities—which do none of those things.
It is the effects which define the activity, and define the consequences. The consequences are what society must cope with, either through law or private editing.
Next time you take it on yourself to "explain" something, try practicing it first. It will give you a chance to discover what you are talking about.
"A distributor is not a publisher, and Facebook is a publisher. Those are facts which calling a tail a leg in Section 230 can't change."
You're the idiot who thinks repealing Section 230 will magically transform online distributors into publishers. CompuServ was not a publisher before Section 230 came into existence, because CompuServ elected not to edit anything it distributed.
"The methods and effects of the activity define which it is."
Right, and the law had a particular way of defining what publishers and distributors were pre-230, and it didn't conform do your strange definition.
"Do you assemble an audience? Do you attract contributors who want to reach that audience?"
Like… book stores?
"Do you sell advertising to businesses which want that audience's attention?"
Or just sell the content itself! Like a book store. (Book stores also advertise.) Do you think book stores were publishers under pre-230 law? What about CompuServ?
Why don't you explain why a future Facebook that edits no content but distributes without review, is any different than a book store?
NToJ, that question is long-since decided, by Section 230. What Section 230 shows is that Congress supposes it can grab the hands on a clock, and drag them around to make time change. That is what you say Congress did, when it passed Section 230. And you are fine with that.
Okay, so be it. What Congress can do, Congress can undo.
So your task isn't to assert paradoxically that something Congress has shown it has the power to change is not changeable—or more foolishly still, to insist that a change Congress actually made has always been set in stone, and the way of the natural world. Your task is to justify the practical effects of the change Congress enacted, and explain why the change should not be reversed.
Why is it better that Congress enacted the practical abolition of the notion of copyright? Why is it better that Congress abolished the legal foundation which enabled legal control of defamation? Why is it that the notion of media accuracy, and the notion of truth in the nation's public life, are better sacrificed to achieve the goal of putting every malicious fool with a keyboard at liberty to publish the kind of swill you see in the OP above? Why is it better to encourage by law a business model which makes monopolism in publishing all but unavoidable? Most pointedly, why isn't it lunacy to be demanding government censor internet publishers (or bookstores, if you insist) in the name of enhancing freedom of the press?
Literally centuries of experience have shown private editing is the efficient means to accomplish publishing, while avoiding all those ills. Private editing especially counters the worst of them, which is the government censorship now actually being widely demanded among the public, and actually being proposed by at least several members of Congress.
Maybe the dazzling prospect of a new technology which seemed to promise unlimited freedom did justify a utopian experiment, to find out if the promise could be realized. Why can't you understand now, with the results of the experiment evident, that the many ills internet publishing is actually delivering are new constrictions on that freedom, not expansions of it? Utopianism is always better in prospect. Why stay a utopian in the face of contrary experience?
You've never understood what 230 was intended to do. It makes it ok for Volokh Conspiracy to edit (to any degree) without fear of being held liable as a publisher. If you repealed 230, they simply wouldn't edit anything. Then they'd be a distributor rather than a publisher. This place would be worse for it, but that's apparently what you want.
Which is crazy, because you can't see that your call for more editing (by repeal of 230) would result in less editing.
"Why can't you understand now, with the results of the experiment evident, that the many ills internet publishing is actually delivering are new constrictions on that freedom, not expansions of it?"
Because you fucking suck at persuading people, and you're just wrong? You're also a fat hypocrite, since you continue to publish unedited comments on someone else's website, mosying through on a daily basis the same hellscape you claim to be vehemently opposed to.
My experience is that the internet is awesome. I like the freedom that comes with being able to post and read comments on others' websites, which can be partially edited without ruinous liability to the websites' owners. It's great. The old days were horrible. I'm never going back and you can't make me.
NToJ, you are full of predictions about what would happen without Section 230. The striking thing about all your predictions is that not one of them resembles in the least anything which did happen in legacy publishing, before Section 230 was ever dreamed of. That seems peculiar.
Absaroka
"… not one of them resembles in the least anything which did happen in legacy publishing …"
It's almost like the NYT published somewhat fewer letters to the editor per day than the daily count of new posts on, I dunno, Reddit or Facebook.
Absaroka, how many letters did all the nation's newspapers publish, in the aggregate? Given the tendency toward monopolized forums on the internet, that is a far more relevant comparison. Because now we are asking just a few internet forums to do the entire job which the nation's ink-on-paper publishing industry accomplished previously.
Once you understand that comparison, you can ask how many among the letters the newspapers published were defamatory or scurrilous. Compare that total to the one you would get with a similar analysis of internet posts.
But of course time moves on, and today that will still be the wrong comparison. The right comparison would be a comparison of today's monopolized internet to a de-monopolized internet, which, because of cost advantages over ink-on-paper, could be expected to offer more diversity, more outlets, and more publishing opportunities than even the entire traditional newspaper industry could offer when it was thriving.
"Absaroka, how many letters did all the nation's newspapers publish, in the aggregate?"
Well, let's think about that. Between VC/facebook/HuffPo/where ever else you post, how many posts do you do a month? So far you've posted 14 times just on this thread, in just a couple of days, not to mention your comments on other threads. Let's call it 7 posts a day.
Back in the good olde days, how may letters to the editor did you write and have published in a typical day?
And relative to, say, facebook posting teenage girls, you are seriously behind the curve.
"how many letters did all the nation's newspapers publish, in the aggregate?"
AT LEAST one order of magnitude fewer than all the nation's websites.
"Given the tendency toward monopolized forums on the internet"
