This seems a bit of a reach. What is the evidence that these kinds of suits are accepted and encouraged by public apathy. I rather think that it is one of the prices we pay for living in a civilized society. As long as the legal system ultimately recognizes the frivolous nature of the suit, throws it out, and will accept a countersuit, I think that’s all we can hope for.

Well AT, as you get a little older and have some real world experiences beyond elementary school PTA meetings and blogging, you will realize that some of us have been around long enough to have moved away, enjoyed successful careers in other parts of the country, missed being around family as they continued to get older, and decided to move back to our hometowns.

I know you are a bright guy so I have no doubt you will catch on. BTW, congrats for moving 98 miles north of your “weird little high school clique(s).” ;)

I’ve learned this week that there’s actually a term for it: a SLAPP suit. Stands for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”

AT, I laughed out loud reading this post! Thanks for your support.

Ms. Agle nowhere makes that clarification on her site, in fact, she was deliberate in her attempt to remain anonymous. I’m all for printing “public information,” but if that were her intent, why didn’t she publish it under her own name? Why did she use Lee’s talk show name to do it?

I gotta agree with daco and AT. If this bothers you, you gotta get in there and push.

What Netmom did was a bit devious, but savvy. She had a hook and she used it. From where I sit, she did a service to her comunity (except for publishing the SS number of another).

Ms. Frank, I figured out that Netmom’s cryptowebsite had nothing to do with you. I’ll bet I’m not alone. If you have something to say–say it.

I find that unlikely, seeing as the website distances itself from the phrase “Let’s Talk Frank” by replacing it with the headline “Let’s Talk Frankly” and adding “because proper grammar dictates that an adverb modify a verb.”

If she is the believer in public information that she claims she is, then why not put it on her own site? But she didn’t have the courage or the decency. It was cowardly to use the name of Lee’s show as her web address. Lee’s show is word for word, letter for letter, identical to the anonymous site she created.

I personally, have no problem with the public dissemination of public information. I have my own blog, I write a column, Lee has a TV show. We discuss public information all the time. But the difference is, we put our name and face on it. We have people who agree, and we have people who call us “whack-jobs” as Joel has done above.

We are willing to take both criticism and praise. Ms. Agle however wasn’t just interested in getting information out, she wanted people to believe that Lee and I put up the site. That isn’t a public service, that was malicious–especially when she had her own site on which to post information.

Your issue with Mr. Beauchamp’s suit is completely separate from her cowardly act of hijacking the show name because she didn’t have the courage to do it herself.

She claims to have purchased the site 5 years ago, but a computer search reveals she purchased it in Feb. 2002. Lee was running a campaign at that time with Let’s Talk Frank as his campaign slogan. Not only did she buy the site while she was running the campaign of Lee’s opponent, she maintained the rights to the site for 4 years—4 years being the amount of time Lee’s show was on the air.

And although she “outed” herself in the media, she has yet to identify herself on the site. It still remains an anonymous site with no disclaimer as to its authorship.

The show “Mrs. Eaves” is called “Let’s Talk Frank” as in Lee Frank—not as in Frankly speaking.

Are you saying that you didn’t intend the slogan/show name to imply a double meaning?

It does if you want to enforce any legal claims. You can research the law if you like.

“I wouldn’t expect you to address facts—your emotion is in the way.”

Heh.

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

Since Terry displays a propensity for projection (see above), I can understand her concern.

I think the play on the Frank name is clever, like you said, but that’s only part of the story. It seems to me that Netmom could have called her site anything she wanted to and then published the info about Beauchamp. She could have done that, if all she wanted to do was simply bring Beauchamp to task on his alledged criminal activity. However, by naming the site what she did, it seems to me she is also suggesting a connection/association between the Franks and Beauchamp.

So, what is the connection between Beauchamp and the Franks that the site, Let’s Talk Frank(ly), seems to make?

OK, here’s my research:

http://www.washingtontechnology.com/news/11_9/news/9711-1.html

Where’s yours?

None that I can see. Mrs. Frank may disagree, but I don’t think that NetMom (Agle) was implying any connection between the Franks and Beauchamp.

I don’t know this for a fact, but I have heard that there is some bad blood between Mrs. Frank and Mrs. Agle because of past Anderson County Republican party politics. That would explain a lot and ladies….do jump in here and correct me.

Dang it, daco! Stop agreeing with me! Next thing you know, I’m gonna become an old fart conservative like you. I’m not having it.

Whoa! Wait a minute. That’s it! We agree because you’ve become a liberal. I love it!

And AT is becoming a fascist.

It’s all making sense now.