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.
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?
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.
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"
Does Xybernaut even have any products that I can avoid? Will they ever have any products, or are they going into the revenue-by-lawsuit business?
Sounds like someone needs to spend less time in chat rooms, more time at the drawing board.
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!
* 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 ---
They only give us one side of it, nobody tells us what he actually said... and he claims his certified mail was never received....
...
Well.. that should be fairly easy to show in court, eh? If he *signed* for his mail, and ignored it, and is now claiming he never received it... (if)
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, 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
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.
3) The mail company provided false documents about the letter reciept
I incline to believe the third one.
Except that in the US, certified mail is specifically a service of the US Postal Service. It's not some sleazy company serving papers, it's the Mail Carrier knocking on the door saying "letter for mister such and such". They don't care about the company, the suit, or the defendant. They're civil servants who just want to keep their jobs. Not delivering certified mail and forginf the signature on the receipt is an easy way to get fired from your cushy government job.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"Hey gang, I've got an idea, let's form a company with a preposterous product, like wearable eggs, and sue people who criticize us!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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. -- The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution The First Amendment is not about your "right" to slander other people. It's about the right of Americans to express disatifaction with the government without being silenced. It's not an open invite to say what ever you want about a person no matter how untrue it is.
But what happened to the recent decision that postings were considered opinion, and hence are not libel?
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
[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...
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
Excellent point. Here's a link that has some summary coverage. This is such corporate BS!
Howard Dean for president
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'.
_________________________________________________
If she did nothing illegal then she should have stuck to her guns. There are various free legal services she has access to, all she had to do was call her local public defenders office. IANAL BUT I do believe that she would have had the right to coutner sue (in her home state) for the company filing a false, misleading, or malicous (sp) suit.
FYI, if the company that filed suit in the article said they delivered a letter via certified post, they probably have a signature card with SOMEONE's signature on it. Most lawyers won't goto court unless they have some documentation that they have made a "valid effort" to inform the defendant, or that a summons was delivered.
The sad truth is that very few people wish to take the time to actually stand up for what they believe in. Hiding in the sand and ignoring a problem is more effective and less dangerous. If more people filed counter suits and fought these law suits they wouldn't exist.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
The USA does have freedom of speech, and freedom from libel & slander, it's a wonderful system where if someone publishes a lot of rubbish about you can defend your reputation in court.
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.
" 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
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
It'll be a cold day in hell before I boycott a company based on some flamebait kneejerk paragraph posted by CmdrTaco.
off of the xybernaut contact page there are a few addresses to complain to. i'm sure i'm not alone in being a person who has considered purchasing their stuff, perhaps they should know how much they've pissed us off.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If sue-happy companies can follow their lead, and start trawling http://www.fuckedcompany.com/, it would be open season... on our freedom of speech.
Of course, you can't believe everthing you read on the internet.
On the other had, maybe Taco can drop the whole subscription idea, and start suing AC trolls who post nasty things about his fiancee to keep /. afloat.
- passion
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
Both the statute (CDA's Section 230 provisions) and case law are very strong in the exemptions granted to the operators of a computer service from the duties and liabilities of a traditional publisher. Every direct challenge brought against an online service provider regarding speech contributed by a third-party has been defeated both at trial and in appellate court.
I wonder what the legal recourse is no something like this. There are a number of cases where someone won by default, such as the coed vs the wild party girls tape folks [austin360.com]. Since it is not a criminal case, as such, what are the legal options.
As other people have pointed out, the plaintiff here won a default judgment because the defendant didn't show up. The defendant's position is that he was never notified of the lawsuit.
It seems, then, that (assuming that he wasn't properly notified) Mr. Whatley can appeal on grounds of failure to give sufficient notice, which is doubtless a violation of the rules of civil procedure of whatever jurisdiction the suit was filed in (the article doesn't say).
If this occurs, the appeals court would probably overturn the default judgment and remand the proceedings to a trial.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
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.
Defendant Whatley said: If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of ... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
According to the company's Web site:
Dr. Newman is the former President and CEO of Fed American Inc., President and CEO of SANDCO American Corporation, and President and CEO of SAN Medical Corporation. A graduate of the University of Rochester School of Medicine, he also has degrees from UCLA and Brooklyn College. Dr. Newman's articles and presentations on the future of technology have been distributed worldwide.
On the face of it, Whatley's statement is wrong, defamatory, and made with wreckless disregard for the truth. The only question is whether $450,000 is an appropriate penalty for what he said, that is, did Newman or the company suffer that much in damages or did Whatley's conduct need a substantial judgment to deter him in the future.
The main line of Whatley's defenders appears to be that nobody should take what he says seriously, a curious position for people who claim the moral high ground over corporations.
With so much true stuff that needs to be said, why would anyone waste their time on malicious nonsense?
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*
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.