But FORGETTING that anyone who wants to can set up their own forum, monopolized or not, on the Internet with far lower costs to enter, and leave.
" Because now we are asking just a few internet forums to do the entire job which the nation's ink-on-paper publishing industry accomplished previously. "
Where "just a few" means millions, this sounds fairly stupid.
"Once you understand that comparison"
Come back when YOU understand that comparison.
So pre-230 CompuServ wasn't hosting unedited content on its servers and still not being held liable as a publisher? Check 776 F. Supp. 135.
If you google '776 F. Supp. 135' you will find links to a case called
Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., from 1991 – years before sec 230.
At the considerable risk of saying stupid IANAL things, Compuserv's defense was that it had no liability because it was a distributor. That argument succeeded: "because CompuServe, as a news distributor, may not be held liable if it neither knew nor had reason to know of the allegedly defamatory Rumorville statements, summary judgment in favor of CompuServe on the libel claim is granted."
That was the pre-230 state of the law, and Compuserv wasn't liable for letting people post unvetted content. What 230 did was let Compuserv et al exercise minimal editing – deleting viagra ads for example – while still retaining the distributor immunity they already had.
Your view of what the law was in the good olde days is wrong; if you read the decision it explains what the law at the time was.
(Corrections welcomed from the lawyers in the crowd)
Why is it better that Congress enacted the practical abolition of the notion of copyright?
§ 230 has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright, you ignoramus.
"230(e)(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
Why is it better that Congress abolished the legal foundation which enabled legal control of defamation?
It didn't.
Most pointedly, why isn't it lunacy to be demanding government censor internet publishers (or bookstores, if you insist) in the name of enhancing freedom of the press?
It is. That's why we keep arguing against your position, which is about government censorship. That's what defamation is.
Just for the sake of clarification, I didn't mean that defamation itself is censorship; I meant that laws against defamation are censorship.
Nieporent, do you know of any other lawyer anywhere who characterizes as government censorship the exclusion of defamation from 1A protection?
Yes. Earl Warren, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Tom Clark, John Marshall Harlan, William Brenna, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Arthur Goldberg, and Floyd Abrams.
You've never understood NYT v. Sullivan and its progeny, but that's exactly what the cases are about: defamation law as censorship.
Nieporent, that's cute, but it's not an answer to my question, unless you are willing to assert that the 1A protects defamation. Do you?
I wasn't being cute; I was trying to educate you. Yes, the 1A protects some defamation; that's the entire point of the line of cases I just cited.
That having been said, I'm not sure why you brought up the 1A; the discussion was about censorship, not about constitutional rights. Just because something — say, obscenity — isn't constitutionally protected doesn't mean that banning it doesn't constitute censorship. It's just lawful censorship.
"Next time you take it on yourself to 'explain' something, try practicing it first. It will give you a chance to discover what you are talking about."
Mr. Pot, about your description of Mr. Kettle…
James Pollock, care to say more? The pot and kettle stuff seems mysterious.
No more needs saying.
Okay then.
It needs more hearing, but you decline. But it doesn't need any more saying.
Larvell Blanks
Well, at least she gave a compliment to her ex, which was unexpectedly nice of her.
David Bremer
I noticed that too. It struck me that she was trying to get back with him.
And good for that guy for going in the official public record to be maintained for rest of time as someone who is "ginormous."
Have either of you had your sarcasm meters calibrated recently?
PoxOnBothYourHouses
E-sarcasm is usually missed by about half of readers unless accompanied by a clear "sarc" indicator.
(I made up that figure but I'll stand by it nonetheless)
SKofNJ
Why would anyone want to give the government the power to jail people based on the government's view that their words or expressions have no legitimate value — excluding supposedly clear exceptions such as child pornography?
Jason Cavanaugh
We don't, which is why the First Amendment exists.
The problem, you see, is that some Judges decide there is no such thing, and ignore it.
I think you and I are making the same point.
SKofNJ, do you number libel among the clear exceptions?
I said allowing the government to jail people. So I was not referring to the civil wrong of libel. By the way, I've seen a few law review articles that contend that criminal libel statutes are unconstitutional based on recent Supreme Court case law.
TwelveInchPianist
"excluding supposedly clear exceptions such as child pornography?"
Which apparently isn't clear enough to prevent the state from punishing children playing with cameras.
I think that is a matter of an unanticipated consequence of a law. Those laws are not unclear. It's a question of policy. Do you want to criminalize such conduct when it is committed by a non-adult.
That's not it. It's more like it's just a law that people don't respect, like speed limits on freeways, or Prohibition.
Where in the text of the first amendment is this "clear" exception made clear?
The case law sets forth those exceptions, such as child pornography and "fighting words." I don't think those exceptions are necessarily clear, but the case law that creates them pretends that they are.
You will note that I said "supposedly" clear.
"The case law sets forth those exceptions"
The text says "Congress shall make no law…". It takes some pretty good sophistry to read that as "OK, Congress can make SOME laws…"
jdgalt1
This ruling is outrageous. If it stands, it bans memes.
Iation
Not only is the ruling entirely unreasonable and plainly wrong from a First Amendment perspective, but the judges also neglected to ask whether the comments on the Facebook page were made privately. Different pages on Facebook have different privacy settings. When only a select few persons have access, postings have the nature of private email. Whether or not the comments were made only to a selected few ought to matter when asking if the comments were "to" or "about" the target.
" the judges also neglected to ask whether the comments on the Facebook page were made privately."
You don't have to do this when the messages themselves confirm that the writer of the messages acknowledge that they know the target is reading them, and then continue to write more.
Bold001
Visit Site https://www.dewatogel.asia/prediksi-angka-keluaran-togel-singapura-prediksi-data-sgp-singapore-pools-hari-ini
To Avoid More Political Violence, Allow Americans To Escape Each Other's Control
Let people join with the like-minded to reject officials and laws that don't suit them and to construct systems that do.
J.D. Tuccille | 1.19.2021 10:05 AM


