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."
Stephen Galton cry-baby, "waa waa, these people are calling me names and making me cry, waa waa".
Sheesh! Get a life, find more useful things to do in life, idiot!
How many times do these lawyers need to be reminded of the 1st amendment and right to free speech??? Don't they learn about this in law school?
Reminds me of a '00 story when Microsoft tried to sue /. over some postings here!!
It seems like there are a number of lawyers who have not yet figured out that the first amendment does in fact apply on the internet, as we can see by these examples. Although this is becoming a little less common, many business owners/managers have tried to have critical websites shut down for little reason other than they don't like what is being said.
Neither should be crimes. Lying should only be illegal when it is done on the witness stand.
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.
Another case of someone just trying to make a buck.
So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
....is almost completely committed by lawyers. This yet another example why America needs tort reform now! On a related matter, the regulation of lawyers by the state bar associations (which are not gov't bodies but are more of a lawyers guild) needs to end. Lawyers should be regulated and punished by *state* (i.e. gov't) institutions elected by the people (not appointed by other lawyers). Only when lawyers like this guy are punished and possibly stripped of their licences will this kind of abuse end. I won't even go into how much lawyers have caused the price of medical care to rise with fivilous lawsuits......
A lawyer posted on Yahoo to protect his reputation, was attacked by a bunch of faceless Anonymous Cowards, and is angry because he can't determine their identity because Yahoo's "moderation system" won't filter them out?
Sounds like your typical Slashdot user.
I think among the Slashdot crowd it's of course common knowledge that Yahoo deletes comments all the time, just like Slashdot does. Slashdot has endured legal challenges from the DMCA and weathered them nicely, but this is an entirely different branch of law. Are dicussion sites breaching an implied contract with the user when they fail to protect them from trolling and abuse? Slashdot does its best to prevent this sort of thing, remember the Farenheit 9/11 story in which all Republicans were IP banned from posting - that shows what an effective moderation system can do (and by the way if there are any stupid Repubs in the audience, no, keeping you from posting isn't censorship, silly). But what if an effective moderation system isn't enough to protect us? What then?
If Yahoo loses this suit one could only expect a Slash or Scoop based site to be next. Given that Slashdot is a special case, utilizing a full time staff with unlimited moderation power to instantly IP ban anyone who disagrees too much - but what if even that isn't enough?
We need to brainstorm new ideas for protecting online users from harassment if this lawsuit goes through. The web site you save may be your own!
On a side note, include an email address and link to twenty deleted Slashdot comments for a free Gmail invite. Hint: Slashdot has only deleted about 700 comments.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
The first amendment doesn't apply to this. A private entity has the right to restrict what is transmitted or stored on privately owned property. If the server or service was located on governmental property of some sort, then yes, it would be a violation. However, it wasn't.
This guy is out of luck, regardless. Google and Yahoo can get away with passing the information on without editing, as they serve as intermediaries, not initiators - at least they can in the US.
The irony here is that a shyster can generally be determined by the frequency with which the attorney sues... so even if he does get to court and gives a compelling case, he's basically showing the characteristics of one by suing everyone he can find.
I worked as a contractor for a company that was at the height of the Internet boom in 2000 and is currently defunct. After the first round of layoffs the yahoo message board for the company stock (now deleted, since the company is no more, and neither is the nasdaq ticker) suddenly gained a bunch of users, discussing in excruciating details some "secret" deals that were on the way, some internal budgeting and executives' personal life.
Some of the stuff was pretty nasty, but at times it was a good laugh, and after a while the company started posting the legalese messages on the board, like "This is the legal dept of such-and-such, just to let you know, this board is being monitored and archived".
Anyway, they sued Yahoo! and subpoened Yahoo! for a bunch of online identities who were clearly former employees discussing what was called "sensitive information" on the public board and that had something to do with "negative public image". Needless to say, Yahoo! just kinda ignored the lawsuit for a while, although a bunch of people were a bit scared about the outcome.
