Slashdot Mirror

people do it all the time.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014...
http://blogs.wsj.com/metropoli...
http://www.indystar.com/story/...
http://www.casp.net/sued-for-f...

Why is one instance of a legal request for open records considered bullying and intimidation and the other one not?

Your signature line -- I like your black & white world; mine has too many shades of gray -- seems oddly out of step with your question; have you considered changing it? Surely you're not naive enough to believe that there exists any bureaucratic or legal process, however well-intended, which cannot be misapplied to result in counterproductive ends or unintended consequences?

Consider the civil court system; while it is generally accepted to be a worthwhile thing, it can also be abused. Parties with deep pockets can threaten lawsuits or drag out cases in order to chill criticism or bankrupt opponents: so-called strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPP suits. Many jurisdictions have recognized this failure mode of the civil court system and have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes to discourage this particular way of abusing the system, though I note that Wisconsin isn't among them.

I trust that the parallels to the extant case are obvious.

Such a motion is available in California and in other states as well.

Essentially, it is a way for the small guy to fight Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (big companies trying to shut the little guy up by suing him) by giving other lawyers incentive to take the cases on contingency. If this shit happens to you, contact the EFF; they send out emails to lawyers across the country who may take your defense on contingency.

When a large entity like Disney files a lawsuit against a small blogger like this, the blogger's defense is an Anti-SLAPP motion to strike. Instead of answering Disney's complaint (if there is one), the blogger files an anti-SLAPP motion. The judge will then make some preliminary determinations and, if the blogger is successful, will throw out Disney's suit.

The beauty of it is that if the blogger wins, he gets his attorneys' fees paid. (If he loses, he does not have to pay Disney's attorneys fees.)

This encourages attorneys to defend individuals without the resources to fight big companies. There are many attorneys like me who get EFF's emails asking to help individuals like this on a contingency basis. If the blogger really is in the right then that is some good money.

I note that the link discusses a "Rule 11" motion, which would be in federal court. I don't know if there is a similar motion in fed court.

More about cyberslapping here.

More realistically the shareholders decide that there is a purpose for the company. Many companies have statutes in the foundation documents stating their primary purpose is to produce a best-of-breed product or to be the world leader in a particular niche.

Those documents have as much meaning as the "mission statements" you sometimes see on the walls of francise restaurants. The stockholders of a large corporations (I'm not talking about Mom And Pop Inc down the street with five shareholders here) are interested in "best-of-breed products" or whatever only because they see it as a path to profit. If there are two ways to produce that best-of-breed widget, and one involves pollution, resource depletion, screwing workers, and political corruption but results in higher profits for the corporation, that's the path the corporation will take.

Value includes non-tangibles such as customer confidence, employee satisfaction, and the long-term sustainability of the company. If the managers of those companies "screwed anyone in the name of profit" like you say they should, then they could be sued by investors for destroying the company's value.

Uh, I'm not saying they should. In a sensible system, they shouldn't. I'm saying they do, because we have a non-sensible system.

Obviously these things you name are factors in the profitability of the shareholder's investment. But as the race to the bottom we are experiencing shows, they are very very tiny factors. Stockholders want their stock to go up, and the street rewards short-term growth rather than long-term sustainability. Employee satisfaction? Screw 'em, there's cheaper labor overseas. Customer confidence? If anyone complains, SLAPP their ass. And always externalize, externalize, externalize costs.

"I can say: I think/believe/feel/am of the opinion/[any other qualifier] that Farmers is a bunch of scum sucking aholes, the bottom of the insurance barrel. I would believe it if you told me they ate their children and sacrificed policy holders in satanic rituals."

This is not entirely true. Prefixing a statement with 'I think' does not make it automatically protected. (At least in California, for example.) Your statement is probably defensible because you make no provably true/false statements, although it's debatable.

See http://www.casp.net/survival.html:
You may be legitimately sued for false statements of fact, but not for statements of opinion. Be careful. You will not be protected for stating, "In my opinion, Senator Squelch is a liar and a thief," unless, of course, your statement is entirely true. If your words contain an assertion of fact that is capable of being proven true or false -- i.e., that Squelch is or is not a liar and a thief -- you can be sued if it is shown that your statement is false, even though you tried to qualify the statement as "opinion."

In some states (USA) there are anti-SLAPP statutes that permit a defendant to dismiss quickly and receive attorney fees and costs.