text:
Lee Jung-jae still in talks for film "The Housemaid - 2010"
Korean actor Lee Jung-jae [Yedang Entertainment]
Korean actor Lee Jung-jae is reconsidering his decision to appear in Jeon Do-yeon film "The Housemaid - 2010", agency Yedang Entertainment said a phone call with Asia Economic Daily on Thursday.
Yedang explained that although Lee had initially considered doing the film, he is currently "negotiating the details at the request of the producers" and that "a final decision will be made soon".
The film's producer Miro Vision also confirmed today that "nothing has been set" regarding Lee's participation in the movie.
"The Housemaid - 2010", a remake of a 1960s classic film "The Housemaid - 1960" of the same title, is about a middle-class family breaking apart when the husband has an affair with the maid. Cannes-winning actress Jeon Do-yeon has been cast as the housemaid while Seo Woo, from the critically acclaimed film "Paju", will play the wife whose husband is cheating on her.
The thriller film will be helmed by Korean filmmaker Im Sang-soo, who has written and directed many hit movies including "The President's Last Bang", "A Good Lawyer's Wife" and his directorial debut "Girls' Night Out".
"The Housemaid - 2010", set for release early next year, will start shooting next month as soon as a male lead signs on.
Reporter : Ko Kyoung-seok kave@asiae.co.kr
Editor : Lynn Kim lynn2878@asiae.co.kr
Paju
(파주 - 2009)
The President's Last Bang
(그때 그사람들 - 2004)
A Good Lawyer's Wife
(바람난 가족 - 2003)
2009 Year in Review: Sports & Culture
The reigning queen of figure skating Kim Yu-na kicked off the year, winning her first senior-level gold medal at the Four Continents Figure Skating Championships in February.
The 19-year-old superstar then continued on a roll becoming the world's first female skater to surpass a combined score of 2,...More
Actors Show 'No Mercy' for Vengeance
By Lee Hyo-won Staff Reporter "No Mercy" opens the New Year box office with a slice of gruesome,...More
(72) Saju of Actor Lee Byung-hun
By Janet ShinCelebrities are always hounded by those trying to dig up scandals and pe,...More

