Slashdot Mirror
Jury Awards $11 Million for Internet Defamation
dptalia writes "A woman in Florida has been awarded $11.3 million dollars in a defamation case. Apparently the defendant was unhappy with the plaintiff's referral service and posted complaints all over the internet. In a chilling slap at free speech, the jury decided that not only was this illegal, but that it was worth over $11 million. The defendant can't pay the judgement — she can't even pay for an attorney. The plaintiff says she doesn't care, but sued for the principle of the thing."
Now both sides have lost. First the defendant who has to go into bankruptcy and the plaintiff who now because of the trial got national attention for being a litigious bastard. Who most people will be afraid to do work with because she will take any negative comments towards her and sue the pant off people. If she just sucked it up, explained her side on the net as well anyone the damage will be limited to a couple of Blogs which no one reads. But new with USA Today coverage now the rest of the US can hear about it. So in the end the only person who won is the lawyer. The Defendant can't afford to pay the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff needs to pay the lawyer.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
What's always been confusing to me is what needs to be true in publishing. Books have always seemed to be protected from people 'publishing whatever they want.' But the more I think about it, the more I realize that politicians usually have to put up with books containing allegations that aren't entirely provable. So, for the most part, I think that books are safe from large postings of defamation.
The same can be said about magazines & newspapers (usually) though--with the National Enquirer and tabloids--it certainly does have examples of blatant slander.
But anyone can say anything on the internet and get away with it--or so I thought. Considering what I read online, I'm certainly surprised there aren't more cases like this.
It seems the more volatile the medium is, the more 'free' you are to do whatever you want.
I haven't read the actual comments online that this woman posted but I would suggest that the defendant appeal to a higher court on the grounds of free speech and try to get her story out through the media. I mean, it looks like she's boned either way so she might as well appeal and represent herself if she has to. I'm pretty certain that this could be dismissed in a higher court. After all, it sounds like she was dissatisfied with the person's service so she is more than qualified to comment on the woman's business--unless she was telling explicit lies.
My work here is dung.
It's called libel. It's against the law and has never been protected speech.
Im sure all the publicity is going to do wonders for her service.
...can we borrow your 'FLORIDA' tag?
K thx!
xox,
Slashdot
I'm betting there's going to be a lot of very polite and respectful replies in this story's thread.
I (of course) have not read the posts, but if they were an attack on the person, then there may be a case. However, if the posts were a statement of poor business practices, then this case should be thrown overboard IMO.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages.
I know it sucks to have to get a lawyer and show up in court, but when a defendant doesn't even show up, it sends a message to a jury who doesn't know the back story. If she showed up and talked about her Katrina issues the ruling could have gone a different way. Most times when a defendant doesn't even show up for court, juries interperet that as guilt.
not to difficult to win a case when their is no defense or they don't even show in court. 11 mill ???
Last year I had some *major* trouble with my bank. I opened the account some months prior to this incident. I received a letter from the bank stating that they had not taken sufficient ID when I opened my account, and they would need me to go to the branch and give them some fresh ID. I went down there on my lunch break and gave them my drivers licence, and a letter written & signed by the guy I rented a room off together with a bill in his name saying I lived at that address.
They didn't accept my drivers licence (the only photo ID I had at the time) at all because the address was invalid. I'd only recently moved from the address I opened the account with, which was on the licence.
I could not satisfy the banks requirement for identifcation no matter how hard I tried, my employers were unable to provide anything either.
My account was frozen, a cheque bounced and they kept applying charges. Nice that they could deduct money from my account while I couldn't. That whole situation really screwed me up for a while, I had to get paid by cheque, open a new account change all my direct debits etc.
I wanted to create a campaign against that bank, but was advised against it by my colleagues & friends, because they would just take me to the cleaners for libel. And that was a bank, I'd have really been screwed hard!
