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."
That's the trouble with the internet and it's rapid and massive stream of information, some of it your not going to like. Find other ways than litigation to deal with it, as litigation just shines a 10 billion candlepower light on it for all the world to see.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Yo Stephen! There is this little thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution that has something to do with another something called free speech. Grow up and learn how to deal with the kids on the playground.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
The State vs. @55|-|@t-84
... but you're a weenie!
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
Seriously pal, your not doing your profession any favors here.
bit trollent
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!!
Wonder how this Lawyer is gonna feel when he sees a zillion Slashdot users calling him "Loser" or worse...and lemme guess next case... Lawyer vs. The rest of us...*sigh*
I nominate this litigious asshole to be a Lawyer in Space... With no space suit.
Sorry, here is the correct link
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
1. Get insulted on slashdot
2. Sue Slashdot and those who insulted
3. Profit!
Man, that applies to me in so many other online forums... I could make billions... or even millions! Bwahahaha!
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Well then, if someone's being defamed or libeled, and all the defamatory or libelous comments are deleted, then any accusation that the message board that hosted the defamatory or libelous comments would be questionable at best. One might go so far as to say that the sort of person who'd press a suit accusing the message board provider of negligence in such a situation was an ambulance-chasing shyster with less personal appeal than the Goatse Guy... except, of course, that anyone who said such a thing would probably open themselves up to a defamation of character suit from Mr. Goatse himself.
He isn't claiming that the critical comments on yahoo aren't protected speech under the first amendment; he's claiming that yahoo failed to fulfill their promise to prevent abusive postings, which doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment.
what kind of example is this for kids. i mean you get called names, aren't you supposed to say "stick and stones can break my bones but words won't hurt me"??? And so you get called a few names, it's not a big deal. Stop being so sensitive and take it in stride. Just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean you can sue the crap out of anyone
If this lawyer sings up for an account on Slashdot, he's gonna have a field day.
"You know Myra, some people might think you're cute. But me, I think you're one very large baked potato."
What if slashdot got sued (via class action lawsuit) for all the trolls?
Red Bull gave me wings and I flew into the ceiling fan.
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.
His real name is Steven Bosell.
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
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.
Till the name "Stephen Galton" is Google bombed with the word "shyster"?
.... we have to remove all the lawyer jokes from teh internet?
who gave us the world's first spam?
;-P
well then, we have divine justice/ karma, or that "first spam post! w00t!" newsgroup lawyer from the early 1990s should have his butt sued too
regardless, i really can't get worked up too much about this lawyer's horrible, horrible victimhood, since if the real world effect of newsgroup negativity is as potent as this lawyer might insist, then anyone who has ever been flamed or trolled on slashdot probably has grounds for legal action and or psychiatric counseling too
right
hey, found the wikipedia reference to the world's first spam
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Do people actually give their REAL info when signing up for an account?
-Valiss
I had a friend who would use Lynx to get on Linux newsgroups about 4 years ago and start hilarious flamewars by just typing stuff like "Linux is gay" ( even though he was using it)...man, did poeple ever FLIP OUT. We used to have hours of fun, that is until our Windows servers(companys choice, not ours) crashed again............
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.
"When you can't spell, you look like an idiot in front of us all. Go back to 3rd grad and try again."
Sorry, Mr. Coward, but "grade" has an E in it.
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.
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.
See the problem here is that this lawyer can file total bullshit suits like this with no fear of reprisal.
This waste the other party's time AND the government's time costing us all money.
What should happen here is that the first judge to see that paperwork should call him a "stupid crybaby" and fine him several thousand dollars.
It a shame we can't deal with baseless legal threats the same way we deal with threats of physical violence.
These types of threats really do hurt people, and the system should take that into account.
Unfortunately, it doesn't. This is why we have bullshit lawsuits about this like "one click" shopping and the fucking ALT key.
The end result is that both parties spend a bunch of money on litigation. We as taxpayers spend our money as well, and a couple lawyers who knew full well the suit was bullshit get rich.
It's bad for everyone but the fucking lawyers. FUCK LAWYERS.
Are you a "good" lawyer? Then do something about it! Purge the assholes from your ranks!
Do you think doctors would tolerate this type of behavior within THEIR ranks? You're supposed to be fricking professionals.
Life is too short to proofread.
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
Unmoderated message boards might be like airlines were in the 1950s. Pay your fare, get on, no hassle. Totally vulnerable to all sorts of mayhem that nobody happened to think of doing.