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


In a hurry? Our expert Toyologists are here to help you with a hassle free service!
Select any of the Gift card with flat rate RM3 from Premium Gift Wrap service and drop us your wishes. We'll have it wrapped in a lovely coordinating wrapper and hand write your wishes in the card. This service has proven to not only be a life saver for time starved parents but anyone who is in hurry for a holiday get-togethers or new born baby events. Let us help you put smiles on the faces of the little ones in your lives.


text:
Indiana Joan Jones is the female lady heroine that women need
...Does Spielberg know how last names work?
By Megan Farokhmanesh / @Megan_Nicolett
Apr 5, 2018, 9:36 PM UTC |
The next time Indiana Jones appears in film could mark a major change for the franchise. In an interview with The Sun, filmmaker Steven Spielberg told the publication that it may be time for the roguish, Nazi-punching archaeology professor to take "a different form." Graciously, Spielberg means a woman, not a snakeperson. According to Spielberg, however, this would mean changing more than the gender of the character. "We'd have to change the name from Jones to Joan. And there would be nothing wrong with that."
Spielberg's assertion that there's nothing wrong with this name change is not 100 percent correct, because this is not actually how last names work. Does Indiana Jones become Indiana Joan, wherein the reboot is set in a dystopian world (or Russia) where last name denotes gender? Is it "Indiana, Joan," sort of like when James Bond says "Bond, James Bond?" Is her name actually now Joan Jones, an homage to her own childhood dog, also named Joan?
Aside from giving Dr. Indiana Joan Jones, The Woman, a new name to match her gender, Spielberg didn't share any other details about what a potential new addition to his international archaeological theft franchise would entail for the female, lady tomb raider. At the very least, Harrison Ford, age 75, will not be expected to return as the whip-wielding adventurer. "This will be Harrison Ford's last Indiana Jones movie, I am pretty sure, but it will certainly continue after that," Spielberg says.
Look, Indiana Jones would be a perfectly fine name for a woman. Spielberg could take a page out of Marvel's book, like when it crowned a woman as the new Thor and called her "Thor," because she was still Thor — but it's the thought that counts, right? Let's make sure Spielberg gets his brownie points for dangling a hypothetical lady reboot in front of us. Indiana Joan Jones: Finally, a hero for women!


It's amazing how such tiny creatures thrill people of all ages.
The tiny chicks of Sunflower Sentry Garden are strong, alert and ready for action. Chicken Daddy, one of the two students that I took to the Woolley Egg Ranch for fertilized eggs for the class incubator, brought his family to see the babies. They were the first to hold the chicks and give them sweet cuddles and love. Everyone made a safe circle and put the babies down to run and play before returning them to their cage for a long Sunday afternoon nap.


