Internet Free Speech Under Threat! Eric Pepin - Higher Balance Institute Sue SOTT for 4.47 Million Over SOTT Forum Comments! -- Signs of the Times News

His lawsuit would challenge a law already in place that protects owners of forums and blogs, etc. from comments of others bar none. Not only has it been established by case law but also *is* a law usurping statutory laws.

Clipped to RightsVine.

If I am interpreting this lawsuit correctly, its aims would hamper our ability to discuss news freely on the Vine, for fear of similar actions on unwanted publicity. From the man's own description of himself, he seems like one of whom it would be wise to be wary. On ponerology.com, they warn that one of the strategies of psychopaths is to discredit, abuse, destroy those who oppose or criticize them. I think it's worth a thought, or two.

This should be of concern for all of us since whichever way the case goes will set a precedent for the exercise of freedom of speech on the web. The forum that is being sued had comments based on articles on the public domain. So if "Master Eric" gets away with it we are all in deep trouble. All that would be needed to silence anyone would be a guy with a load of cash.

It wouldn't matter that such a guy is a sexual predator (and I think that this can be pretty much established as a fact since Pepin himself admitted to having seduced almost the entirety of his staff, whether they were 18 or not), or a "snake oil salesman" (and here the burden of proof that he is not one is on him, as he presumes to sell pills that make people psychic!).

So here's my support for sott.net.

Be afraid, be very afraid! If he wins, this will affect us all and the freedom of speech on the Internet.

This is an important issue, as it concerns the right to freely speak out and question things, concepts, people, laws etc. It will stifle free discussion.

And as concerns this guy Eric Pepin, he is suing for damages to his reputation. Hallo, his reputation by his own words is that of screwing most of his male staff of 11 employees. It was not a question of whether he had had sex with this young boy, which he admitted. The legal issue was whether the boy was under aged. In other words as I see it the guy actively uses his guru status to sexually prey on young and vulnerable men in their late teens and early twenties.

The discussion that is happening here is no different from what happened on that forum as far as I have read, which means that the Newsvine could be next. Thus it really is an issue for all of us to fight for.

Just hold on a minute! Eric Perin is suing an internet public forum because they were discussing the fact that he had appeared in court on sexual abuse charges involving a minor under 18 years of age. The guy even states that he has had sexual relations with all his 11 employees. It just boggles the mind that a predator of his sort comes right out and states that fact, as if it was something to be proud of with an air of 'doesn't everyone have sex with their male employees'. WELL NO, not in a sane world they don't. The attorney who took on this libel suit either doesn't know what they are doing, or they are about to change the First Amendment. Beware folks here, you may get sued for discussing him. Crazy!

I think its important to remember that this lawsuit could set a precedent against freedom of speech, in today's climate of control over everything this is very dangerous. It threatens the idea of objective discussion and free thought and holds forums and blogs liable for public discussion.

This should scare the pants right off you if you are paying attention. Few people these days seem to care that FREE SPEECH is so close to being taken away -- if someone this sleazy can file a lawsuit again a FORUM, a public discussion - here comes 1984.

The ramifications of this lawsuit is too many. the outcome of this case can easily be promoted easily particularly in this bush era to erase the internet it self. the signs are clear , telephone companies, google , companies are already controlling what their employees, customers see. who benefits - control demands more control. pepin must have a lot of backing to get away with that type of sextual abuse cases

Sharing truth based on facts is becoming risky business. This lawsuit brings to light important questions about topics regarding 'uncomfortable truths'. Discussion forums like SOTT shed light on predators and sociopaths who claim to offer spiritual guidance and practice. Mr.Pepin obviously does not want his predations to be discussed openly, this alone tells us a lot!

It's even more important because other medias are already controlled. Then a loss in this case would be the beginning of the end for the freedom of speech on the last free media : Internet.

Free Speech Under Threat? I dont see the issue here.. Seems more like SOTT wants publicity! Thats what I see!

If someone goes around putting up posters saying you are a child predator with a picture of you on it, in your neighbourhood... when it is a right out lie..! and in fact proven in court that it was that! Shouldnt you have right to defend yourself? Or do something about it? naaa.. just let everybody believe a lie.. because Free Speech is under threat right?