Disbar any lawyers involved in bringing frivolous libel/defamation suits. Now, in this particular case, we don't have all of the facts, so it is hard to tell if it really is frivolous, or even if the guy is being truthful about not getting the letter. But the court system should have the tools necessary to make a determination of frivolity, and then punish the lawyers involved.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
A relative of mine (actually his company, which he was majority owner of) was sued once on a patent matter. He never got the notice. The reason was, it was delivered to his attorney of record a few days after he fired that attorney. His new attorney had filed papers to change the attorney registration but it was still apparently working its way through the bureaucracy. There was a default judgement, and he didn't hear about it until a collection effort was made more than a year and a half after the original notice. Eventually it got a new case and was settled out of court as a non-infringement. The lawyer who received the paperwork ended up declaring bankruptcy so in the end several people were out a lot of money. Stuff like that does happen, sometimes.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A letter can be sent certified mail and not be signed. If you want the signature of the person you are sending the letter to, use signature confirmation or insured mail.
"Certified" doe not mean "Signed"
Rhapsody in Numbers
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.
If he received the letter or not that shouldn't be the question. The question is, how could this kind of lawsuit stand in court? The judge should've laughed in their face and sent them back home.
PS: The opinions expressed above may not be mine and I can't assume there responsibility. So if anyone is considering suing me, please don't.
Certified mail does not have to be signed by the recipient. Mail sent with signature confirmation must be signed. Certified mail just means that the last post office that deals with the letter before it is delivered keeps a record that the letter arrived at the post office.
Rhapsody in Numbers
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!
Its pretty clear to me that these guys filed a meritless lawsuit to cover up their pathetic earnings...look at the companies annual stock record over the last year -- it parallels the track-record of Enron and more so Global Crossing: steadily down hill, with no end in sight, except for the big ch11. Anyone who'd buy stock in this company is nuts.
Some asshole here said, "the first amendment doesn't apply in civil lawsuits"?? So, somehow you think the founding father's wanted rich corporations preventing people from speaking freely? Somehow, you think that just because its "only money" that's involved, that's less serious than being sent to jail on a criminal case? I'd rather go to jail for years than lose 400k.
Defamation/libel lawsuits are nothing but a crock. All of them. Someone says something about you that's not true, and somehow that entitles you to their hard earned money? Bullshit. If its not true, put out a factual statement, with facts, testifying to its falsity. If people believe the liar over you, well then that's not the liar's fault -- its the fault of people who believe in gossip. While we're on defamation/libel, why don't they just sue people who gossip, as well?
Lets face the facts -- libel/defamation suits are only used as weapons by the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless. They NEVER help out the average person. Overall, more harm is done by them than good. They should be abolished.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Fight Spammers!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, the last case Alexander Hamilton ever argued (before a New York state court, concidentally) before his fateful duel with Aaron Burr was one in which he argued that truth is a legitimate defense against libel. Although he lost the case, it did eventually become law. Ironically, after arguing this point he went out to fight a duel with Aaron Burr, who wanted to duel because his honor had been offended by Hamiltons statements.
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
We have a long Wired article talking about poor Mr. Whatley and all the suffering he's going through, a quote here and there from the website in question, a single comment from Xybernaut's lawyer, but not a single link to Whatley's page for everybody to see exactly what was considered libelous. In fact, it doesn't look like Wired tried very hard (if at all) to get Xybernaut's opinion and mostly just wrote a little sob story about poor Whatley. Did I somehow miss the part where the article said "Xybernaut officials weren't available for comment?"
... 'Would you like fries with that?'"
Like it or not, libel is libel, and just because you're free to say what you want doesn't mean you're not responsible for what you say. Of what was shown of what Whatley said, it could very easiily be libelous.
"I have been dealing with the Newmans and XYBR and they are the most incompetent management I have ever seen,"
Wouldn't it be interesting if Whatley had had no dealing with Xybernaut prior to the lawsuit? How many managements has he seen in order to make this comparison?
"If Steve Newman was not a relative his job would consist of
Has he seen Newman's resume? Has he even met Steve Newman face-to-face? Is Newman really a relative, or just somebody that happens to share a last name? Hell, has anybody even checked to see if there's a Steve Newman working for Xybernaut? Anyone?
I have checked and there is a Steve Newman on the executive board, and he does share the last as somebody else on the board, but since the bio links aren't working I can't find out if they're actaully related. However, at the very least the fact that Steve Newman has a doctorate suggests that Whatley's claims of his lack of education might be just a tad unfounded.
If you simply believe everything you're told by the media, whether it be AOL/TW or Slasdot, you're no better than the mindless sheep you claim to despise.
I'd just like to point out that lawyers are essentially agents of parties petitioning a court. Here, the management of company X wanted to file suit against a cranky poster to a message board - It's not like some lawyer decided to file suit and then sold the idea later to company X (lawyers get disbarred over tactics like that). I don't see where it's inappropriate to blame the corporate entity of company X for the lawsuit, seeing as it's the plaintiff.