By 2030, many believe there will be more self-employed people in the workforce that there will be full-time employees. Are you prepared for this new economy?
Corporations today are doing several things to make self-employment for attractive than ever. First they are flattening their organizational structure, providing fewer opportunities for getting promoted and moving up to a more senior level. Second, as they are retiring employees at a younger age. Most corporations now are targeting age 55 with severance and early retirement packages. Third, as they eliminate the jobs at the top, they only create new lower-paying positions at the entry level. Fourth, lacking faith in the economy and their sales/marketing functions, there is a conscious decision by most corporations to under-employ. That means they plan to staff a maximum of 80% of the employees they think they will need and fill in the gap with sub-contractors. This makes down-turns in the business much easier to manage. These strategic forces are combining to move our economy to one where there will be more self-employed people in the workforce than there are full-time employees by 2030. Will you be one of them?
Do you have what it takes to be self-employed? The answer to this question is a function of several things: your personality and gifting, your marketable skills and abilities, your passion for autonomy, your financial situation, your energy levels, etc. These "soft side" issues are really more important than your knowledge for how to get started. But once you have assessed that you do have what it takes to be an entrepreneur, you have to get organized. That takes the form of developing a business plan.
Once you understand why you need a business plan, you've got to spend some time doing your homework by gathering the information you need to create one. Then it's time to roll up your sleeves and get everything down on paper. There are seven essential sections of a business plan.
But a great business plan alone will not ensure business success. Much more importantly, there must be a process for Assessing where you are today, Assessing where you want to be in the future (by defining Mission/Vision/Values & aligning those with Goal Setting & Strategic Planning), then developing supporting Action Plans (the plans mentioned in #2, 3, & 4 above), and finally, implementing the processes and systems that will make the future state a reality.
What's interesting to note is that this Business Coaching process for organizations is not much different from the process for Life Coaching an organization. In fact, dynamic synergies result when you put the two processes together: Business Coaching a small to mid-sized organization with Life Coaching for the owner(s) and the management team. It turns out that, due to the organic nature of businesses, they respond much like a living organism. And when the living organisms that manage the organization are transforming along with it, amazing results are achieved. I have developed a unique, proprietary process for coaching both simultaneously.
If you are ready to consider starting your own business, go to our "Free Consultation" page to get started.
Amazing advice! Motivating and exceptional!


Kitaboo insight is a mobile-first platform designed for enterprise training and development. You can create, publish and deliver multiple formats of content on multiple devices such as mobiles, tablets, and laptops.
Browse through the digital library to view all titles at once. Kitaboo Insight allows readers to access reference materials in one digital repository. Find all your training content for employee training, onboarding, sales training etc., categorized and organized in one place.
Kitaboo Insight seamlessly integrates with your existing LMS and allows a smooth transition for training teams. It supports LTI (Learning Tool Interoperability) as a tool provider. Kitaboo Insight works perfectly in sync with your existing LMS and does not require a system overhaul.
Kitaboo Insight enables the creation and delivery of interactive multimedia training content, enriched with audio, video, external hyperlinks, and images. You can add various evaluation techniques such as quizzes, MCQ assessments, audio, and video module.
Kitaboo Insight provides secure offline access to digital content with DRM protection. It uses the AES 128 bit encryption standard for protecting its content.
Kitaboo Insight allows you to track the courseware consumption and delivery patterns through the in-built analytics tool. L&D professionals can improvise and personalize the content based on the interest levels and the progress of the readers.
Want To Experience Kitaboo Insight for Delivering your Enterprise Learning Content?


Recycled Metal Moon And Sun Wall Art Best Selling For The Home is part of great design ideas. Recycled Metal Moon And Sun Wall Art Best Selling For The Home was created by combining fantastic ideas, interesting arrangements, and follow the current trends in the field of that make you more inspired and give artistic touches. We'd be honored if you can apply some or all of these design in your wedding. believe me, brilliant ideas would be perfect if it can be applied in real and make the people around you amazed!
Recycled Metal Moon And Sun Wall Art Best Selling For The Home was posted in October 10, 2018 at 6:16 pm. Recycled Metal Moon And Sun Wall Art Best Selling For The Home has viewed by 56 users. Click it and download the Recycled Metal Moon And Sun Wall Art Best Selling For The Home.


text:
Война за Влёру (, ), или Война 1920 года () — война между княжеством Албания и королевством Италия, шедшая с 4 июня по 3 сентября 1920 года на территории Южной Албании и области Влёра в частности. Албанские повстанцы, уступавшие по численности и вооружению итальянцам, сумели добиться победы и признания независимости Албании: обсуждение границ молодого государства на Парижской мирной конференции окончательно завершилось только после окончания войны за Влёру. Этот конфликт считается поворотным моментом в истории независимой Албании.

Предыстория
В 1915 году Италия подписала секретный Лондонский договор, по которому обязывалась вступить в войну против Германии и Австро-Венгрии в обмен на ряд территориальных уступок после войны. В число обещанных территорий входили Валона (ныне Влёра) и остров Саcено (ныне Сазани), а будущее самой Албании оставалось под вопросом: в перспективе, Антанта могла добиться раздела значительной части Албании между Сербией, Черногорией и Грецией, а часть албанских территорий объявить нейтральной зоной или вовсе отдать Италии. На Парижской мирной конференции, прошедшей в 1919—1920 годы, союзники долгое время не могли определиться по поводу границ Албании, но при этом не подвергали сомнениям права Италии на Влёру. Премьер-министр Франческо Нитти ожидал, что союзники поддержат присоединение албанских земель к Италии.