Hey guys! Wake up! Who is a part of a cult here? I am not defending a guy having sex with his employees.. (it was 4 of them it said in the papers..) I know that is the oldest trick in the book.. even clinton pulled that off! You will find worse people than Eric. Sex has been a motivation for a lot of worse things than this!

I am not defending Eric here.. I am disgusted by that too.. But I feel you guys arent reading the fact.. and you are all saying the same.. nobody is bringing some fresh comments into the soup.. and I found that the woman behind SOTT has also been sued for running a cult.. but I guess.. she is not allowed to comment on that.. because FREE SPEECH IS UNDER THREAT!

This is what Internet has come to.. two stupid cults hunting each other down! One believing that George Bush is a Lizzard the other one believing in Snake Oil!! Good Luck Lemmings!

I forgot to say...... the only thing that destroy the Internet is FREE SPEECH PEOPLE like those two cults here... filling up Internet with lies, propaganda and junk.. Not even getting the fact straight that it was 4 employees he had interaction with and not 11! Wish people could have more intelligence to actually read and have an object review on what is going on here.... I wonder how much those two organizations have gotten in sale after all their propaganda! This is like reading a tabloid! Free Speech!! Give me a break... Who would have known!!

Largest internet libel payout over 'malicious' website
Hugh Tomlinson, QC arrives at the High Court, London

(David Bebber/The Times)

Hugh Tomlinson QC, the lawyer who secured the payout for Gentoo Ltd
Alexi Mostrous

A "malicious and relentless" online campaign of libel against a housing group and its chief executive resulted today in the largest public compensation payout in an internet defamation case.

Gentoo Ltd, formerly the Sunderland Housing Group, became the subject of an attack by "a seriously defamatory, abusive and scurrilous anonymous website at dadsplace.co.uk", according to a statement read in court by the organisation's counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC, before Mr Justice Eady today.

"From behind their cloak of anonymity, Dadsplace used their publications and in particular the website to conduct a malicious, unpleasant and relentless campaign of libel and harassment," Mr Tomlinson told the court.

He added that many of the accusations were directed at the Gentoo chief executive, Peter Walls. They ranged "from corruption to nepotism and the promotion of female employees in exchange for sexual favours", he said.
Related Links

* Pensioner target of Bebo smears

* New York passes law against 'libel tourists'

* 'Terrorist' defamation cases trebled

Dadsplace had been viewed "millions of times" by the time it was taken down in the summer of 2006. The allegations were made over a two year period.

Those responsible had taken careful steps to conceal their identities, Mr Tomlinson said. It took many months of investigation to identify some of those responsible.

John Finn, the owner of rival housing firm Pallion and a former local council candidate in Sunderland, originally denied responsibility. But in October last year he admitted his involvement, agreeing at the time to pay £125,000 towards Gentoo's legal costs and a total of £21,000 in compensation.

Today he and Pallion agreed to pay Mr Walls damages of £100,000 to settle his claim for libel and harassment.

Mr Tomlinson said: "The very substantial compensations made by Mr Finn and Pallion show that those responsible for scurrilous defamatory publications on the internet cannot escape liability in the courts."

Caroline Addy, a barrister at One Brick Court, a leading defamation set, told Times Online that the payout appeared to be a "surprisingly large amount".

"It's certainly the largest in my recollection," she said. "The publication must have been ongoing and over a sustained period of time."

Ms Addy said that cases involving internet libel were growing because "people often have no idea of the legal implications of putting things up online. They think – falsely – that they can hide their identities and say things they wouldn't say if they had to put their name on it."

The court also heard today that injunctions were granted against John Baines and John Edward Smith, the other defendants in the case, prohibiting them from repeating the defamatory allegations.

Mr Baines, also known as John Seafield, was the main administrator of Dadsplace, and Mr Smith took "an active role" in the website.

Speaking after today's hearing Mr Walls, a former Sunderland city council director of housing, said: "What was particularly frightening was the fact that we didn't know who was doing this or why.

"There is no doubt that the internet can be a fantastic tool for good but we urgently need legal change to enable victims of internet abuse to have a quicker and more effective route to justice."

Ashley Hurst, an associate at Olswang, Gentoo's solicitors, called for a code of conduct for web publishers.

"It is difficult to see how the government can legislate effectively in this area because technology moves faster than the courts," he said.

"But one option may be to develop a voluntary code of conduct so that at least reputable websites can distinguish themselves from the rogue ones by signing up to the code as a badge of credibility."