Potential lawsuit against Park Slope Parents group?

germfree!

Subject: Re: park slope parents

rubiawannabe wrote: face it- park slope parents are obnoxious, privileged yuppies who don't give a rat's ass if their precious tow-head is screaming and running while you're trying to hang out. The mom's are viciously judgmental and dress strangely similar to their three year old daughters. It's creepy. Isn't it time to buy that place in Maplewood?

Charming. And constructive. And not "viciously judgemental" whatsoever.

Park Slope Parents - For Me to Poop On!

P.S. It was much creepier round here when the mothers dressed like their Aunties (or Uncles). Not pretty.

livetotravel

the non-suit as been settled - there is an article in today's NY Times - pretty scary stuff when you think about shutting down ultimate free speech. Despite the outcome, the yahoo group moderator says she is still taking down the message that started it all.

anonymous

Subject: Back to the original topic...

For the record, I do think that anyone living in the area who is even trying to get pregnant should be allowed to join the PSP list. It's even full of info for pregnant and new mothers! It sucks that Guest #2 had to go through that. That rule seems totally unfair.

Also: I'm really discouraged by the incredible hostility that Park Slope parents receive whenever they're mentioned -- even on a thread like this, which (believe it or not!) is NOT about how fucking annoying, self-absorbed, entitled, whiny, and selfish the Park Slope parents are, but instead is actually about a sort of interesting legal question re: freedom of speech on the internet. There's already a thread about how much the parents in my neighborhood suck; bring your vitriol over there, m'kay? I just think it'd be nice to be able to discuss something related to parenting in Park Slope without being fucking attacked. To the rest of the (non-hate-filled) folks, below is the email from the PSP moderators about the resolution of their legal problems. They got a kick-ass lawyer who set the record straight right quick:

Dear PSP Members,

The PSP Message Archives are Back!

THANK YOU Park Slope parents community for your outpouring of support. This month-long highly stressful situation was bearable for the Moderators and Advisory Board only because of your continued encouragement both online and offline. We now feel it is time to discuss what happened.

A question was posted about a month ago about Midwood Montessori School. Two positive messages were posted, along with a negative post on the list regarding its principal. We were contacted by the principal's husband (and a lawyer) about this post. We told the lawyer that the author of the post was responsible for its content, not the PSP Moderators. A rebuttal message was posted by the principal and we thought the situation was closed.

Emails from the lawyer continued and escalated, with the lawyer threatening to sue the moderators for defamation and punitive damages if the message was not removed within a short time frame. PSP Moderators are not paid, they volunteer their time out of love for this list. In this case, the time and financial burden were more than any volunteer could handle, especially parents. Therefore, the moderators felt it necessary to shut down the archives and seek legal counsel. We also needed to tell the PSP community about the closure of the archives and about our search for pro bono counsel.

The outpouring of concern and warmth, as well as the offers of contributions and administrative help underscore the strength of this community. Many of you went out of your way to solicit help from friends, colleagues in academia, brothers-in-law, mothers-in-law, and busy moms and dads. Thanks to all of you. We want to specifically thank Jeff Sonnabend (Law Offices of Jeff Sonnabend) and David Milton (Moore & Goodwin), both local parents, for offering to represent us on a pro bono basis.

In the end, Chris Wolf, the head of Internet Law at Proskauer Rose, came to the rescue and has been a godsend for the moderators. He indicated that the moderators had done nothing wrong and that by U.S. law (47 USC Section 230), moderators of email groups and forums are not responsible for posts on their boards. Chris talked to the lawyer and as it currently stands no suit will be filed against the moderators.

We do not delete posts merely because they upset a business. The PSP list thrives on the free commentary of its members regarding everything from pediatricians to takeout food. We did delete the negative post regarding Midwood Montessori with the permission of the poster (who felt terrible that the moderators had endured so much) and we also deleted all other related posts. The legal threats by the person who runs the school were so contrary to the spirit and purpose of the list, we did not want anything related to the institution to remain part of the archives.

