Where's it appear? Not the rag, that I can see.

Hokay, I've saved that page to disk. It's apparently not newstand worthy news.

If that's Mr Slager's lame personal best, let him have at it.

What I find most baffling is almost all the detail he cites is proveably wrong.

A group of residents who have come under attack by these hate blogger is now considering filing a class-action defamation lawsuit. That could force the identities of these hate bloggers to become public. Now wouldn’t that be an interesting list?

The intimidation is offensive, Bob. Go away.

Ragman writes ," some people have told me that I should not write about the hatebloggers" yeah u idiot it was you. You wrote months ago how you wouldn't waste anymore ink writing about hatebloggers. Take your own advice. Are there voices in your head Ragman? Stop with your lies and intimidation. Free speech for all not just you. Your obseessed ragman take some mess

Ragman, oh Ragman, if this 1985 nonviolent crime is no big deal, then please tell us the name of the crime.

and is this a lie you print a graph about the libarey  spending more than other towns   on their libarey than  wAREHAM AND THEN THEIR is an edittorial debunking this lie where they take the time and check it out and find this is not true see  a recent editorial in the wareham courier. you see your cronies the seletman are upset because their are oeople telling the truth and not like you just spreding their lies.

slagger ask your freind bruce to give you his driveing record to debunk myths that the police are picking on him.

slager this  is your lie all fabricated by you  tkeir is raceism on the wareham police dept never was before your sorrey ass came to town . a policeman was recently found not to have used excessive force in onset. howie carr told bruce basicalley to shit in his hat when he called up his show on tasering in wareham i heard it myself and andrade had a  police record a mile long. your main backer bruce is upset with the police dept that is a mile long ask him to resign if he  wont release his police records  you wont because you are not  a serious journalist and as  i said before shit in your hat and pull it over your head  you shit head.    relese the police records of bruce now wich are a  mile long or ask him  to resign now if he will not relaese them.

what town offical son muredered a man over a lottery ticket and is servering jail time?

Did you ever think that maybe all of this is a trade off.  The ragman writes mean and vicious articles around the finest workers any town would be happy to employ.  In exchange some BOS members keep ragman up-to-date on all the news whether the news is accurate or not.

Interesting...

"Many of these people are clearly library insiders and police officers looking to intimidate political opposition. "
I'm not sure where this statement intends to lead...
-Library insiders and police officers are not allowed to speak out?
-If anyone speaks out against my opinion they are no longer afforded the constitutional protection of freedom of speech?
-In reality, can anyone ever speak out against another's opinion without trying to "intimidate political opposition" isn't that the whole reason for speaking out? Granted "intimidate" is a harsh word, which is probably used for dramatic flair, but isn't the freedom to speak out about political opposition the basis for the United States of America?

"A group of residents who have come under attack by these hate blogger is now considering filing a class-action defamation lawsuit."
-The term class-action lawsuit is not correct. I doubt there is a group of people who have all been wronged by the same action. Most likely this group would find that they would need to file individual suits against individual people and could not act as a whole. A suit like, 'everyone who was ever mentioned on that website vs. everyone who ever posted on that website' would be the longest case ever heard. Class actions are for groups who specifically have things in common, not generally, such as, a group of people who all bought the same toothbrush who then bring action against the (one) company that manufactured the toothbrush for whatever reason. The fee for researching such a "class action suit" would be unbelievable as the initial complaint would have to site every mention of every remark in question. Then, each complaint would have to be specifically validated against each person mentioned in the complaint. For example, the complaint would have to draw a direct correlation that commonsense was responsible for the things that Ihateliz has written, otherwise the suit would fail in primary motions as being prejudiced towards specific individuals in the class.

"That could force the identities of these hate bloggers to become public. Now wouldn’t that be an interesting list?"
-Sure, that's easy to put on paper, but...
So the courts say, give us the names of all these "truth" bloggers, that is if the courts buy the case, see the above explanation of why that would be difficult. Then the owner of the site, oh wait, it's a private registration from 1and1.com, so now you need the courts to petition the state of Pennsylvania, or make it a federal case, to issue a mandate to release the name of the site owner. Once that is done, now you get a list of all the people who signed up... oh, wait, it's a list of email addresses, most of which are most likely from hotmail.com, aol.com, and yahoo.com. So now another mandate from the court to each of the service providers who host email to release the name of the people to who these emails belong. Good luck with that one, it has been tried many times and lets just say there is a bit of case law to overcome. For the sake of fun, lets say that obstacle is cleared, and you get (drum roll) another set of email addresses because when you sign up with these types of services you just have to verify one email to verify the account and it can be from any source. Can you see the path. The most important thing to remember here is that the person bringing the action has to pay for all this to happen and it can take years to get through each step and the lawyers get paid by the second.

