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.
You know, I haven't seen Slashdot come to the aid of the thousands of teens and pre-teens who have harry-potter oriented sites and have been recieving cease-and-desist orders left and right by JK Rowling and WB and whoever else.
I guess it's only important when the law is coming after adults. Screw helping the 12 year olds.
He claims not to have received the registered letter. The judge then made a default judgement against him since the court only heard one side of the case.
Although I'm not exactly sure about the legal implications, I hope that he is telling the truth that he did not receive the notice (rather than just ignoring it). I would imagine (and hope!) there would be some really good recourse to appeal in this case.
If not (if there is little recourse, or if he lied and should have responded), and the judgement is not overturned, I hope that it can't be used a a precedent (since it was won by default, not on the facts). Any lawyers in the room (I'm obviously not one)?
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Well, the article said that the guy who got the $450,000 fine claimed that one of the company's senior executives (and brother of the CEO), "if [...] was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'" He also called them liars.
Normally, I'm all for the little guy, but in this case, seems like the poster was a troll, not an "outspoken critic of corporate America."
Now, if he had provided a deep insight into the company's workings, and if he had some facts to prove that the company management is incompetent, that would've been a questionable case. On top of that, he claimed he never received a certified letter, when it's very, very easy to have USPS check whether such letter was delivered or not. I don't think we're getting the whole story here.
Bush Lies Watch
Obviously, IANAL
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
How would this affect someone outside of the US? If I were to write a scathing, bile filled statement of hatred for [insert favourite ceo here] below this post would I find myself subject to UK law or US law? If the US, how could they enforce it?
And on the evening of the first day the lord said... LX 1, STANDBY; LX 1, GO!; and there was light.
[Apologies for the slightly off-topic nature of this post. But it appears highly relevant because of the thread.]
How long before Taco or one of the other Slashdot editors is accused of and sued for libel by one of the individuals or corporations that is commented on (and perhaps defamed) on the site?
By the Lectric Law Library's definition, libel is:
Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. [The 'Lectric Law Library]
By the CyberLibel definition:
A publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. [CyberLibel]
I tried out the Libel Checklist over at UTexas, and found that a good number of posts by slashdot editor's could at least be considered suspect of libel claims. However, I am anything but a lawyer, and would love to hear a lawyer comment on this.
For example, if an editor posts a comment in response to an article saying something to the effect of "so-and-so's marketing practices are highly suspect and should be avoided by all good slashdotters." If the statement is not provably true, is not a fair report of an official and public record, is not a matter of public concern, is not merely abusive, is not consentual, and is not clearly an opinion, then such statements could, I believe, be intrepreted as libel.
Furthermore, could the users of Slashdot also be sued for libel due to their comments?
Or worse, could I be sued for libel for raising this very question about Rob and Slashdot? Uh-oh. Nevermind...
Wait and see if it is recorded that he signed for the letter ,(informing him of the slapp),before jumping on the corperate hate band wagon.No one here has posted the specifics of the case yet,as in if there was evidence or not that he recieved the letter.
""The postings (in question) are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents, such as corporate press releases or SEC filings," Judge David O. Carter wrote.
That's a pretty good description of the postings Xybernaut sued Dan Whatley over, according to a copy of the suit. The suit lists posts in which Whatley berates Xybernaut chairman and CEO Edward Newman and his brother Steve Newman, who is the vice-chairman. "
Having said all that , what they seem to be suing the guy over seems to be ridiculus, basicly saying the managment of the company was incompetent and accusing the company of lying on a message board which every one knows are havens of 'truth and 'facts'.
_________________________________________________
It is entirely possible that Mr. Whatley did not recieve the certified mail. In a case like this it is up to the courts to serve the defendant with the notice of hearing. This is done with certified mail. The prosecution can only assume that the person receieved the letter. I have a friend who was doing much the same, except in his case he was suing a business. In his case the business did not show up and he won by forfeit. The company then came to the court claiming that the letter was not receieved. That was when the records were checked and found that indeed they had not recieved the letter. Of course it is also possible to refuse certified mail and by doing so make it appear as though you have not recieved it. Certified mail is no guarantee that a party will recieve a letter.