The anti-SLAPP motion (generally) requires the case be brought as a result of a right to petition (ie. complaint to a court or government) or an issue of public concern and that there is not a great likelyhood of success. For more information go to www.casp.net or http://www.barbieslapp.com./
SLAPP stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation.

So let's not blame the entire USA legal system.

California also has state trademark registration, but that's narrow, only applies to "goods and services", and you have to register with the state. There's even a specific clause intended to prevent the use of trademarks to suppress publications, at Business and Professions Code 14320.

• (3) Injunctive relief is not available to the owner of the right infringed with respect to an issue of a newspaper, magazine, or other similar periodical or electronic communication containing infringing matter if restraining the dissemination of the infringing matter in any particular issue of the periodical or in an electronic communication would delay the delivery of the issue or transmission of the electronic communication after the regular time for delivery and the delay would be due to the method by which publication and distribution of the periodical or transmission of the electronic communication is customarily conducted in accordance with sound business practice, and not to any method or device adopted for the evasion of this section or to prevent or delay the issuance of an injunction or restraining order with respect to the infringing matter.

Also, California has a strong anti-SLAPP law.

See Also:
SLAPP (extended definition)
Slapp-back

Also on the same site is information regarding CyberSLAPP's

The California Code of Civil Procedure outlines the California anti-SLAPP statute, which would be applicable in this case. The California Anti-SLAPP Project site has more detailed information.

Apparently the lawyer isn't.

The California Code of Civil Procedure outlines the California anti-SLAPP statute, which would be applicable in this case. The California Anti-SLAPP Project site has more detailed information.

Apparently the lawyer isn't.

California Anti-SLAPP Project

• Sec. 425.16. Claim Arising from Person's Exercise of Constitutional Right of Petition or Free Speech -- Special Motion to Strike.

  (a) The Legislature finds and declares that there has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances. The Legislature finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance, and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. To this end, this section shall be construed broadly.

  (b) (1) A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim. (2) In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the liability or defense is based. (3) If the court determines that the plaintiff has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the claim, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination.

  ...

  (e) As used in this section, "act in furtherance of a person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue" includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law; (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; (4) or any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.

There's real leverage in that section. It's cut way back on intimidation via judicial process in California. UC has lost SLAPP cases before, too.

Well, look at it this way. SLAPP isn't going to rake in the big bucks. In fact the largest SLAPP award that we've seen so far in the US was for $500,000 when everyones' favorite nut cult tried to kill a lawsuit against it.

The big money will come in the punitive damages.

DirectTV was able to use CA's anti-SLAPP statute to have the case thrown out without a trial. Demand letters are protected communications, not extortion.

It is interesting how the roles are reversed here. Normally an anti-SLAPP law is used to protect an individual from a large corporation, but here it is needed to protect DirectTV's rights.

It's called anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.) $cientology was forced to pay a record $500,000 fine because of their continued legal badgering. (On top of a $2.5 million judgement that arose from a case filed in 1980 and dragged out for the better part of 22 years)

I thought the Internet was already comparatively free. I mean you are pretty much free to do anything you want as long as you are willing to pay for it.

What about people who are willing to pay, but the cost of what they need is too high for them to afford?

In the U.S. we have the right of free speech. Exercise it by putting up a web site critical of some company, though, and more often than not they'll try to sue you (usually over some kind of nebulous trademark/copyright issue) to get rid of it. Or they can just complain to your ISP who is hosting your few MB of webspace where the site resides, and they will yank it under the guise of being in violation of their TOS.

You can, of course, solve these problems somewhat by hosting your own webserver via a provider who will sell bandwidth with absolutely no restrictions on what you do with it, and who won't renege on that policy when a megacorp starts swinging lawyers around-- but not everyone can afford that. And yes, some places have laws against companies using legal means to squelch vocal critics, but since the entire legal system is completely intimidating to the average person, you'd still need to keep a competent attorney on retainer to handle anything that cropped up.

So, sure you can have free speech on the internet-- but only if you can afford it.

California has an anti-SLAPP statute, Code of Civil Procedure, Section 425.16. A judge can dismiss a SLAPP lawsuit at the beginning of the case, and require the filer to pay court costs. See CASP.net for more information on it. Linkified: CASP.net

I did most of the legal research and analysis. Some states provides an anti-slapp statute which provides for a quick resolution to a slapp case.
Casp.net provides a list of state laws about SLAPPs.

Even in states with anti-SLAPP statutes there is still a cost in defending it. The anti-SLAPP statutes provide costs of defense as damages against the SLAPPer, but that does not deter large SLAPPers from abusing the courts.