Unfortunately, I dont remember whether it was the court that denied any reponsibility on Yahoo's part, or whether it was the company dissolving (I quit after being there for 2 months), but the identities were never revealed, and since the company went bankrupt, not that it really mattered.
Neither should be crimes. Lying should only be illegal when it is done on the witness stand.
Actually, lying to a police office (or other govt. official) who is conducting an investigation is a crime in the US. It is called "Obstructing Justice". You have the right to say nothing, but you don't have the right to say something false. Of course, neither apply here, the lawyer is just a pussy. Yahoo users keep posting new comments, and Yahoo keeps deleting them.
Oh wait, I just looked again, now over 100. Holy shit, Yahoo is getting slashdotted, lol
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Yahoo didn't publish those messages, the users did. It's like suing the phone company because someone called you a dork on the phone.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
The problem isn't really that someone is a lawyer. Being a lawyer is simply a profession that involves knowing a lot of laws and how they interrelate and have been judged on in the past so that you may advise people.
The problem is that we in the United States did a poor job of setting up our court system, with extremely lucrative punitive damages. As a result, it is very profitable to prosecute bullshit lawsuits, and a number of people, not surprisingly, do so.
Furthermore, it turns out that most people are irrational and swayed by emotion, and those that serve on a jury are no different -- hence efforts by lawyers to try to sway jurors, and the perception of them as manipulative people.
We recognize that our country has issues with its legal system; the problem is that we then blame lawyers for it.
May we never see th
If they haven't violated a law then he has no case. And the first amendment specifically states that there can be no law of this kind for them to violate. So it certainly does apply.
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
I don't even know why Yahoo! allows post on news stories anymore. In theory it seems like a very good idea but in practice devolves into a cesspool of near pointless negativity and flame wars. Literially hundreds of thousands of flaming posts for popular stories.
I swear there are groups of early teenage boys out there who's stole focus is to start flame wars on Yahoo! message boards. It's a bastion for ignored and disenfranchised youth. Message boards in general are great for people looking for attention not matter what form it takes.
There is a great documentary somewhere in that culture. What type of person is doing all this pointless posting and why?
Chew: You Nexus, huh? I design your eyes.
Roy: Chew, if only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.
And as an addon, you have to look no further than the Great Firewall of China to see that free speech isn't constitutional everywhere.
Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
However:
Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
And:
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
So, basically, you have freedom, for as long you don't interfere with other people's rights ;)
(From The Universal Declaration of Human Rights) Maybe, in USA, you have the right to contend this (by the first ammendent to The Constitution). I think that applies only if both contenders are american, but since the net is international, you have to use international law and conventions.
For me, you have to probe that, in a usenet or other net group, you've been the subject of one of such attacks, and not to waste other people's time with an arbitrary legal attack :) unfunaterly, thatis a very common thing in the States...
Carlos Niebla
Actually, if you've seen the Showtime show "Bulls**t" with Penn and Teller, they actually have a whole segment in the first episode about why the show is called what it is. Aside from the fact they like to curse, they say their lawyers told them that it also serves a second purpose in preventing lawsuits.
It's legally preferrable to say "Bulls**t" than to saying "You're lying". So, rather than call the people on the show liars (which would be a legal problem), they, instead call people who are obviously lying, "motherf***ers" and "a**holes".
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Not a problem if you're right, and the guy posting to Yahoo is libeling you.
IANAL, but... Don't you also have to show that a reasonable person would read the posting, believe it, and in some way (maybe not investing in your company) damage you?
If someone writes "That investment was stupid, he should stop smoking crack," they may be libeling you, but the lawsuit wouldn't fly.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I'm very serious about that. While it sounds (and it actually is) easy to say these kind of things about someone, using your computer, it does not mean that what you just did is not something serious.