Ход войны
Албанское правительство не признавало претензий Италии и не желало идти на уступки. 4 июня оно потребовало от Италии отказаться от претензий на Влёру и передать управление городом и областью Албании, на что генерал Сеттимо Пьячентини ответил отказом. Албанцы объявили о создании Национального комитета обороны под руководством Казима Кочули и стали собирать добровольцев для защиты своих земель. Командиром отряда численностью в 4 тысячи человек стал Ахмет Лепеница. Албанские повстанцы были плохо вооружены: не у всех было огнестрельное или даже холодное оружие, кто-то вооружался палками и камнями. Им противостояли 20 тысяч обученных итальянских солдат, вооружённых артиллерией и имевших поддержку с моря.

Албанцы завязали бои в регионе Влёра, а вскоре мятежников поддержали и добровольцы из других крупных албанских городов. Стремительный натиск албанцев не позволил итальянцам перебросить подкрепления, а мятежники взяли город Влёра в осаду. 2 августа 1920 Италия подписала договор с Албанией и согласилась вывести свои войска и отказаться от претензий на Влёру. 5 августа было объявлено прекращение огня, что положило конец вооружённым столкновениям.

Расстановка сил

Албания

Италия

Мирный договор

После трёхмесячных боёв был подписан мирный договор между Италией и Албанией, согласно которому Правительство Италии обязалось сделать следующее:

 Признать независимость, территориальную целостность и суверенитет Албании в пределах границ, установленных в 1913 году на конференции в Лондоне.
 Упразднить протекторат, образованный в 1917 году, полностью отказаться от претензий на город Влёра и окрестности, а также от идеи образования любого мандата в Албании.
 Вывести войска не только из Влёры и её окрестностей, но и с территории Албании. При этом итальянцы сохраняли контроль над островом Сазани, мысами Лингетта (Гюхеза) и Трепорти (для контроля залива Влёра) с правом строительства укреплений, а также небольшой отряд в Шкодере.
 Произвести обмен военнопленных с Албанией и освобождение по амнистии всех арестованных.

Это был первый в истории Албании договор с иностранным государством, и албанцы использовали всё своё влияние и свою международную поддержку для достижения своих целей — в частности, признания их границ по договору 1913 года.

Память
О событиях войны повествует албанская народная песня «Народ Влёры» ()

 Что же мы слышим,
 Увы, на нашу Влору,
 Итальянцы наступают
 На поездах и парашютах.
 Но она не пала, мы не допустим этого.
 Соберитесь, товарищи, в атаку,
 Освободим нашу Влёру.

В 1969 году участник боёв Аго Агай — известный националистический политик, находившийся в эмиграции в США — издал историческую монографию Lufta e Vlorës — Война за Влёру.

Примечания

Литература

 Akademia e Shkencave e RPSSH «Fjalori Enciklopedik Shqiptar», Tirana, 1985.
 Jacques, Edwin. Shqiptarët: Historia e popullit shqiptar nga lashtësia deri në ditët e sotme. Trans. Edi Seferi. Tirana: Mcfarland, 1995.
 Pearson, Owen. Albania in the Twentieth Century: A History. Volume One. New York: I.B. Tauris, 2006 (ISBN 1-84511-013-7).

Конфликты 1920 года
Войны Италии
Войны Албании
Войны XX века
Влёра

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Endosteal [in the bone]: This is the most commonly used type of implant. The various types include screws, cylinders or blades surgically placed into the jawbone. Each implant holds one or more prosthetic teeth. This type of implant is generally used as an alternative for patients with bridges or removable dentures.
Subperiosteal [on the bone]: These are placed on top of the jaw with the metal framework's posts protruding through the gum to hold the prosthesis. These types of implants are used for patients who are unable to wear conventional dentures and who have minimal bone height.


Pop music, as vague a term as that may be, has always had a tendency to navigate towards trendy sounds to catch ears, often at the cost of the quality of the songwriting. NY-based ether-pop artist Rae Isla is a shining example of the fact that trends are there to be set rather than met.
Latest offering American Paradise is a transformative mixture of cinematic pop and lovesick alternative rock, rife with sonic identity and the confidence of a true storyteller. Her vocal delivery and lyrical direction are so potent that you can feel the motivation behind each word and musical cadence as if you're experiencing the storyline as it unfolds.