We want to thank so many businesses in and around Park Slope who, over the years, have taken criticism in stride and even used it constructively when appropriate. Thank you for supporting the vision and goals of this community resource.

Where does that leave the Park Slope Parents online community? Exactly where we were - "an exchange of information about parenting in Park Slope."

PSP members are very generous with advice and support and go out of their way to help one another. Members should also feel free to exercise their opinions as well. Can members post something negative? Absolutely. But we ask people to be mindful about what they write, not air their dirty laundry on the list, and seek resolution off list. And, as is always the case with email, please think twice, re-read your messages before posting them to the group and sign your posts. You - not the moderators - are responsible for the content of your own posts.

Over the years Park Slope Parents has developed into an important resource for parents who live here. We believe that this community is even stronger now. Thanks again for all the support, patience, understanding and faith that you have shown in this matter.

Most sincerely,
The Park Slope Parents Moderators and Advisory Board

emily

What a nightmare for the moderators of that board! I think it will probably backfire on the school that started the whole thing.

anonymous

Sarah, you're living in a very black-and-white world. I'm a Park Slope parent and I dislike the Park Slope Parents list. This thread managed to encompass posts about the legal issues involved and posts about the PSP group itself. Imagine that.

sarah from the slope

I just wanted to say that EmilyM convinced me to finally register. The name I'm using wouldn't have been my first choice, but since it's the name I quickly made up when I "broke" the Flatbush Pavilion anagram story, I'm keeping it.

And Guest, I guess I was really just responding to rubiawannabe, who upon second glance seems so over-the-top that I think he/she may have actually been going for satire with his/her post.

flute

Subject: Re: Back to the original topic...

Sarah from the Slope wrote: For the record, I do think that anyone living in the area who is even trying to get pregnant should be allowed to join the PSP list. It's even full of info for pregnant and new mothers! It sucks that Guest #2 had to go through that. That rule seems totally unfair.

So what are you, or PSP, going to do about that? I think it more than "sucks" ...

Sarah from the Slope wrote: In the end, Chris Wolf, the head of Internet Law at Proskauer Rose, came to the rescue and has been a godsend for the moderators.

Nice. And how many blogs have the clout to bring in a high-level attorney from a firm such as Proskauer Rose? Will they help you, as well, keep out the riff-raff that PSP has seemingly so diligently try to keep away?

Just asking. Sorry.

anonymous

Subject: very uptight people here...

amusing

sarah from the slope

Subject: Re: Back to the original topic...

FLUTE wrote: [quote=Sarah from the Slope]For the record, I do think that anyone living in the area who is even trying to get pregnant should be allowed to join the PSP list. It's even full of info for pregnant and new mothers! It sucks that Guest #2 had to go through that. That rule seems totally unfair.

So what are you, or PSP, going to do about that? I think it more than "sucks" ...

Sarah from the Slope wrote: In the end, Chris Wolf, the head of Internet Law at Proskauer Rose, came to the rescue and has been a godsend for the moderators.

Nice. And how many blogs have the clout to bring in a high-level attorney from a firm such as Proskauer Rose? Will they help you, as well, keep out the riff-raff that PSP has seemingly so diligently try to keep away?

Just asking. Sorry.


I don't know what PSP is going to do about that. I'm just a casual member. Normally I would write the moderators an email, but they've just been through a hellish month and I don't feel like piling on right now. If you yourself feel strongly enough about it, you can go to http://www.parkslopeparents.com or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/parkslopeparents/ and follow the links to figure out who to contact. I am not a representative of or from PSP.

BTW, PSP is a Yahoo group, not a blog; the high-powered lawyer they got helped them pro bono, contacted from, of course, someone well-connected on the PSP list (unsurprisingly, there are well-connected professionals and media people living in Park Slope. If you want to start a discussion re: the unfair correlation between wealth and access to justice, that's cool; I'm not defending the system AT ALL!); and I have nothing to do with keeping "riff-raff" away from the PSP list. I personally don't care who joins it, as long as they try to keep out spammers. But IT'S NOT MY LIST. It's a group of almost 3,000 people, and the moderators serve at those people's discretion, I think, and most people seem mostly happy about how they're doing.

