The latest and greatest from the great Tom Loce:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Loce <tloce1@rochester.rr.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Hall of Shame
To: Mel <alphamel1968@gmail.com>
Hi-de-ho Melvin ,
For a lawyer you sure are a dumb guy . You can’t even follow the rules & regulations of Ebay . I just found that your Ebay account has been flagged by Ebay for contacting my Customers on Ebay and interfering with sales . Anymore shenanigans like that and your likely to be removed . Tsk Tsk , someone should spank you .
Looks like I really ruffled your feathers old chum . I’m not sure how you arrived at all these “ conclusions “ about me on your website and on chat rooms . It certainly looks like a lot of rumors , conjecture & heresay that was put together to try to denigrate me . I don’t see one fact in that whole streaming pile .
This would be in the same order as me conveying things I have read about you on websites and heard about you and trying to proclaim they are facts .
Just because I ran across a site that said that Mel Hutton was a high ranking member of NAMBLA ( National American Boy Lover Association ) , I would never believe it and would certainly never post it anywhere online .
I’ve read other stories that Mel Hutton has a severe case of Mixoscopic Zoophelia ( The act of a person getting aroused by watching animals copulate) . Again I find this hard to believe and in my wildest dreams would never post something like this in a manner in which to defame you .
I’ve heard rumors of a Mel Hutton paying off Chris Hanson from To Catch a Predator so he would not serve time for exposing himself at a playground . Again I am sure these are unfounded rumors and I would not want people to ever get the wrong idea about you .
It sure sounds like part of the material your claiming about me comes under the
Online Activities Not Covered by Section 230
While most courts have held that Section 230 grants interactive computer services broad, expansive immunity, this recognition often comes with some reluctance by the courts. Occasionally courts try to find ways around the broad immunity grant of Section 230. Early on, most courts that tried to hold service providers liable were trial courts that eventually found themselves reversed on appeal.
Lately, however, some appellate courts have been willing to limit Section 230's immunity. This has primarily involved two types of activities by online publishers:
Editing of content that materially alters its meaning. If you edit content created by a third-party and those edits make an otherwise non-defamatory statement defamatory, you will likely lose your immunity under Section 230. Where this line is, however, remains unclear. Obviously, if you remove the word "not" from a sentence that reads "Jim Jones is not a murderer," you will have substantially altered the meaning of the sentence and made an otherwise non-defamatory statement defamatory.
But then again I’m not 100% sure so I’ll just keep gathering information and possibly turn into a litigious troll again . Heck , If I had enough time & money to waste to bring Time Warner / Warner Bro to the Supreme Court level I certainly wouldn’t have any qualms about wasting my money & your time on a defamation suit or at the very least some type of loss of income .
I’m still debating if its worth wasting my time on a speck of dust like you.
Your #1 fan ,
Tom Loce
PS – Take my advice – Stay away from children and find yourself a nice Jewish girl that enjoys yodeling .
Please add this to the TOM LOCE HALL OF FAME eeerrrrr SHAME . Thanks .