Maybe 11.x some million is a little steep but you can't go out and slander someone. It would be different if the defendant went out and said she doesn't trust the person or like the person, that doesn't necessary deflamate the character.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Today's Lesson: If you can sue someone in your home state, who can't even afford a lawyer and is out of reach due to natural disaster, you too can win really big judgements!
Seems Ms. Sheff is no stranger to trashing others on web sites.
if you can't say something nice... sue.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The plaintiff's motive is:
But I guess people using the courts to destroy people they don't like is is just fine with her...
According to TFA the one woman wrote of another that she: ...posted messages on the Internet accusing [the plaintiff] of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." The Defendant did, in fact, make public written claims about the plaintiff's character, business, and fraudulent behavior that were either demonstratably untrue or (at least) unproven. Therefore, it is entirely proper that she be sued in civil court, and that, upon losing the civil suit, a financial penalty be awarded to the plaintiff.
Why is this so hard to understand? You do not have the right to defame others simply because you believe yourself to be anonymous on the Internet. Not only are you not anonymous, but the legal system can most assuredly find you and exact penalties for misbehavior. And, frankly, it's about time the legal system catch up and bust a few folks who have been abusing message boards for fraudulent purposes, irresponsible anonymous claims, or even just sick kicks.
So... IMO, good: The Defendant got what she deserved.
I'm curious.. What happened?
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
Damn this pisses me off.
Freedom of Speech is the right to speak freely. It is NOT the right to speak without repercussion. Every time you make a public statement, you are responsible for the content of that statement as well as the veracity of that content. The typical example of this is shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If there's no fire, then you can expect that your actions will have serious conseqences.
TFA is light on the actual details of this case. So it's difficult to judge who was really "right" and who was really "wrong". (Especially since the defendent wasn't able to defend herself.) However, you need to pay attention to the fact that the defendent DID find an open forum for her speech. She posted her opinions (apparently to the point of persecuting the plantiff) and was thus able to exercise her right to free speech. The fact that a court decided that this speech was libelous does nothing to impinge on those statements being fully accessable in a public forum.
When we talk about the lack of Free Speech, we mean that the statements can't be made in the first place. As in, the controlling entity (usually the government) can prevent dissenting opinions from being published in newspapers, books, or webpages. China even goes as far as to deny the right to blog, and filters out all incoming media for any speech they might find distateful.
Contrast that with a court case seeking to recover damages for statements made in public forums and accessible to millions. Presumably, those statements are still available. There is no "chill" here people. Move on.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
While loosed lawyers are much more powerful than chained ones, the chained ones are safer.
Even if the other side looses their lawyer, like the parent says - the lawyers are the only ones who win if they're loosed.
If you keep control of them, they won't be able to bite you, and you stand a chance of coming out ahead. It may even be possible to win even if the other side has loosed their lawyers.
Another good tip is to remember to spade or neuter your lawyer to help reduce the number of strays.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
There is no reason my free speech rights have to pay the price for society being so gullible. Let people slander to their heart's content and maybe society will learn a little skepticism.
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
Would someone explain to me why you can be sued over an opinion you write in a message board post?
People in the public eye don't get applied to the same standards as private citizens.
For all we know what Bock said could have been true, but since she didn't appear at the trial and had no attorney she lost the case.
However, if you were planning on spreading lies about the bank, you'd justifiably be smacked with a libel lawsuit. And I'm not sure how much damage an Internet campaign against a bank saying "These guys are jerks; if you're an idiot and don't update the address on your driver's license when you move, as required by state law, they're not going to accept it as valid ID" is going to do anyway.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
And next time be easy with the saffron, if I wanted this much saffron I'd just eat raw saffron.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Let's give this a try: Taco's a big fat poopiehead!
If someone criticizes me, I can now sue them for hurting my feelings? I didn't know our country was THIS fucked up. I mean, I knew that we are litigious and all, but this is simply disgusting, no other words can describe it.
From TFP: In a chilling slap at free speech,
Regardless of and without knowing this woman's "opinions", Free Speech doesn't include slander. If the plaintiff feels she was wronged or maligned, she has every right to pursue remedy.
