Slashdot Mirror
Criticize Online, Get Fined
maxpublic writes "Yet another outspoken critic of corporate America has been SLAPP'ed - only this time, Dan Whatley didn't even know he'd been sued until he was presented with a $450,000 judgement. For those who don't know, SLAPP stands for 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' and is used to silence people who openly criticize thin-skinned corporations." In this case the company doing to suing is Xybernaut, the makers of
wearable computers mentioned here many times in the past. This article is a must
read. And now Xybernaut has joined Amazon and others on my list of Must-Avoid
companies. This is a creepy run around the 1st Ammendment, and you should
be aware.
Mattel has been trying to kill this site. Now the guy turned around and is suing Mattel for $48 million for violating the ADA and some other laws. Glad to see the censorship by litigation people getting slapped back.
... the Xybernaut lawyer handling the case against Whatley, said Whatley had been served notice of the lawsuit by certified mail. Note that he said certified mail, not registered mail. That means different things in different jurisdictions: I once used (Canadian) certified mail to put my landlord on notice, only to find that it didn't guarantee delivery, or provide me notification of non-delivery. If the same is true in Virginia, the lawyer could technically be telling the truth, while actually telling what logicians consider a "lie of omission".
davecb@spamcop.net
Does it even matter at all if he got the letter, if he lied about it or even if he told the truth about this company? It's very VERY clear he's telling his opinion and the moment people get fined for telling their opinion is the moment the US can be considerd on par with China and many other countries they can't stand. Emigrate while you can!
0x or or snor perron?!
Excellent point. Here's a link that has some summary coverage. This is such corporate BS!
Howard Dean for president
Unfortunately, this is not the best example of SLAPP suits; it could be argued that someone in the process is simply lying about the certified mail.
A much better example would be a few years back when a woman found out a business in her area was dumping waste behind a school. She notified the state agency to confirm it, and as a resident of that school's district, had a right to be on the property. As a result, she was SLAPP'ed, by the contractor who was hiding the waste. Now THAT is scary. What possible right could that contractor have for suing her, when he WAS guilty?? She was nothing more than a whistle-blower, I don't think any of us would argue with that.
Suing someone over a troll-like post on a messageboard is childlike, and shows a company to be immature. Suing because someone exposed you for poisoning the planet is just downright low, even lower than dumping waste materials behind an elementary school in the first place.
You can read more about SLAPP and that particular lawsuit here at ZeroWasteAmerica.org
the quote in question sounded more like an insult to me than anything resembling slander or libel. but then again, IANAL. the key distinction, as performer guy mentioned, is that you can be held liable for slander or libel if you make untrue factual claims about the plaintiff. in such cases the defendant would have to show that the statement was NOT meant as a factual statement, but rather as an insult.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
No, Rowling will lose her trademark if she doesn't protect it. I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to copyright or patents, just trademarks.
the USPS should have a record of delivery.
It's actually up to the sender to provide the proof, as the "return receipt" represents the return of the green postcard with a signature of it being received as proof.
If you're ever in a situation where this comes up, demand to inspect it. I had one where the other party waived up the certified letter as proof I was aware (which I never received). The little green card was sent to an address not within 10 miles of anywhere I've ever lived, and apparently some idiot with a different name signed for it. Took care of that matter.
*scoove*
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution; it has absolutely nothing to do with CIVIL suits. In civil suits, you are effectively deemed guilty by the accusation itself, and it is up to YOU to prove your innocence. If you don't show up to defend yourself, regardless of the reason why -- tough shit, you lose.
BTW, under some child welfare and animal abuse statutes, there is also no due process -- you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is why in some states (California for one), children are sometimes removed from a home based entirely on unfounded, *anonymous* "tips" alleging abuse. In those cases, you also have no right to face your accuser.
Yes, THAT is probably unconstitutional, but look how far anyone gets fighting other legislative or judicial stupidity committed in the name of "for the children".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Since their libel claim was that they were libeled because I said that they violated the FMLA, ADA, MGL c.151B (the Mass. version of the ADA), I was able to bring this under those laws. Those laws specifically allow for punitive damages, where simple abuse of process does not.
Fight Spammers!
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution; it has absolutely nothing to do with CIVIL suits.
How in the world did this get modded to a 5, and why didn't anyone correct this person yet? See Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell.