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."

Comments

Stephen Galton's Contact Info

[ambrosine10]

I assume this is him?

sgalton@galtonhelm.com

Go on, tell him what you think.

sgalton@galtonhelm.com - (213) 629-8800

[Jailbrekr]

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. :)

Re:sgalton@galtonhelm.com - (213) 629-8800

[Jailbrekr]

Sorry, here is the correct link

Re:Protected speech

[BWJones]

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.

Re:Protected speech

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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- 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).

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.

Re:Protected speech

[localhost00]

Ever heard of libel or slander?

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.

Re:Let's get this straight.

[Izago909]

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.

Re:You missed the point

[nwbvt]

I'm curious, where does Yahoo! promise to prevent abuse postings? I'm going through their TOS and I see no guarentee that abusive postings will be prevented.

I do see the following:

Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Yahoo! be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Service.

Which seems to throw out his argument. Just below that it does say

You agree to not use the Service to:
1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

but then it continues

You acknowledge that Yahoo! may or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. [emphasis mine]

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.

California SLAPP Information

[Chatmag]

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.