The mayhem we are vulnerable to on today's message boards isn't libel, it's litigation brought by people who can't excuse other people for acting and talking like humans. The result is that people are going to have to be hyper-careful about expressing anything negative, like employers being asked about former employees.
If this gentleman wins his suit(s), imagine how many people George Bush could sue for comparing him with Hitler. Or Courtney Love for calling her a skank? Everybody has the right to their own opinion, as long as they shut up about it.
I don't think anybody would be impressed by a "butload" of emails. Common usage suggests that a buttload is in between 3 and a dozen.
Clearly, impressive levels would be more in the "metric fuck ton" range.
God, I need sleep.
There's so little difference between politics and jihad lately...
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
His fscking HEAD would explode!!!
This is to inform you that you are facing a summary lawsuit for use of a "not-entirely-pointy not-very-sharp bladed object" to dispense your "mayo". Although we don't have any evidence that you actually used one of my patent-pending devices, my lawyers and I are making the assumption based on the fact that only a terrorist would use a spoon to dispence mayo. And you're not a terrorist, are you? ;)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
I think I know the reason that lawyers are so hated and often seem childish. It is because they try to follow the law to the letter but not to the spirit, and will often sue those that are following the law to the spirit but not the letter. And since our (Awerican) laws are supposedly based on the Bible, I would just like to point out that we are supposed to follow the spirit of the law, not the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6). Why going against the spirit of the law while following the letter seems childish is because that is what children tend to do. Only after growing up a little do people learn that laws are meant to be followed to the spirit; those who don't seem(are?) childish.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Why do people act like this says anything about the state of torts in this country? The case hasn't even been TRIED for godsakes. How is it an example of why we need tort reform? Is it because the man has equal access to the courts? Well gee, we should strip him of that too! Hasn't anyone stopped to consider that this man is trying his against a gigantic corporate entity? Even if he had a legitimate grievance (which I concede he does not), he would still be screwed. Cries of tort reform should be addressed at genuine abuses of the system, not this baloney (again, for which the proceedings have not even begun).
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
If I had a penny for every time I've been called a name on a message board, flamed in IRC, or warned on AOL Instant Messenger, I'd have no need to pursue this CIS degree I'm currently working on. Get over it man. There are some things in life you can't live with. For everything else, there's ignorance.
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.
"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?"!
Heh, heh...let's see /. get out of this one...
Reminds me of the guy in San Francisco who was interviewed on the street by a local TV station running a story on why people hate lawyers.
He said it was because lawyers were lying, cheating, back-stabbing, no-good, whatever, I don't remember the exact words.
They asked him what he did for a living.
He said, "I'm a lawyer."
A couple of weeks later, they did a follow-up story. It seems this guy was just out of law school and was looking for a job with a local law firm.
He got a ton of offers from local law firms after his ten second spot in the original interview.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
AFAIK (journalism class from long time ago) "public persons" have less right to privacy than "private" citizens. The reason being that public people have willingly put themselves in the "vortex of public debate" and thus the law recognizes that they'll get called all sorts of names. This is called the "vortex rule" IIRC.
:) If that fails somebody call the supreme court and say that such ruling will have a "chilling effect on the free flow of information".
Ironically, I wonder if in this case the guy could classify as public person for making such a ruckus...
The ENIAC Demo Competition
Slashdot claims it has a moderation system to prevent people abusing the discussions.
Not only are abusive posts about me not removed, they are consistently moderated up to "+5 Funny".
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
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....
Yeah right, Yahoo is so unsecure that people can use an alias to register an account with them. They can sign up for a Yahoo Mail address using bogus info and automatically get an Yahoo Account to use on message boards.
I wonder what names Yahoo will give that Lawyer?
Let's see, we have like 38 Bill Gates, 31 Steve Jobs, 26 William T. Kirks, 24 Bruce Waynes, etc. None of them are their real names. Or maybe you can track them by IP address? Yet what if they were using a library, or grade school, or high school, or college system? Get the IPs from Yahoo, track it to their ISP, and then subpeona the ISPs to see who holds the accounts. Stand in line next to the RIAA and MPAA who want the names of IP numbers behind file sharing accounts. Good luck!
On the other hand, if the Yahoo Member paid for anything on Yahoo, Yahoo then has their billing address, credit card, etc.
Watch what you say about the lawyer on Slashdot, he may subpeona Slashdot to get the details behind your accounts. See ya in court!
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.