Slashdot Mirror
Columnist Threatens to Sue Blogger
floppy ears writes "Pseudonymous blogger Atrios has been threatened with a subpoena and lawsuit for defamation. Apparently Atrios used a headline 'Diary of a Stalker' in reference to Donald Luskin. In response to the posting, several anonymous commentators made some allegedly libelous statements about Luskin, and now Luskin has hired an attorney and started making threats and demands. The funniest thing is that Luskin has previously referred to himself as a stalker in his own headline: 'We Stalked. He Balked.'."
Whereas perhaps 20 people would have read that blog before, now thousands will.
My goodness, now if anyone says anything that makes you look bad, you're gonna sue them.
It reminds me of the Scientology approach: if anyone says anything bad about you, use the courts to silence them. Lovely.
...tizzyd
If I read the blog and the article correctly, this is a case where two guys are throwing mud at each other.Finally one of them couldnt take it anymore and called a lawyer. The only thing that is probably interesting to slashdot is that somebody is not willing to treat blogging equivalent to free speech.
Next article please....
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
Luskin is not a stalker in the legal sense, which is what Krugman implied on national TV. Luskin went to ONE lecture by Krugman.
The controversy of Luskin calling himself a stalker stems from literal and non-literal uses of the word. I find the whole thing nonsense, but any third party who is going to step in and start parroting something like "so and so is a stalker" is only going to get what they are asking for.
Stalking is a serious crime. To accuse someone of it, in the literal sense, is akin to me accusing someone of being a child molester - I'd better have some evidence to back that claim up. I would not expect to NOT be called on it. It's NOT like calling someone an idiot or a jerk.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
People seem to have high opinions of themselves and their precious egos. Try reading some court decisions about libel and the net - there's a darned high threshold that must be passed for it to be considered libel. Denbeste had a great comment about this - scan down to the entry labelled "Stardate 20031027.0423" to read it.
Oj, yes, the obligatory IANAL, just in case anybody was wondering.
Lemon curry?
It seems as though most of the lawsuits regarding online publication, comments, and so on is the difference between "personal comments" and "news publication."
I may be wrong, but I believe that the fine line between "libel" and "opinion" lies in who's talking, and what they're talking about. If the Local Sunday Times states for a fact that one week ago I was spotted by 100 people dancing naked in a local fountain, and no such event occurred, then I could be sue for libel.
However, if some guy down the street told that to his neighbor - I don't believe I have a leg to stand on. Even if he was on TV and say "Yeah, he was out there doing that", and the news said "Well, that's what Mr. Jones has said", I'm still not sure I could sue either for libel (unless the news organization stated that for a fact - odds are, they'd use the statement "allegedly dancing naked in a fountain."
So what is a blog, or a newsgroup posting then? To most people here, they are "comments", "opinions", things that you take with a grain of salt. You don't take them as fact.
Of course, some online articles are meant to be fact - Salon, perhaps even a gaming site like Blues News could if they knowingly published false information.
But I think Mr. Luskin made a mistake in the difference between "some guy who's got an opinion who happens to write it down for others to read" and "a true news organization." My hope is that the courts rule that blogs, newsgroups, and other "commentary" style online posting are just that - some person expressing their viewpoints on something, perhaps in a sarcastic tone, but not held up to the same standards as a true "news" publication.
Now, if I can just figure out which Fox News is...
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
There's nothing funny about this that I can see. Some poor guy who hasn't hurt anybody will have to spend x number of hours out of his life to deal with this crap and to make the money to pay the lawyers to get Luskin off his back. It's about as funny as the side of your car getting spraypainted with swastikas.
The point of this--which seems to escape most commenters--is that this is being used as a tactic to "out" Atrios.
He is an anonymous blogger on political issues--an especially sticky area considering our First Amendment.
Here is the expected sequence of events:
1. Luskin subpoenas blogspot.com, get's Atrios' real name.
2. Atrios served with complaint.
3. Atrios $$$$$$$$$hires lawyer$$$$$$$$$$$$
4. Lawyer writes response
5. Lawsuit dismissed because Luskin himself referred to himself as a "stalker" and the supposed slanderous comment is a mere repetition of that phrase with no added detail. There are First Amendment reasons the lawsuit should be dismissed but it's not necessary to detail them all.
Meanwhile, Atrios is no longer anonymous.
Given that the purpose of this lawsuit is not to win, but to uncover a person's identity and chill their right to free speech, Luskin and his lawyer should be subject to sanctions.
Hmmm...doesn't seem like it was drivel to me. Seems like it was a case of, "I don't agree with this guy's politics, or his methods of getting his point across. He's called himself a stalker before, and he's a stalker in this latest blog that he's written".
That sounds like free speech to me, the same kind that Luskin enjoys.
Most content on the web is uninteresting to anyone except the person who posted it and a small circle of their friends and family. If it actually ends up being interesting to more people, then it will attract the attention of other people who will read it. So, I honestly don't see how you're affected by uninteresting blogs unless you're actively seeking them out.
I myself have never spent time, energy, or mental anguish over a blog page I didn't like or find interesting. I just clicked the back button and forgot all about it.
If anything, Luskin's page poorandstupid.com is pretty offensive and doesn't jive with any of my politics. He seems willing to openly attack other people, particularly this one poor columnist. However, I wouldn't question his right to write what he's written, although if he keeps on stalking, there might be legal grounds for him to be given a restraining order or something of that nature.
Seems like he can dish it out but he can't take it.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.