This is all speculation though, since there is a lot of information we do not know. We can only hope that this is resolved properly, on the side of justice. Besides, $450,000 is an extremely large judgement, and an appeal is still possible.
In Montana, and doubtless in some other states, notice of suit is considered to be LEGALLY ACCEPTED BY YOU when it is recorded as having been mailed by the court clerk. Whether it was actually mailed or not is irrelevant -- and since there is no requirement that notice be done by trackable mail, there is no way to determine if it was ever actually mailed or not. If you don't show up because someone slipped the clerk a few bucks to "lose" the letter, too damned bad. (And yes, this IS the voice of firsthand experience.)
Sounds to me like both sides here are full of a variety of crap, but be aware that failure to receive notice can and does happen, and is (literally) no defense in a lawsuit.
Even so, no way in hell would I buy products from any company that files lawsuits over message board flames. That's the equivalent of jailing a 5 year old for a "hate crime" because the kid yelled "I hate you and I'm going to kill you!"
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Uh, I read the first amendment like this: "Congress shall make no law [...] [making it possible for anyone to abridge someone else's] freedom of speech, or the press [...]"
If a law enables companies to suppress free speech by allowing those companies to file SLAPP lawsuits, isn't that a law abridging the freedom of speech, even if only indirectly?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
You've got to be served by a constable or other officer of the court. You can't just file a suit, mail it out and collect a judgement when the defendant fails to show up. That being said, if you are sued, even if you are completely innocent of everything, it'll most likely cost 10-15k to prove that - and it's 50-50 whether you'll get that money back. That's only if you never go to trial. If you got to trial it'll be more like 50k. If it's inter-state more like 100k. That's why so many suits are settled and why the little guy generally loses unless he's got a brother who is an attorney.
The article says that his online handle was dan7, which was a name that I remember quite well from the Raging Bull boards. Dan7 was a short, plain and simple. His whole purpose for posting was to cause the stock to go down so that he could make money. In my opinion, he got what was coming to him. Do a search for his postings and see for yourself.
Instead of just whining about "corporate America", we could talk about reforms that might make a difference. For example, if it's true that he didn't know about the lawsuit, we could require that a process server deliver the notice in person, or that the notice be sent by the clerk of the court with a return receipt required.
Or, in general, we could look at reforms that discourage meritless lawsuits. Most other countries have limits on judgments, rules where the loser pays the legal costs, or other rules. Of course, millionaire lawyers like Ralph Nader are against these rules. We won't mention how much money the trial lawyers give to the Democratic Party, because they're not big corporations, so they must be okay.
This is not a new problem. In ancient Athens, there would be a large jury for a trial. If the plaintiff got over half the votes, he won. But, if he didn't get at least 10% (I think that was the percent) of the votes, he would have to pay the defendant.
But, go on, whine about "corporatizing of America", whatever that means.
According to this story at Wired, Xybernaut's Mobile Assistant® V product will be used at COMDEX Chicago by the event staff to reduce queues. I could envision two different ways that slashdotters could protest. If they are actually going to attend, they could wear something that states their position about the company and its practices. If they are not going to attend, but live in or near Chicago (big place, should be a few around somewhere), they could do the usual protest thing on public property at the border of the convention (I'm sure the COMDEX people would never allow them in the convention area).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a - b)(a + b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
2b = b
2 = 1
There's a flawed assumption in the above argument, just as there is in yours. With a flawed assumption, nearly any conclusion can be reached. In your argument, it is that "rights can't be signed away." This hasn't been true since contracts came into the picture. What would have happened if some early contractor had said "hmm... I've got a right to not work on the colliseum and it can't be signed away." Hopefully he would have gone to the lions.
Basically, a contract is the signing away of some rights by both parties. The right not to work on the colliseum is nearly as important as the right to freedom of speech.
I was wondering if a properly written clause would protect me from anti defamation lawsuits?
For example, a statement that says everything I said was just my personal opinion? I think I've seen these before but I would like to know how much legal weight they carry?
Something Like:The views and opinions, if any, expressed (or implied) by any, all, or part of are strictly opinions and not stating fact. You cannot sue me now ha ha ha.
Or something like that.
Jess