[Bob Kuczewski]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Thanks for the link, Spitfire.

The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page, reading "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."

I think those are reasonable additions to OP's post and picture. I am not against free speech or parody as long as it's publicly known that's what it is.

OP, do you have a problem with that?

Here's a little more from the Wikipedia link:

In New York Times, the Court held that the First Amendment gives speakers immunity from sanction with respect to their speech concerning public figures unless their speech is both false and made with "actual malice", i.e., with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.

I think the statements are both false and made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge of its falsehood or with reckless disregard for the truth of the statement.

Spitfire, let me know if I can put you on retainer some time.

Even more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice

Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth. This is the definition in only the United States and came from the landmark 1964 lawsuit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which ruled that public officials needed to prove actual malice in order to recover damages for libel.

This term was not newly invented for the Sullivan case, but was a term from existing libel law. In many jurisdictions proof of "actual malice" was required in order for punitive damages to be awarded, or for other increased penalties. Since proof of the writer's malicious intentions is hard to provide, proof that the writer knowingly published a falsehood was generally accepted as proof of malice, under the assumption that only a malicious person would knowingly publish a falsehood. In the Sullivan case the Supreme Court adopted this term and gave it constitutional significance, at the same time defining it in terms of the proof which had previously been usual.

Actual malice is different from common law malice which indicates spite or ill-will. It may also differ from "actual malice" as defined in state libel law, as was confirmed in the case of Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc. (1983). Also see HERBERT v. LANDO, (1979) 441 U.S. 153 (1979)441 U.S. 153 fn 12; "The existence of actual malice may be shown in many ways. As a general rule, any competent evidence, either direct or circumstantial, can be resorted to, and all the relevant circumstances surrounding the transaction may be shown, provided they are not too remote, including threats, prior or subsequent defamations, subsequent statements of the defendant, circumstances indicating the existence of rivalry, ill will, or hostility between the parties, facts tending to show a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights..."

I believe the last quote there is applicable to demonstrate actual malice in this case. OP, I am kindly asking you to correct your statements about me making threats to Sherri Lightner or her family, and I am also asking you to correct the images that you've synthesized to reflect that they are not true images from those web sites. Again, this is a reasonable request.

[Quote From]

Spitfire, let me know if I can put you on retainer some time.

Normally I would say no but since this is OP we're talking about I'd gladly take your money. I don't have a law degree so retribution would have to be in the form of an online smear campaign. Cool?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Thanks for the link, Spitfire.

The ad carried a disclaimer in small print at the bottom of the page, reading "ad parody—not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also listed the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."

I think those are reasonable additions to OP's post and picture. I am not against free speech or parody as long as it's publicly known that's what it is.

OP, do you have a problem with that?

example of easy to make fake website.

There you go, saved you some legal fees, online smear campaign it is.

[Quote From]

I don't even know what's happening in the thread anymore:
Lightner campaign

Oz Forum

[Bob Kuczewski]

The topic was locked shortly after OP's last posts of the altered web sites.

[Rick Masters]

Bob, I am truly disgusted by the comments of some of the posters on the SHGA Forum.
I thank you again for providing a courteous forum for discussion of hang gliding issues
and for forging a path away from those who have hijacked our sport to establish an imaginary and self-serving bully pulpit on our public lands.

[Frank Colver]

I'm appalled by the lack of understanding by some SHGA members of what the US Hawks organization is. There is absolutely no competition to the SHGA by the US Hawks. The SHGA can be a chapter of both USHPA and US Hawks and it should be a chapter of both. At this point in time it won't even cost them any money to be a chapter of US Hawks.

Some folks there also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the US Hawks is run by the temp BOD and is not run by BobK. He is the web master but all decisions about the operation of the US Hawks have to be voted on by the board. BobK can make suggestions, as can any member of US Hawks, but he can not alone make any decisions about US Hawks as an organization.

Frank Colver, still an active member of USHPA (#7), FDGS, and US Hawks. I invite pilots of SHGA to join those organizations, in addition to the USHPA, which you need at this time for insurance, you will have much camaraderie with fellow freeflight loving pilots.

[brianscharp]

Some folks there also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the US Hawks is run by the temp BOD and is not run by BobK. He is the web master but all decisions about the operation of the US Hawks have to be voted on by the board. BobK can make suggestions, as can any member of US Hawks, but he can not alone make any decisions about US Hawks as an organization.

Isn't the Board still in the "advisory" capacity, "without any authority at all"?
Re: Creating the US Hawks Board of Directors
viewtopic.php?p=5716&sid=18359f30382a2f886a62b699de9a5ab1#p5716

I've been giving this some more thought, and I've had a few very productive discussions with several volunteers for the Board in the last few days. Thanks to each of you.

I think the best way to approach this is to initially form the Board in an advisory capacity and see how that works out. Once the Board gets itself up and functioning, then we can begin to gradually transfer more and more authority to the Board. I think this will eliminate many of the problems that plagued the HGAA's bootstrapping process.

Review of the HGAA ("Hang Gliding Association of America"):

I think it might be helpful for us to learn from the mistakes of the HGAA. For those who don't know the history, I started that organization on hanggliding.org back in the spring of 2010. People began signing up and in a short time we had nearly 100 people ready to go. So we created a "Transition Team" to help move us from being a loose group into an actual organization. That's when the problems arose. Different people had different ideas about how to work together, and there was no authority to turn to when those different ideas conflicted with each other (actually, there was an agreed-upon authority, but one person with physical control of the web site decided to ignore that authority). The situation was worsened by people who I believe wanted to see the HGAA fail because it conflicted with their own power and control. Those people eventually ended up seizing control, and sure enough, they quickly dove it into the ground. In fact, when I last checked, the domain name "hgaa.org" is now the "Hazel Grove Agricultural Association"!!