For more, check out this article re: the lawsuit from yesterday's Times. It's rather more informative than the letter from the PSP moderators I posted above:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/nyregion/13slope.html

emily

Thanks for the link. Somebody mentioned the story before and I couldn't find it.

stacey

I think whatever your feelings are to the PSP Im just glad that free speech and neigborhood websites/blogs seems to have won this time.

And FLUTE - just FYI alot of large firms (such as Proskaur Rose) contact those in need and offer their services for free. Internet free speech has been a hot button in the courts of late and its serves two purposes for the firm: they get their pro bono hours in and they get to set legal precedents. There are firms who do this in all fields of law (civil rights, immigration, etc.).

flute

again. sorry. no offense to psp.

i'm far from naive. believe me. if anything, i'm guilty of jonesing for the park slope and the types of people who were living, working and being part of the very interesting community mix back in the 80's and early 90's.

they created what was (to me at least) a wonderful alternative to Manhattan. (what was it they said then? park slope had become the berkeley of the east, or the san francisco of the east? --- whether that was entirely accurate or not, it was an interesting concept and certainly isn't the case today ... and don't attack me for being so retrograde as to bring that up, i'm saying it as a 'it's neither here nor there' statement since to be honest i don't live there any more). lots of those original people are still there of course, but peoople like them are not moving in as they move out, nor can they.

and i'm hoping, as well, that prospect heights is able to retain its diversity, charm and dignity in the face of the market forces that are (and yes, have been for years) driving people out of manhattan into brooklyn.

[and, for the record, i am certainly aware that there are many, many people on the DH board whose history in park slope goes back to growing up there, unlike me, as a transplant .. so i only offer my observations as a relative 'outsider looking in' .. ]

that's it. nothing more. nothing less.

apple pants

I think the Park Slope Parents policies have changed a bit. I am a member without children. I explaiened that I watch my newphew a lot and wanted to benefit from the advice/discussions of the group. They had no problem accepting me as a member of the group.

MOD

wow, yeah I would guess things have changed since 2005! When this was posted.

apple pants

Actually, I think this was a very recent change. When I emailed the group it seemed like they discussed the matter amongst themselves. Gotten lots of great advice on feeding, crying, etc.

mpmav1

Nothing like a threatened lawsuit to see the wrongs of your ways.

apple pants

What did Park Slope Parents ever decide? Did they make any changes?

Frankly, the group seems to be valuable and not nearly as nuts as many people say.

brooklyn baby daddy

I've come to realize why there is so much static between some singles in Park Slope and some parents.

And it does seem to me, to be a situation that is largely unique to Park Slope. At least with how heated it can get. Here's why.

Having been on this site for some time, and lived in Park Slope for four years, though I no longer do, I've seen some posters who have a certain self righteousness, and overly-high regard about their own opinion, about virtually everything. Like bagels, for example. Or decent but not three star restaurants. Some people always seem to respond with a tone that is condescending and know-it-allish. I've also seen this attitude IRL.

For example, the restaurant you think is pretty good is actually a poorly managed, unhip dump. You should really try this place in Gravesend. They have the REAL *FILL IN THE BLANK.* I have heard or read this kind of thing all the time.

So here's what happens. Eventually those people have children. And they remain the smug, entitled, know it alls they always were. Superior now, because they are parents. Looking down their noses to other parents who can't buy the $800 stroller, and expecting everyone to cater to them. I am sure that if you live in Park Slope you've seen examples of this. Certainly many of you have posted about it.

But they were smug, entitled, know-it-alls before they had kids. And, as we learn, there are many of their peers who simply never reproduced. So you have one group of self-centered yuppies berating another group of self-centered yuppies, in an endless cycle. Both are under the illusion that the other group is somehow more offensive, or different than their own. Singles think parents act like they own the sidewalk. Parents think singles don't grant them common courtesy.

