Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Sues Yahoo for Message Board Name-Calling
Yardboy writes "Yahoo! News has a story concerning one Stephen Galton who has filed a class-action lawsuit against Yahoo claiming the company 'unfairly protected people who post negative messages on its bulletin boards and falsely advertised that it prevents such abusive messages.' Seems he was subjected to name-calling (such as shyster) when he signed up under the username 'stephengalton' in order to respond to a negative post about an unidentified client. As other users chimed in with negative remarks, Galton filed suit against them (it's not clear from the story for what) and sought their personal information from Yahoo via a subpoena. The lawsuit seeks restitution, a permanent injunction and other forms of relief. What's really interesting is all the message board posts relating to the story have been deleted."
I assume this is him?
sgalton@galtonhelm.com
Go on, tell him what you think.
http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board= 37172369&tid=nmtechyahoomessagesdc&sid=37172369&mi d=60
:)
I think its important to post this information, before yahoo deletes it.
Please note that I am not posting anonymously.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Sorry, here is the correct link
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Standard defense of libel or slander would include 1) speaking the truth, 2) statements of absolute or qualified privilege and 3) which is the most important and relevant here: Fair comment which means we are all free to state what is on our minds concerning public interest as long as there is no direct malicious intent.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
http://features.slashdot.org/features/00/05/11/015 3247.shtml?tid=153&tid=9
Actually in some countries (notably Australia and some other commonwealth nations) speaking the truth is NOT a defense against a slander charge. Example: John calls Mary a whore in order to harm her reputation. It's not relevant in those countries whether or not Mary engages in prostitution, it's only relevant if the "whore" statement is harmful to Mary's reputation and if John intended his comment to be harmful in that manner.
- at-all rule. The result, unfortunately, is that you pretty much can't criticize anyone or anything without exposing yourself to some legal risk (not that people don't do it anyway).
Sounds freaky to Americans, but it's true. It's a bit of a legally enforced if-you-can't-say-anything-nice-don't-say-anything
I'm not sure if it's that way in Canada, but there was that one government minister who was forced to resign after calling President Bush a moron. Maybe just a coincidence.
Not quite that simple. Your ignorance is showing here.
When you act as an open fourm and do not remove messages, then you are usually protected. When you do as Yahoo does and enforce a set of rules on your posts, you have to be very careful. If Yahoo has a rule against "abusive" posts and chooses to delete some posts but not delete other posts that are libelous, that could open them to liability in a lawsuit.
I think its silly, but this is how the law works.
Yahoo!'s user agreement doesn't protect someone from being abused like that. At least that's not how I read it. It states the user is responsible to NOT post such abusive things, and that Yahoo! cannot control what its users try to post (to a certain degree). It also states that a person may be exposed to things that will offend them. Therefore, Stephen, by registering with Yahoo! he agreed that this stuff might happen.
What better way to prove to your potential customers that you REALLY know law, so therefore they should use you for all their legal needs, than to sue Yahoo when people call you bad names? Oh, wait - he accomplished exactly the opposite of that. I hear Burger King is hiring...
I was in the park the other day wondering why frisbees get bigger and bigger the closer they get - and then it hit me.
Umm, no, not quite. Civil decisions can have a chilling effect on free speech, and so the power to sue is circumscribed by first amendment protection, too. He can sue, yes, but he may not get his day in court.
In this case, though, the suit is not about what was said, but rather about whether Yahoo did or did not make a good faith effort to suppress slandar after it was informed that the slandar had taken place. When you subscribe to their message boards, you click a standards of use contract. It binds Yahoo to remove certain postings. If Yahoo does not actually remove those posting, then there's a question of fraud and/or breach of contract, not first amendment rights.
Yes I have. Libel is making a false statement of a person. Calling him a name is not a true or false statement, but is rather opinion. Libel is not calling someone an asshat or shyster. Libel is saying he killed Nichole Brown Simpson. Libel is saying he accepted money from Evil, Corp. when in fact he didn't.
Libel is the difference between demeaning opinions and demeaning false statements.
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
and heres a picture of...
Steven Galton, Shyster
Heres a quick biog of the whining pansy
from his own website (as he is the senior partner)
Galtonhelm shysters ^H^H^H lawyers
you would of thought he was old enough to know better
The Scientology comment was the most advertised removal on slashdot. What's worse than a cult? A cult with thousands of highly paid lawyers that leech money from the ultra-rich.
I do see the following:
Which seems to throw out his argument. Just below that it does say but then it continues So it sounds like to me that they can remove the content he objected to as it is arguably harrassing or defamatory, but they are under no obligation to prevent it.If you can find anything on Yahoo!'s site that goes against that, feel free to post it.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
The California Code of Civil Procedure outlines the California anti-SLAPP statute, which would be applicable in this case. The California Anti-SLAPP Project site has more detailed information.
Apparently the lawyer isn't.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Yahoo has been in court literally hundreds of times for all sorts of issues, and the TOS is probably airtight with regards to this case. The only major concession I think the firm has made was to the Yahoo Cake Co of Texas - Yahoo agreed not to enter the cake business, ever.
it's rapid and massive stream of information
"its".
Actually, you can't just say nothing, either. IIRC (IANAL), the Supreme Court just said that you can't just say nothing and avoid arrest. The plaintiff in the case refused to give his name, and said he knew nothing about the case that the officer was investigating. The officer took him in on what was basically an "Obstructing Justice" charge.
But the USSC ruled that if asked for, a citizen must identify themselves to a Law Enforcment Official, as a name is "trivial information" about one's self.
(BTW, obviously the case has two sides, and was more complex than that. But NPR never lies, right?)