In retrospect, I think one of the problems with the founding of the HGAA was that I assumed that a group of loosely connected pilots with no experience working with each other (and quite likely very different agendas) could come quickly together to build an organization. That was obviously too optimistic, and the results are clear at hgaa.org (now the "Hazel Grove Agricultural Association").

So I'd like to take it a little slower this time. I'd like to get the team working together without any authority at all to start with, so we don't have desperate "power plays" and the related strife. Let's get the board started as a "discussion group" about how to really build the organization. As the discussions mature, we'll get a better sense of how well we can work together without the pressure that we had in the HGAA. Little by little, the Board can take on more and more authority until it is fully self-sufficient.

Does anyone disagree with this approach?

[Bill Cummings]

by brianscharp »

Isn't the Board still in the "advisory" capacity, "without any authority at all"?

The "TRIAL" Board is still in an advisory capacity, with the authority to vote with our feet (or fingers) and leave. (And bitch about it on the way out.)
Much like I did eight days ago after over 35 some odd, years with USHGA/USHPA.
The moderator has been doing what he has been saying he would do all along. Turning over control. Two of us at the RGSA club have
been given RGSA and the password to change/moderate the RGSA forum. (But we do it only with the okay from our local club president.)
The Trial Board is a practice session for when the day comes that members vote for who will be an official Board Member.
What we accomplish now is to show the direction that members want to go while advancing the mission statement: "To promote, protect, and serve recreational hang gliding". The real Board Members might decide to include golf but I hope not. I've been down that road before.
I'm hoping the actual board members will appreciate us clearing the launch of this association and will step in to maintain it when the time comes.
I expect the US Hawks to take less time setting up than it took our government getting women to vote and own property. I say that just to remind everyone that getting set up won't happen over night but keep in mind, many hands will make for light work.
For me the USHPA has taken a different course and I am the guy in the back of the crowd in the picture below.

True Power.PNG (136.65 KiB) Viewed 5907 times

[Bob Kuczewski]

Isn't the Board still in the "advisory" capacity, "without any authority at all"?

No. The Board does have authority, as I'll explain shortly. First let me focus on an important part of what I wrote when forming the Board:

I think the best way to approach this is to initially form the Board in an advisory capacity and see how that works out. Once the Board gets itself up and functioning, then we can begin to gradually transfer more and more authority to the Board. I think this will eliminate many of the problems that plagued the HGAA's bootstrapping process.

The Board has indeed been gradually gaining more authority - just as I wrote in that statement. In fact, in the roughly year and a half that the Board has been in existence, every single one of their decisions has become the "law of the land" ... even if I disagreed with it.

While I do currently still have "veto" power, the Board's authority comes largely (and quite forcefully) from what it would cost me politically and in the respect of our members if I should use that veto improperly (I can already imagine the headlines on ozreport.com, hanggliding.org, and kitestrings.org ). You may say that's "without any authority at all", but that's incorrect, and certainly not what I feel from my end. I know that I risk losing the credibility of the entire organization if I should ever veto a Board decision without extremely good and justifiable reasons. That has caused me to compromise on issues where I might otherwise have done something differently myself. So it is factually incorrect to say that is "without any authority at all".

On the other hand, you are correct that I do still hold that veto power, and I do so for two reasons. First, I "somewhat" act as a "Supreme Court" which does not make laws, but ensures that any laws made conform to our "constitution". In other words, I act as a "check and balance" against things running away as they did with the HGAA. Second, my veto power gives me ultimate legal and financial responsibility. The US Hawks is not incorporated yet, and we don't carry liability insurance for our Board members. If they were to hold absolute power, then they might be liable for claims. My veto power makes me the person who is solely on the hook for any such claims. From a legal standpoint, the Board is - as you said - strictly advisory.

Getting back to Frank's perspective (which comes from his actual experience on the Board), he finds that every decision of the Board has been implemented. Even though I have asked for certain things from the Board, if the Board doesn't grant them, I do not do them. That's been true on a number of issues, and it reflects my commitment to give the Board more and more power as it matures. So from Frank's perspective, he is correct. He sees me lobbying for some things and not getting them, and that's because I cannot just do whatever I want without consequences. Those consequences are very real to me and to the US Hawks.

Does that help clarify the situation?

P.S. It appears that Bill and I were typing at the same time, and ended up with the same general conclusion. Even if I were completely selfish in my goals for the US Hawks, I have to recognize that the Board can turn around and walk away at any time. I believe that would seriously injure the organization. So the authority that Bill showed in his cartoon is very very real. Thanks for sharing that great perspective Bill!!

[Frank Colver]

I stand corrected.

I misunderstood my authority on the Temp BOD because every decision made, since I've been aboard, has been by a majority vote of the board. So, we are an advisory board but we have been acting as though we had the authority to pass or fail proposals. This is good.

We need to start moving ahead on becoming a full corporate organization with a real BOD and start working on getting insurance for HG recreational pilots. Commercial operations and violators of FAA Part 103 need not apply.

Frank C.