Wrt to the copyright/defamation/etc. suit, California has a wonderful form for this called SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation.) SLAPP lawsuits are basically lawsuits that try to shut down criticism, and California has a specific statute dealing with this (as do a number of other states). If you win a SLAPP claim, you can automatically get attorneys fees and costs.

Thalia

It's slightly different for the 'youmaybenext.com' application. That's clearly a commentary site describing the lawsuits and what they see as the fallout from them. No real malice or illegality there (just lots of indignation and anger). Many states have anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) laws. Running against those can get you bitch-SLAPPed.

Of course, none of that matters if the guy decides to launch a SLAPP suit. Then again, that can be grounds for dismissal and countersuit in California.

What state is this guy suing in? I'd check his site for an address, but his server is down. No doubt due to all the pet supply consumer traffic this slashdot posting generated....

GE used to have a problem with environmentalists filling all sorts of frivolous actions against it. So it adobted a policy called "slap back"

I'm afriad you've got it mixed up. The tactic is called "SLAPP" - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - and it's widely used by large corporations to silence their critics.

It worked very well.

This is almost why "loser pays" is a horrible idea. Amalgamated Profits, Inc. is poisioning your town? Under loser pays, if you try to sue and their high priced lawyers beat the ones you managed to scrape enough pennies together to hire, not only are you poisoned and broke from your own legal fees, you've got to pay Amalgamated Profits, Inc.'s fees. So you don't dare sue.

A SLAPP suit is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, which doesn't really apply here. I doubt there's anything illegal about what they're doing. Even the patent would probably be overturned if it ever went to court, they were still granted a valid patent, which they can try to get people to license and threaten to sue them. That's exactly how it's supposed to work, but we see that it's not a perfect system.

California has one, and it's called SLAPP. Here's a good resource on SLAPP

Here is a quote from a lawyer regarding NY anti-SLAPP "Besides myself a couple of other attorneys have also looked at the New York statute. It is limited in what it applies to. For the most part the protected comments must have occurred before government entities." That means its no good in this case. NY doesn't have a _REAL_ anit-SLAPP law, not like CA.

I noticed something similar with the law here in Nevada. IANAL, but it appears to apply only if someone tries to sue you over comments you made to a government agency or official. Odds are good that many other states' laws are similar. If you take your claim that a business is engaged in fraudulent practices to the attorney general's office (for instance), you're safe. If you vent your spleen about the same company on /., the law appears to offer no protection.

New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.

Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.

That's what Californian anti-SLAPP laws are about.

Well, not the duress thing, but they do look at a case before trial to see if it has a basis and a chance of winning. Then the complainant gets to pay all the defendant's legal costs, lucky them!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

You don't need to know who the person is to determine if something is a trade secret. This might be similar to the standard for a anti-SLAPP

If you file a libel claim against me, you have to show that the statements made are libelous, before you pull off my mask.

For more information on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP you can go to www.casp.net.

For more information on SLAPP and anti-SLAPP you can go to www.casp.net.

A trademark is to properly identify a company, product, or service.

If you use Xsucks.com, where X is a trademark, you are properly identifying what sucks. If you have mattelsucks.com, you are properly identifying the trademark Mattel, a company identification mark, sucks. It can also come under fair use.

Now under the anti-SLAPP statutes available in many states, the case can dismissed fairly quickly. Also, it has been ruled that trademark cannot be used to silence critism or commentary. See Mattel v. MCA. (the Barbiegirl case).

I have my domain, and get SPAMMED to the registered email addresses.

I'm glad that Register.com is doing something about it.

This action could amount to a SLAPP action by Verio.

They would not only have to show libel, but also show that their announcement was directed at RegLand Inc.

To show libel they must prove that:

• A defamatory communication about the complainant,
• Which was untrue
• acting with actual malice, in the sense of knowledge that the communication was false or having reckless disregard of its truth or falsity

In Texas there is no anti-SLAPP statute which would have made it easier to dismiss. But, the courts agree that this type of case should be dismissed as early as possible, if it is proper to dismiss.

Of couse, we don't have all the facts and are speculating here.

Mattel is a California company. It might be possible to use the California anti-SLAPP act against them.

Boy did they pick the wrong state to file in.
This is a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAAP), meant to force somebody w/ less money and power to shut up.
California has an anti-SLAAP statute. Look here for more details. Any lawyers in the crowd know about success rates in using this sort of statute?