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
I nominate this litigious asshole to be a Lawyer in Space... With no space suit.
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.
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?
The problem with lawyers is that 99% of them give the rest a bad name.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
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.
This is frankly bullshit. I'm an attorney in Pennsylvania. I am regulated by the disciplinary board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is elected (not appointed, elected), by the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If a person has a complaint about my conduct as a lawyer, it goes to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. When I make out my check to renew my license every year, it's to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Most states, at least in the eastern part of the US, are like this. Many states, including my neighboring state of New Jersey, post details of all ethics investigations of individual lawyers on their Disciplinary Board websites, whether the lawyer is found guilty or not. Incidentally, I've never seen a state do the same for doctors and malpractice complaints. Or engineers and structural failures. I had to pass an intensive background check before I was able to work in the profession I devoted three years of study to. How about you?
The ABA, Pennsylvania Bar Association, Philadelphia Bar Association, etc. are *private organizations* which collect dues. Many lawyers aren't members.
It never ceases to amaze me, as a former network consultant, how people who would scream and yell at the slightest sign of ignorance of a computer-related topic are perfectly willing to make the most outrageous statements about other people's livelihoods (which, let me assure you, require equally arduous study as CS) without the slightest bit of knowledge to back them up.
Some lawyers are crooks. Some doctors are incompetent bunglers. Some politicians are liars. And some slashdot users? Can't spell "frivolous..."
You'll regret knowing that we're using the Source Open Contents 'Verting System. This was reverse engineered from basic science and is compatible with all containering systems. To protect against usage patents, the system randomly chooses what tool to use to open the top, side, or bottom of the container. After the contents are spread, dropped, sprayed, or condensed on the sandwich the container is destroyed in multiple ways so as to make its opening method be in an unknown state. Any legal papers will vanish when they arrive in the legally undefinable area around each sandwich.