A lot of crimes are very easy to commit, but they will not give the society less reasons to punish you for what you did. And they are still crimes, and still wrong, no matter how innocent they might seem to you.
No matter what you think about how this guy looks like, he is still have his right to care about his reputation and not be publicy ridiculized by a bunch of people who has not grown (sometimes mentally) up yet. Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated.
And again, no matter what do you think about him, he still have his rights, and they should be respected.
"If there's one thing America needs, it's more lawyers. Can you imagine a world without lawyers?" Lionel Hutz
//iirc it then cuts to a great scene of a world without lawyers.
Nelson Mandela
Mahatma Gandhi
35 of the US Founding Fathers
Cherie Booth QC (who still takes human rights cases against her husband's government, and wins, and incidentally earns 4x more than the PM)
Some of the above, and some more obscure ones, are listed here
However there's still a long way to go when google asks, in response to the search for "great lawyers",
"Did you mean: great leaders?"!
So let me get this straight. You're saying that it should be a crime to call someone names?
.
:P
You're kidding right?
What about letters to the editor, opinions, etc. etc.
If I think G.W is an utter moron who's running this country into the ground, I shouldn't say anything because it might hurt his feeling?
This is the INTERNET. This is a PUBLIC FORUM. If you don't like what someone is saying IGNORE THEM or FIGHT BACK.
Some people didn't like what this guy did or was doing. They called him on it. Some responses were probably a little immature. GET OVER IT!
For fucks sake what kind of precedant is this setting. I've had people say not so nice things about me on the internet. So what? It happens. Not everyone you come across is going to like you or what you do. Imagine some big corporation suing you for posting a bad review about their product. What would your reaction be to that?
Oh...and you're a big fucking pussy. Sue me.
~X~
~X~
So that's easily solved. Just have a new law which says that all other laws are to be interpreted 'in spirit' and not 'in intention'...
In fact, the UK courts (the higher ones anyhow) often do this. They will say "Parliament could not have intended this law to mean x since it was contrary to the stated intent of the law, therefore we will interpret this law as meaning y even though the actual wording suggests x".
They will refer to the original parliamentary debates if necessary to get the correct intent.
Hey, people: I'm not saying that just calling people names is directly a crime. It just depends on the situation, plain simple. You cannot call someone a "delicate fag" in the middle of a public speech and expect it to be treated as "just your opinion about him". It doesn't matter if you say it is just your opinion, what matter is if other people can interpretate that your affirmation means more than just bad words directed to a person.
And, about the "right to not be humiliated", that's a "right" indirectly covered by injury law, and it does not relates only to your words, your actions (posting a message to difamate him) and intentions can be punished too.
I know it does sound stupid, but "fat" and "ugly" are direct affirmations, clearly crossing the line between your opinion and false statement. But they are just a minor issue here. Saying someone is fat might not give you a suit, but saying someone is a "shyster" can be interpreted as a direct affirmation that the said person is unethical and unscrupulous.
You cannot just say someone is a "unscrupulous and corrupt son of a bitch". You're directly asserting that this person is corrupt. It doesn't matter if his mother is a "bitch" or not, because your statement that the person is corrupt has already given him enough reason to sue you.
I still think his suit was very, very, stupid. But calling him names, using very large groups of people, can give him very good legal arguments.
It is true that any professional, be it a lawyer, doctor, writer or actor needs to protect his/her reputation. However, I find this rather stupid for this dude to sue Yahoo for comments raising anonymously on a message forum. Unless the comments are very specific to a wrongdoing or to an incident detrimental to his/her reputation (a general 'shyster' comment doesn't qualify), this lawsuit is over the top.
It's just this stupid cultural characteristic of this nation. Sue anyone, anwhere anytime for any reason whatsoever. This is the attribute of the wimpus americanus. Good lord not everyone is like that.
And of course, Goethe's Faus is as fruitful as ever: Proof! World literature uses "syster" sysnonymous for lawyer ! Case dismissed ! Film at 11....