Comments on: Zeke’s Gallery scandal explained (UPDATED)

By: Fagstein » Shit-disturber seeks new employment

Fagstein » Shit-disturber seeks new employment — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:10:20 +0000

[...] it’s not directly a result of recent legal problems, it certainly had an impact. Comments RSS feed |Trackback URL « More security through [...]

By: dave

dave — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:55:48 +0000

Anything new on this story? I heard that Zeke's is closing this week.

By: Fagstein » Zeke maintains status quo in court

Fagstein » Zeke maintains status quo in court — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:55:43 +0000

[...] Chris Hand, the Zeke behind Zeke’s Gallery, spent most of today in the Palais de Justice with his lawyer and mother. At issue was an injunction which stops Hand from making specific statements about Pierre-Antoine Tremblay, an art dealer who is suing him for libel. [...]

By: A Blogger's Agreement

A Blogger's Agreement — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:16:53 +0000

[...] week, I also posted about Chris’s case and then, I read more details the same day. Steve Faguy says it’s not a freedom of speech but a freedom of expression issue and that [...]

By: Zeke « Chicagoan in Montreal

Zeke « Chicagoan in Montreal — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 04:02:36 +0000

[...] recent legal troubles. For excellent synopsis’ of the situation and the turn of events see this article by Steve and this blog post by Hugh. Hugh’s post also has a very good discussion about it in the [...]

By: Fagstein » What about Mr. Tremblay?

Fagstein » What about Mr. Tremblay? — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:32:08 +0000

[...] Leblanc has an interesting on-the-other-hand take to the Zeke’s Gallery situation. He points out that Tremblay hasn’t been convicted of anything, and just because the media [...]

By: Fagstein Â» Zekeâ€™s Gallery scandal explained at The End of Dave

Fagstein Â» Zekeâ€™s Gallery scandal explained at The End of Dave — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:08:23 +0000

[...] explained Published June 20th, 2007 in Blogging, Art, Montreal, Internet Culture and News. Fagstein Â» Zekeâ€™s Gallery scandal explained The local blogosphere is abuzz with outrage over the situation affecting the Zekeâ€™s Gallery blog, [...]

By: LibertÃ© d’expression » La vraie vie - Les vraies affaires

LibertÃ© d’expression » La vraie vie - Les vraies affaires — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 12:57:18 +0000

[...] une fois, je vous rÃ©fÃ¨re au blogue de Steve Fagstein si vous voulez plus d’information sur cette [...]

By: I never knew » Blog Archive » Zekeâ€™s Gallery scandal explained

I never knew » Blog Archive » Zekeâ€™s Gallery scandal explained — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:55:27 +0000

[...] Thereâ€™s some misinformation and faulty assumptions going around, so Iâ€™m going to do the best I can to explain what exactly happened here, in chronological order.—Zekeâ€™s Gallery scandal explained [...]

By: Michel Leblanc

Michel Leblanc — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:11:25 +0000

Dear Steve

All is not black or white and the grey area is so sad. I am writing a fable on this. I'll send it to you...

By: L’affaire Chris Hand - Attention Ã vos propos » La vraie vie - Les vraies affaires

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:11:45 +0000

[...] RÃ©sumÃ© complet du litige sur la page de Steve Fagstein.Â [...]

By: blork blog » Blog Archive » Zeke’s Gallery Blog has Gone Dark

blork blog » Blog Archive » Zeke’s Gallery Blog has Gone Dark — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:16:22 +0000

[...] that has plagued him for the past few months. (If you’re not up on the issue, Fagstein provides an excellent chronological breakdown.) I spoke with Chris today and he assured me that the darkness of his blog is self-imposed, on the [...]

By: LadyW

LadyW — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:38:15 +0000

Uuurgh, it stinks alright. This being said, I have to believe in my pink little heart that it's just another example of traditionnal communication networks having issues adapting to new and infinitely more slippery media. I do think in the end that honesty and transparency will prevail, the current is just too powerful.

(I'm certainly going to wait a while longer before I use my real name though ; )

By: ni.vu.ni.connu / Blogueur poursuivi

ni.vu.ni.connu / Blogueur poursuivi — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:01:03 +0000

[...] situation est complexe, comme toute chose lÃ©gale, mais le blogueur Steve Fagstein a rÃ©digÃ© un court rÃ©sumÃ© de la situation qui met bien les choses en [...]

By: Fagstein

Fagstein — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:18:39 +0000

It is indeed a temporary injunction. If the permanent injunction isn't granted, the posts can go back up.

By: hughmcguire.net · URGENT: zeke and a court injunction

hughmcguire.net · URGENT: zeke and a court injunction — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:16:30 +0000

[...] MORE UPDATES: - Heri’s take - Fagstein’s review [...]

By: Hugh

Hugh — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 04:03:28 +0000

OK there is a very important detail that I misunderstood (I think), mentioned here: http://blog.fagstein.com/?p=349 ...

"A request for an injunction was granted, forcing the offending posts offline until the matter can be dealt with on June 21."

So my worry, that a court ruling against Zeke had in fact come down already is not the case - but he's been forced to take the blog down (overkill, no?) till the hearing june 21. or at least that's what I understand from your article.

Tho I must say, I read the judgement, and I thought it was a ruling, tho I can't find it any more, since all Zeke's blogs have been taken down.

In any case, I agree that bloggers should not be treated any differently than MSM in libel cases ... what I fail to see is how Zeke linking to media stories in the public record (and still up), and posting legal documents which are, I presume, also in the public record, can be considered libelous (again, once the language was clarified).

So the worry is a court system that does not laugh these claims out of court immediately, but rather takes the draconian position that the whole blog should be shut down until the proceedings are done.

(tho, again, knowing chris, i am sure he has not helped his own cause!)

By: heri

heri — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 03:42:07 +0000

for me the lawsuit is frivolous, but Chris lost the first court injunction. what's more, it goes beyond chris's blog. i still think this should be considered very seriously