You don't have a bogus lawsuit (or any lawsuit) without a plaintiff.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
With all of our negative comments, they will be sending us all a notice by certified mail pretty soon.
(KNOCK ON DOOR)"I have a certified mail package for a Commander... what? Is this right? Taco?"
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
Have a look at Rule 4 sometime. Have a look at the small claims court rules. People get served by mail all the time.
In some states, you don't even have to go as far as filing the case or getting the judgment. For an example, see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001270
Good service gives the Court personal jurisdiction over this particular defendant. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the type of case which can be heard.
If the Court never had personal jurisdiction because of bad service, the judgment is void.
Further, to enforce the judgment, it must be docketed in the home state of the defendant or a state in which the defendant has assets. When the plaintiff attempts to do this, the defendant can assert the defense that the judgment is void and should not be docketed. If the judgment is not docketed, it cannot be collected. Any attempt to collect it is abuse of process.
The problem here is more than that of companies being heavy handed and attempting to use force to silence people. The problem is that there are lawyers out there who are willing to be their mercenaries.
Lawyers like that are who give the legal profession as a whole a bad name.
I find myself having fantasies about lying in wait near the home of one of these lawyers and blowing their head to bits with a high powered rifle as they are out getting the paper in their bath robe. I won't do that of course, because I know that to do so would only cause more problems. As much as I hate these fuckers I don't want anyone else to do something like that either. There is more evil at work in the world than that represented by these lawyers. There are people and groups whose every thought and action is towards depriving others of liberty. Were someone to go on a shyster shooting spree it would only play into the hands of those who are working to destroy the second amendment (among other things).
Undermining the second amendment just to whack someone who is undermining the first isn't exactly a good idea in the long run. The first and second amendments are the bedrock of our democracy. They are what ensure that, even if all else fails, tyranny will not prevail.
Instead of shyster assasinations, what needs to happen is for news of cases of these SLAPP suits to be disseminated as widely as possible. Use the very thing these suits attack, the first amendment, to hurt the suits behind the suits. Create enough bad publicity that the suits become a double edged sword to anyone behind them. Imagine if a company lost 20% of its customers after SLAPPing someone. Would they do it again?
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are more threats to our freedoms from all sides than what most people are aware of. On the left you've got socialists, communists, political correctness, and your garden variety "liberals". On the right religious whacko's, corrupt corporations and "family values." Which side is right? If you ask me I'd say neither. Both are vile in my opinion. Both are equally harmful and undermine human rights, the only difference is the approach that is taken and the rhetoric and justifications that are used.
In the end however, it is not these evils that are the greatest threat. The greatest threat is that your average citizen is not aware of them, or does nothing about them when they are. All that is required for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. That is the status quo in America, people doing nothing. Those who are not vigilant, who do not fight back, are the true villans. The wolf is always at the door. That is the nature of the wolf. Blaming the wolf for getting in when someone opened the door for him isn't exactly rational. Its like blaming fire for burning a building when an arsonist started the blaze, or a car for killing a pedestrian when it was a drunk driver at the wheel. Its up to each of us to keep that door closed. When we fail we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
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
"A democracy is 2 wolves and one sheep voting on whats for dinner."
Whereas a republic is two wolves and one sheep voting for the person who will decide what's for dinner.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
And you don't have one without a lawyer either. I'm all for blaming the plaintiffs, but I don't see why the lawyers shouldn't be blamed as well. Lawyers have no obligation to file bogus lawsuits just because people ask them to, and the world would be a better place if more sanctions were imposed on lawyers that do.
Is not Nora's statement, quoted above, the heart of the matter. Stand up for your rights. If those rights are not sufficient or have been erroded then fight. The fight, any fight, is visceral. Cave in and the 'hired guns', as many lawyers call themselves, will own you and they'll get you through fear as the school bully gets the geek's lunch money, as a pimp gets children. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." The Kings and aristocracy of ancient Europe truly thought the papists of Rome held the Keys to the 'Kingdom of God' and feared excommunication. Historically we take Martin Luther's posting the Diet of Worms as the opening slavo in the fight against the theocracy of Rome. The birth of America necessitated a similar stance against entrenched power.
Fight or flight, flight is the way of prey.
heuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
I think reality has proven you wrong. Ignoring the letter was, in fact, more stupid than them sending it. Witness the fact that they won.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Even when you actually were served and given due notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If the facts are as indicated, that no serious effort was made to give the constutitonally required notice before proceeding to seek a default, not only will it be straightforward to obtain vacation, but there may may sometimes be recourse against an attorney who had overreached, and the client on whose behalf it was done.