"There is a huge difference between legitimate commentary posted on a web site and personally-motivated defamation intended purely to hurt other people. It’s about time the hate bloggers learned the difference."
I have to admit that some of the items posted on this site are above and beyond in the getting personal arena but (there's always a but) this entire site could easily be considered opinion and commentary of the individuals posting. I specifically remember bobbie stating that his opinions aren't slanderous (by the way bobbie it libelous, you should learn the difference before you get sued, oh yeah, too late) because they are clearly labeled opinion. I'm noticing a double standard where the rules that apply to bobbie don't apply to the rest of the world if they have a contrary opinion.

So, now that the analysis is done I would just like to say that I am shocked and saddened that someone such as this, who publishes a newspaper under the guise of standing up against tyranny and for the little guy would so clearly attempt to stamp out any public forum that stands for the freedom of speech. It is both hypocritical and shameful for someone in such a position to constantly attempt to undermine the civil liberties of the common man. It is clear that you do not believe what Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it"

Your actions of reporting "A group of residents who..." is exactly the same as hiding ones name, a responsible report would include the names of the group or individuals thinking bringing the action, but you turn to the very tactics you say you are speaking out against. Furthermore, threatening a lawsuit is libelous (slanderous), so in as such, you defamed each and every poster on this site with that statement. It is anyones right to bring action, but threatening action to intimidate as you have done, or claim other nameless individuals are doing, is wrong and illegal. (Yes the users of this site could bring a class action suit against the observer for that one statement as it is a group of people that have been similarly harmed by one source, ironic isn't it).

If there is still one ounce of your self respect or conscience that still remains I would ask that you take a deep look at where you are headed because it is apparent to many that you have become the evil you set out to fight against.

God bless America and the freedoms we hold so dear.

Slager's "story" has already been altered to answer flox's statement.  Pathetic.

commonsense wrote:

Slager's "story" has already been altered to answer flox's statement.  Pathetic.

Bobo wrote:

Victims of this abuse can sue both the site owner and "John Doe" and then request the identity of the blogger during discovery. Or the courts could issue a subpoena to the web host. It's worked many times, especially in defamation cases. On the Internet, everything is recorded somewhere.

Keep dreaming, Bob....

As I stated earlier you have become the evil you sought out to destroy...

From the newly altered story: "There is a huge difference between legitimate commentary posted on a web site and personally-motivated defamation intended purely to hurt other people. The First Amendment protects the right of people to offer different opinions, and I will fight to preserve that right for the rest of my life. But the First Amendment doesn't protect people from defaming other people. Free speech does not allow the violation of other people's rights of privacy. Free speech doesn't protect verifiable lies. Even a first-year law student should understand that."

The first amendment protects all speech, you don't get to draw a line for the rest of the world as to what is right and wrong. It is horrifying to think that someone who says they stand for free speech is willing to allow others to be censored and in this case insist on it. You claim you can say anything about the police chief and no one has a right to stop you, but the same does apply to others. Free speech does not protect verifiable lies, you are correct, but the courts decide what is and what is not a lie, not individuals. You opinion on this topic is noted, but seems to be in the minority, why don't you bring it to the courts?

Seeing as we are working towards a legal education... Now that you have altered the original story on your website to address the response from the original article you have set a very public example of your willingness to "alter" your statements. Imagine the implications this could have when your defense in court is "this is what was posted on the website" and the opposition states otherwise. In that type os situation you have pretty much sold yourself out haven't you, that's a shame.

bob what a pathetic idle third person threat.  cant you even be a man and say you are going to sue.  when my friends get here you will all be sorry...  boo fuckin hoo......

wow your freedom of speech theory goes out the window and all in the same breath you reverse yourself about the crime watch guy.  given your investigative reporter skills i can  only imagine a major conspiracy on the part of the boston police records dept going back 30 years.

why bob did he lose his observer value and now you just dump him.     kept telling you bob you are backing the wrong horses.  i tried dont you remember.  i was the original olive branch.  i tried to educate you,  but alas you looked into that pool Narcissus and you saw nothing but your flawless self.  oh shit greek mythology now  ill probably be criminally charged.

bob this site serves as a cache of the truth  the witnesses who were there  and a catalogued  record of all the antics you guys have been pulling.

oddly enough it is similar to what i feel you initially set out to do and now that you got derailed you cant bear to see that we have stayed the course not only without you but in spite of you.   if this is all you have left to refute the truth and  stifle my freedom of speech.  Have at it.
Hey and by the way good luck in court this week I'll be praying for you.  Well i'll be praying anyways.