Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Columnist Threatens to Sue Blogger

Posted by michael on from the fair-and-balanced dept.

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.'."

4 of 432 comments (clear)

  1. Slick move there, ace by r_glen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whereas perhaps 20 people would have read that blog before, now thousands will.

  2. Luskin v. Krugman by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Luskin's attacks on Krugman for National Review Online are often rather despicable. I am a conservative, but I can't stand reading Luskin. Besides, Krugman does have some good points. He has been saying that our record deficit (as high a percentage of the GDP as in the Reagan years) is leading to one of three options in the next decade: A) A steep tax hike soon B) A drastic cut in Government programs C) a financial crisis when the market decides that the government is not going to pay them back.

    Bush is aiming at B, but he has made no political preparation for it. Nobody is ready to accept drastic cuts in Medicare and Social Security. Without that preparation, we are most likely headed towards C.

  3. Re:What a royal pussy! by efflux · · Score: 5, Informative
    As Luskin is a public figure, to sue atrios, his lawyers will have to not only show negligence of fact, but also that actual malice was intended.

    Now, as usual, IANAL, but I'm questioning how atrios can be held accountable for *other* posters' comments, especially when considering the demands of proving actual malice.

    Fuck Luskin.

    --
    Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
  4. This is about loss of anonymity by spiritraveller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.