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.
So this company is now on your list of "must avoid" companies? You mean, like the RIAA, MPAA and all the other products and companies you've encouraged everyone to avoid but then turn around and buy from and hand your cash to the instant they have something like an Akira DVD or an X-Box you want to buy?
I think it's pretty obvious someone is lying, but I wonder who it is. They claim he got a letter by registered mail, which means he had to sign for it. He claims he never got it. Seems like a simple thing to go back and check the receipt of the letter (if there was one) and see if he signed for it. I have a feeling he really did get the letter, since even the dumbest lawyer would be smart enough not to lie about something that easily checked in court, especially when you know the guy will challenge it when he gets the judgment (of course I could be wrong and the lawyer really is that dumb). I think finding out about the registered letter will clear up pretty much the whole case.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
* Lawyers as a group are no more dedicated to justice or public service than a private public utility is dedicated to giving light.
--David Melinkoff, Professor of Law, UCLA
Yet another symptom of the corporatizing of America. If you have money, you win. Isn't this country "by the people, for the people"? Obviously, Xybernaut is a company losing money. Trying to "protect" your companies interests by suing potential customers is a *real* good way to piss off most of the rest. Personally, I will never, ever buy anything from this company. I will also never recommend it's products to anyone I know. Hey Newman (I'm sure you or one of your storm troopers, er, lawyers will be reading this). I have people asking me every single day about what tech items to buy. From corporate upper management to home owners. I'd say if your weren't percieved as being so incompetent, you wouldn't draw comments like the ones you sued Whatley over. Comments like this:
... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
heh. Now, you are a big item here and I'm sure a bunch of other forums and blogs. Good luck trying to sell anything at all.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
How can you call USA "a democratic country" when you don't have freedom of speech?
This is a creepy run around the 1st Ammendment, and you should be aware.
The First Amendment is a restriction on government, not on you, your neighbor or a business.
This was a civil judgement not a criminal conviction, the First Amendment does not apply AT ALL.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
Well, that's the basis for his over turning the default judgment against him. The US system of law is based on fair play and notice: you must know that you that you might be sued under certain laws. That is procedural matter jurisdiction.
But even more important is to know that you have been sued to give you a chance to fight. That's called subject matter jurisdiction and can only be conferred by good service of process [if they hand you a copy of the complaint, nail it to your door, etc.] He will argue that the company never served him. If he can show that, the original judgment against him is gone.
Of course none of this should be construed as creating a lawyer/client relationship and your mileage may vary.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
I think these SLAPP lawsuits are worrysome in that they create a chilling effect on peoples ability to candidly express their views. Now, if your view consist of "These guys are dicks!" then you might have some libel issues, unless you can be specific about what sort of dicks they are and back it up with evidence.
But honestly, we're talking about a day-trader message board here, right? I think this kind of "insider information" (accurate or not) is exactly what they should be facilitating. I used to live in Lower Manhattan, and if you go to any wall street bar you'll hear much more unvarnished and opinionated statements being made about potential investments. Of course, that's bar-talk and this is an online posting, but it seems to me that saying a company's management if full of it (even if you use creative langure) aught not to bring legal action.
Of course, when you bruise a wealthy, powerful executive's ego, especially if you do it by hitting a little too close to home, you're liable (no put intended) to see some blowback.
Howard Dean for president
I didn't see RMS, ESR, or any of these other "freedom" luminaries rise up for environmentalists or Native Americans or the homeless or anti-pollution activists, so I have little sympathy that they're whining in their (free?) beer now about how mean, nasty corporations are picking on poor techies. Too bad, guys -- you lost the war when you failed to fight for others. Now that the fight is in your backyard, you care -- but it may be too late, because the rights were eroded long before the DMCA became reality.
Freedom of speech isn't just about the GPL and software; it's about fundamental human rights and corporate control of government.
All about me
1) It's not a fine, it's a judgement, the money goes to the plaintif.
2) If he had provided deep insight they might have had a real case against him, as the article indicates, simple troll is not actionable in many states. The other issue here is living in a state where the law protects you vs an action in another state where there is no statutory protection. Online flames aside there are individual protections to protect individuals against getting sued remotely like this.
3) As for the letter, it's too late, he'll have to hire a lawyer to even raise the issue, but now he has no opportunity for a pretrial dismissal, this will get really expensive. He has to appeal this. If he ignored the letter it was the dumbest thing he ever did.
Harry Potter + Internet + Kids being treated badly = story.
And how is /. coming to the aid of anyone here? Somebody tossed this place a link with some pithy commentary that an "editor" liked and it got posted so a bunch of us can comment on the issue. For most of the readership, this story will be old news and forgotten by Monday and not a single victim listed in that article is going to get an ounce of love from /.
If the Harry Potter story is so dear to your heart, find a link, come up with some pithy commentary that will generate lots of discussion and post it. Take those recent stories about raisethefist.org (iirc.) That was about a kid not an adult.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
" it is only a restriction on government, so it has nothing to do with a civil suit free speech and responsible speech are not the same thing..."
Wrong. Use of the courts is a GOVERNMENT function. A court MUST respect a defendant's Constitutional and other legal rights.
What you are thinking of is that a corporation isn't bound by the 1st amendment with respect to your employment, etc (ie, they can fire you for saying something they don't like). That is a different issue from using the government to punish someone for what they said. IMO, it shouldn't happen, except in cases of libel and slander.
BTW, it used to be virtually impossible to prove slander of a corporate entity, but now that we have has a decade of new court appointees coming from corporate lawfirms... Well, do the math.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Think of is as a valuable civics lesson for the kiddies. They learn about the copyright law and how they can't simply steal the images and intellectual property created by others. Doesn't it just warm the cockles of your heart?
Seriously though, at least the kids get the chance to take their site down before the judgement arrives on their doorstep, and the law is such that if Rowling doesn't protect her copyright she will lose it. This is the same reason Linus Torvalds gives when he charges companies six figure sums to use the Linux logo. He HAS to do it because if he doesn't the Linux trademark will enter the public domain and be abused.
See this is the one thing about the Slashdot forums that utterly pisses me off.. I can read all day stories of corps just beating down the common man, my own government restricting my rights, tons of things that "shouldn't happen here" but nowhere do I see info on which organizations to support to oppose these things or which protests to attend, or anything.. it's like watching a mugging from the comfort my web browser and I'm sick of it. If anyone has sites, or info, hook me up, love to be more involved.
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
"You know, I haven't seen Slashdot come to the aid of (insert your favorite cause here)"
"Screw helping the (insert your favorite oppressed minority here)"
slashdot can't address every single injustice in life; they choose stories based on what they think is appropriate for the site. yes, it's arbitrary; it's allowed to be.  if you don't like it, make your own website.
if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
In this case, it is easy for the judge to allow the default because apparently Mr. Whatley never responded to the complaint. That is understandable because if he is correct, he never received notice. The whole lack of notice argument brings the whole realm of Due Process under the United States Constitution into play. Judges tend to be VERY sensitive to notice problems. Virtually every state's Rules of Civil Procedure have clear guidelines for how to handle these not-uncommon scenarios.
It should be relatively easy for Mr. Whatley to get this undone. Then the battle really begins.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.