There will be no trouble vacating a default judgment, but defending the action itself will be another story. One which will depend upon the merits, with respect to which we haven't yet heard the full story.
The heart of this problem, for me, is a fundamental problem in the US legal system. The UK has a huge advantage over the US. There, the loser typically has to foot the legal bill. Here, only in very limited circumstances is there any chance of getting the loser to pay for the cost of litigation. Therefore, the party with the deeper pockets can nearly always intimidate the other into settling or dropping the matter. This situation is not likely to change. Our legal system is founded on the principle that each side pays its own way.
I've recently been in one of these situations. I was wronged by a big company. My first reaction (after failing to resolve the matter through earnest negotiations on our part, and lip service on the other) was to grab our litigators and look at forcing a legal remedy. But here was the problem: we would be suing for $200-400K, but my legal costs would be somewhere in the $100-200K range. So the best I could get would be fifty cents on the dollar; and of course there's no guarantee I would win. And I wasn't crazy about reaching into my bank account for six figures worth of a gamble. The other party had a squadron of in-house litigators, and (we found later) had already put a $250K budget in place for outside counsel, with the instructions "drive them out of business." They were loaded for bear. We were right, but like straws in the wind. So we were facing a very tough battle, and the best up-side for us simply wasn't good enough. There was absolutely no legal basis under which we could sue to recover our litigation costs. So we caved in, backed away from litigation, and kept negotiating. (At the end of the day, we might finally resolve the matter, which is good news; but it's no thanks to the big guys.)
With a more civilized legal system, there would be a stronger incentive to find a fair solution, because neither party could wear the other down simply by the weight of legal expense. But it ain't gonna happen.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Really? I was not aware of a charge for use of "the Linux logo." Do you have links to the logo in question and the fees required for that logo's use?
You are right... I would guess that if someone yelled "fire" in a crowded theatre, and the audience upon looking around and not seeing or smelling smoke shouted back "sit down and be quiet you @$$hole" instead of starting a riot, that nobody would be charging the person with anything or disputing the person's 1st amendment right to be a jerk...
And you don't have one without a lawyer either.
Anyone can file a lawsuit. The technical term (IIRC) is pro se.
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.
Unfortunately, that's not going to cut it, for two reasons:
1. Whether your post contains "facts" (which could potentially be actionable) or "opinions" (which aren't) is something determined by the content of the post itself, not the text of your disclaimer. So, if you said, "Bill Gates was Hilter's right hand man and last week molested four school children and raped a goat. But that's just my opinion, so he can't sue me," you won't be protected. The statement is clearly factual in nature.
2. Even if you could, it wouldn't matter anyway. The point of what's going on here is not on the merits of any one defamation case. What's happening is these ultra-sensitive CEO's are filing lawsuits against people that probably have no basis whatsoever to them. Then, one of two things happens: either 1.) they try to "notify" them in such a way that they never actually find out they're being sued (which gives the CEO a default judgment for whatever he's asking for regardless of the merits of the case), or 2.) they do what they did to the lady mentioned in the story. They have their lawyers call you up and basically let you know that you'll have to defend a long, drawn-out, out of state court battle that will suck out all your money and they'll win anyway, or you could just play nice and retract your statements. Either way, they get around having to deal with the First Amendment by never actually having to try the case in the first place. If one of these suits was actually litigated, it would be thrown out of court immediately.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
How would you feel if you were publicly called "crooked" solely on the basis of rumours? Especially if it was in a place and a way that could negatively affect your net worth (stock price, for the company)?
Without seeing her exact words, we can't know whether she expressed her opinion as opinion or as fact. If she expressed it as fact and can't provide any proof, just how sympathetic towards her should we be? And how do we know whether or not she was trying to manipulate the price of the company's stock?
Eggs, by the way, are an excellent growth medium for lots of things besides baby chicks.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Mattel had tried to kill http://www.sorehands.com/mattel [sorehands.com]. When the judge asked Mattel's lawyer what was libelous, Mattel's lawyer asked that their libel claim be dismissed. This was after having to file a 5 inche stack of legal briefs with the court.
I know you know the goal of this, but let me repeat what I gathered from your website for Slashdot readers: It's actually a better outcome for Mattel than you might think. The motion to dismiss it's own claim was rejected, then re-filed and accepted -- without prejudice. This means the company can file more similar libel claims in the future. It seems likely Mattel/TLC will continue to try to intimidate their opponent in this way as long as they possibly can.
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
The basic problem is that if you look in the phone book, you'll see that, other than personal injury lawyers (a rather specialized version of land shark), 75% of the lawyers specialise in "business law", i.e., they work for businesses. In the whole of Arizona there's less than a dozen consumer law specialists (i.e., lawyers who specialize in taking on cases where companies produce defective and/or dangerous products). (The above information, BTW, was derived from the Arizona Bar Association's own listing of attorneys).
Send mail here if you want to reach me.