In reality, the fringes of both groups are occupied by the same, smug, irritating, whining brats. Some just made more brats.

philazran

You forgot to mention that these smug parents think that sunshine comes out of their kids' asses.

All the more reason I don't have kids.

longtimesloper

hey, flexi. Not all parents are smug and I don't think sunshine comes out of my kids ass, maybe out of mine...........................

carnivore

Brooklyn Baby Daddy wrote: I've come to realize why there is so much static between some singles in Park Slope and some parents.

And it does seem to me, to be a situation that is largely unique to Park Slope. At least with how heated it can get. Here's why.

Having been on this site for some time, and lived in Park Slope for four years, though I no longer do, I've seen some posters who have a certain self righteousness, and overly-high regard about their own opinion, about virtually everything. Like bagels, for example. Or decent but not three star restaurants. Some people always seem to respond with a tone that is condescending and know-it-allish. I've also seen this attitude IRL.

For example, the restaurant you think is pretty good is actually a poorly managed, unhip dump. You should really try this place in Gravesend. They have the REAL *FILL IN THE BLANK.* I have heard or read this kind of thing all the time.

So here's what happens. Eventually those people have children. And they remain the smug, entitled, know it alls they always were. Superior now, because they are parents. Looking down their noses to other parents who can't buy the $800 stroller, and expecting everyone to cater to them. I am sure that if you live in Park Slope you've seen examples of this. Certainly many of you have posted about it.

But they were smug, entitled, know-it-alls before they had kids. And, as we learn, there are many of their peers who simply never reproduced. So you have one group of self-centered yuppies berating another group of self-centered yuppies, in an endless cycle. Both are under the illusion that the other group is somehow more offensive, or different than their own. Singles think parents act like they own the sidewalk. Parents think singles don't grant them common courtesy.

In reality, the fringes of both groups are occupied by the same, smug, irritating, whining brats. Some just made more brats.

...and then there are the smug entitled know-it-alls who feel the need to point out what a smug entitled know-it-all everyone else is.

doldrums

...and then there are the smug entitled know-it-alls who feel the need to point out what a smug entitled know-it-all everyone else is.

Exactly, I was thinking how ironic that post was. LOL

brooklyn baby daddy

Fair enough. I am being smug about smugness.

hamilton

[quote="Flexichick"]You forgot to mention that these smug parents think that sunshine comes out of their kids' asses.

**********************************************
Just think of how much they must save on their electric bills.

brooklyness

LongTimeSloper wrote: hey, flexi. Not all parents are smug and I don't think sunshine comes out of my kids ass, maybe out of mine...........................

I thought your ass produced roses? I'm confused ;-)

I'm tweaking the poster as he seems to have a whole smugness theory going on, and I didn't want him to leave anything out

the chipster

And when these same smug slopers say how necessary and wonderful it was to pay somebody $600.00 to "babyproof" their house, (i.e., use common sense and cover sockets) the rest fall in line. Believe it or not, someone was looking for a book to "teach their 2 year old emotions." !@ I'm sure she got lots of "helpful" hints, and maybe found a $475.00 class that she absolutely must take. And then you can blog about how wonderful that was too.....and so on...
Gratefully Anonymous on Brooklynian!

longtimesloper

OMG!! You saw that also Chipster? Oh man, I had to sit on my hands about that one. Seriously, WTF???? A book about teaching kids about emotions???

carnivore

brooklynpotter

apple pants wrote: I think the Park Slope Parents policies have changed a bit. I am a member without children. I explaiened that I watch my newphew a lot and wanted to benefit from the advice/discussions of the group. They had no problem accepting me as a member of the group.

i doubt this

modsquad

brooklynpotter wrote: [quote=apple pants]I think the Park Slope Parents policies have changed a bit. I am a member without children. I explaiened that I watch my newphew a lot and wanted to benefit from the advice/discussions of the group. They had no problem accepting me as a member of the group.

i doubt this

Me too, Seriously, do you expect us to believe someone with the handle "apple pants" who has no kids belongs to a parent's group?