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.
* 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 ---
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
"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
[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...
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.
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*
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!