Let's be perfectly honest here. It would seem to me that Mr. French is playing the part of a wronged bully. You remember the type...the one that picked on people and beat them silly until someone finally came along that was bigger than him, and then went running to his mommy. Interesting that someone who owns a news station would sue the website, considering one of the biggest advocates of free speech is the news media. You cannot fault the webmaster for comments that are posted on a public bulletin board, period. As far as digging in and trying to find out who posted the messages, don't you think RNN's management has better things to do? And if you find out who these people are, what do you intend to do to them? Do you intend to sue them, and further destroy your reputation? Again, I reiterate, a classic example of the bully who has been taken down. I say good luck to the webmaster, and to all those people who put up with working at RNN.

Mr. Ronan does what he's paid to do--portray his clients as innocent victims. But he makes some misleading statements to the press.

First of all, he implies that the disclaimer and warning against libelous and defamatory messages was posted in response to the lawsuit. This is not true. The disclaimer/warning was posted two weeks before we became aware of the suit. We became aware of RNN's action on November 14, when a story about it was published in the Stamford ADVOCATE.

Secondly, the content and goals of our website are misrepresented. Visitors to the webpage will see that it is not a "smear" site. It is a collection of stories about RNN, some humor and parody, and mostly unflattering but still valid criticisms of management's practices, RNN's programming and the poor working conditions at the station. The page was put together by people who have been burned by RNN to serve as a warning to others. The practice of airing valid grievances anonymously is a long-recognized right in this country.

As for the message board, this is the typical "water cooler" type of forum you'll find on any given "unofficial" webpage about any given company. Most of the messages are stories about working at RNN, reminiscence of former colleagues, criticisms of RNN programming, policies and working conditions, jokes, editorials, parody, etc. There have been some personal attacks posted by third-party users of the message board. However, these represent the minority, and we have instituted a policy of deleting such messages when they constitute, in our laymen's opinion, defamatory speech.

Interestingly, messages just as if not more so vitriolic against the French family and their associates have been posted on the message board on the "RNN Update Site." (www.geocities.com/rnnupdate). However, RNN has taken no action against this site and its creator, a 16 year-old RNN employee. We suspect that this is because the content of the site itself (as distinct from third-party postings on the message board) is mostly very favorable to RNN and uncritical of its owners and officers. We assert that our site has been targeted because we dare to be critical of RNN, and may have caused the owners embarassment by posting links to information about their various lawsuits--information which is fully in the public domain and certainly cannot be considered "smearing" by anyone's definition.

Ironically, at the time RNN's action was filed, the "RNN Sucks" site was getting away from its activist tone and was becoming more of a "nostalgia" forum for former WTZA and WRNN employees. However, news of the suit has galvanized vistors to the site and has renewed their resentment of their former employer. Many have vowed media campaigns and even legal actions of their own. The number of visits to the site has more than doubled since the suit was made public. RNN has drawn more attention to this site than anyone else could.

Mr. Ronan also misrepresents the general legal atmosphere regarding similar cases. He implies that providers have been handing over anonymous posters on a silver platter without a fuss; but the fact is, the legal environment is much more active, and anonymous posters and their advocates have been striking back and making vigorous and oftentimes successful defenses against attempts on the part of corporate entities to silence their critics. Some have even filed countersuits and won thousands of dollars from the corporations who sought to censor them. Do a web search on the term "cybersmear" and you'll have hours worth of interesting reading.

Lastly, RNN's filing of a suit in order to obtain subpoenas is, in our opinion, an abuse of process. In this regard, RNN seems to be taking its cue from other corporations who have attempted to prosecute similar actions against anonymous critics. Subpoenas are supposed to be issued at the discretion of the judge in PREPARATION for the processing of a case. This means that the judge can elect to not issue the subpoena if he or she feels that the request is not justified. However, by filing a damage suit against Yahoo!, Inc., RNN is trying to force the court's hand and obtain the subpoena (and in turn, the identity of its anonymous critics) regardless of the legal merit of this case. This is, unfortunately, becoming a common practice and one hopes that this legal loophole will be closed eventually.

Those of us who know the litigous history of RNN can assure you that their intent is NOT to find out the identity of their critics so they can have a reasonable discussion with them. In our opinion, their ultimate goal is to silence and punish those who dare to criticize them in the public forum.