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.

Comments

harry potter

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Criticize?

[Ivan Raikov]

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.

Libel and slashdot

[image]

[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...

Re:someone's lying, but who?

[Reziac]

As to whether or not this guy received the notice of suit:

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!"

Re:Here We Go

[NearlyHeadless]

Yet another symptom of the corporatizing of America. If you have money, you win.

Ummm...no. He lost because he didn't show up. That's true in any civil trial, no matter who has money.

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.