Bridget Steele, associate, was recently profiled and interviewed by Buffalo Business First as part of its "Emerging Attorney" series.
"Buffalo attorney Bridget Steele was recognized for her work with Volunteer Lawyers Project and last fall won the Say Yes Clinics Award at the Champions for Justice Bash. She volunteers at the general advice walk-in clinic of the Buffalo Public Schools Adult Education Center. Steele is a junior board member of the VLP's Rising Champions for Justice and pitches in with the Attorney of the Morning eviction defense program.
An associate in the health care and human services practice of Barclay Damon LLP, she assists clients with regulatory and compliance matters, including corporate compliance, HIPAA and data privacy, reimbursement, contracting, network development, and FDA-related issues.
Read the full article to learn more about Steele, including her first job, favorite TV shows, and how she manages her time effectively.


text:
Maria Müller (29 de enero de 1898 - 15 de marzo de 1958), nacida en Bohemia, fue una soprano particularmente asociada con repertorio wagneriano que junto a Tiana Lemnitz, Margarete Teschemacher y Elisabeth Rethberg representó el ideal de la soprano joven-dramática germánica de la época.

Nació en Theresienstadt y estudió en Praga con Erik Schmedes y Anna Bahr-Mildenburg debutando en Linz en 1919.

Debutó en Múnich y en el Metropolitan Opera en 1925 como Sieglinde en La Valquiria cantando durante once temporadas sucesivas participando en el estreno metropolitano de Simón Boccanegra.

En Salzburgo fue muy admirada como Euridice (1931), Rezia (1933) Donna Elvira (1934) y en Covent Garden como  Sieglinde y Eva en 1934.

En 1926 Bruno Walter la contrató para la Opera de Berlín donde trabajó hasta 1943 convirtiéndose en una de las estrellas del Festival de Bayreuth bajo la regencia de Winifred Wagner donde cantó Senta, Elisabeth (con Arturo Toscanini), Elsa, Siglinda y Eva.

Otros personajes fueron Die ägyptische Helena, Jenufa, Iphigénie en Tauride, Marguerite, Tosca, Pamina y Marenka en La novia vendida.

Cantó en La Scala, Covent Garden, Viena, Paris, Bruselas, Dresde y Ámsterdam.

Después de la guerra su carrera quedó prácticamente truncada debido a su adhesión al régimen nazi.

Discografía referencial
 Wagner - The Flying Dutchman (Kraus 1942/Berglund, Hofmann, Völker)

 Wagner - Lohengrin (Heger 1941/Völker, Hofmann, Klose, Prohaska)

 Wagner - Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg (Furtwängler 1943/ Prohaska, Lorenz, Greindl, Fuchs)

 Wagner - Tannhäuser (Elmendorff 1930/Pilinsky, Jost-Arden, Janssen, Andresen)

 Wagner - Die Walküre (Furtwängler 1937 /Bockelmann, Flagstad)

 Wagner - Die Walküre (Fricsay 1951 /Hermann, Suthhaus, Buchner, Klose)

 The Art of Maria Müller (Arias de Wagner, Weber, Puccini)

Enlaces externos
 Bio en inglés
 Biografía de inglés

Sopranos de la República Checa
Cantantes líricos de la República Checa
Músicos clásicos del siglo XX de la República Checa
Nacidos en la República Checa
Fallecidos en Bayreuth


Topographical surveys are used to locate typical site features like, boundaries, buildings, fences, trees, service covers, contours of the land etc. Even underground services can be located and traced using sub-surface radar. The survey plans can then be used by the client or architect to gain a better understanding of the site and know the boundaries limitations which aid with the design or possible improvements to a site. GEOsurveys Ltd can provide tailored topographical surveys to suit the client or architects requirements.
GEOsurveys use state of the art Leica Geosystems survey technology including Robotic Total Stations, GPS and Digital Levels. The use of GPS also enables surveys to be related to national datum's, such as Ordnance Survey's National Grid. Site data is processed using LSS software and for final drafting and presentation in either two or three dimensions. Terrain models and contours can also be produced when and if required. GEOsurveys work in accordance with the survey guidelines set in the RICS 'Surveys of Land, Buildings and Utility Services at Scales of 1:500 and Larger'.