Like it or not, the fact that the defendant was unable (or unwilling) to offer a defense is, well her problem (and speaks more to our legal system than her case) -- she could have kept her mouth shut or made her claims in a less defamatory fashion.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is MY galaxy...go find your OWN!
This sounds like another SLAPP lawsuit.
This can't be about individual cases. This has been going on long past long enough.
This is about taking collective and massive action to deal with it. This is a country full of supposed free speech lovers - let's see who stays silent and who talks about reforming these loopholes that let the wealthy, be they business, government entities, or religions (Scientology anyone?) use the courts to do an end run around human rights.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
The jury must have found that the plaintiff provided the services according to the contract with the defendant.
Must they have? We have presidents who get out of perjury trials by defining "sex" a specific way (which is, oddly, shared by the vast majority of the country, if you did not put your penis in her vagina, you "did not have sex with that woman"), prosecutors that throw the book at child porn viewers by redefining "creation" in ways incompatible with logic, but in the end the jury has to make the decision based on the instructions provided. If the plaintiff tells the jury that they must find the defendant liable if the defendant caused damage to the plaintiff without mentioning the whole "truth is a defense" thing, then thats what the jury decided.
Claiming that you did business with someone and that they ripped you off is not "expressing your opinion", it is deliberately trying to hurt someone's livelihood. Civil court is the proper place to defend oneself against that sort of attack. In the US, if you're telling the truth, you can certainly say it, but you may have to defend yourself in court.
Although the reward is certainly far in excess of any real damage that could have been done, the principle is sound. If you mouth off about someone, you had better make sure you can prove you're telling the truth and be prepared to do so in a court of law.
It could be worse. In many other countries (including my own) you can be successfully sued for defaming someone even if you can prove that what you said is the truth. Now that stifles free speech.
Seat-of-the-Pants Lawyering.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Exactly. The article submitter assumes that the defendant's negative reviews were truthful. We have to remember the defendant might have been lying, but if the defendant's reviews were truthful, then the defendant most definitely should have won.
We've definitely seen a number of cases over the last decade in which authors of truthful negative online reviews have lost in court to plaintiffs that were plainly guilty of all the accusations but just didn't like the negative attention. This could very well be another unethical ruling like that. It would be infuriating, but not very surprising.
As more bad laws and wrong rulings go against ethics, it just gets less surprising, which means it also gets more tolerated, which means it happens more. Vicious cycle.
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
"Judgment" not "judgEment".
Come on people...the defendant called the plaintiff a crook, a con artist, and a fraud. If youare going to complain about someone's service, you can give specific complaints. Give evidence to back it up. But you can't make unsubstantiated allegations, which the defendant did.
"Stunning slap against free speech?" It was more like the spanking of a name calling toddler.
You have good friends. While even if you won, it wouldn't have been worth the costs. Time is money, and even if you work for Burger King your free time is worth a lot. The banks lawyers can and would do anything to make sure that if your wasting their time, they are going to waste you financially.
You probably wouldn't have won though, because their was a federal law passed (patriot act?) requiring banks to have verified the identification for every account created. (I don't know if it was retro active or not..)
So as to be able to track "terrorist transactions."
What you should have done instead was originally claimed you're old address as current, and then filed a mail forward, or simply gone to DOL and had your ID updated.
I am sorry the system works that way. It really doesn't give you enough time, and it's easy to get distracted when you have so much going on, like moving, starting a new job, setting up your home network so you can play wow before you get your laundry machines working etc.... (o.k. so the last one was me 8')
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
The jury decided that this was slander/libel . . .The jury must have found that the plaintiff provided the services according to the contract with the defendant.
No, they didn't, because there was no trial. No evidence, no arguments, no nothing but a default ruling by the judge.
The jury was left with no task other than deciding the amount of the award and the only thing they had before them to consider was the complaint; which, for whatever reason, they chose to take at face value.
But a complaint is just that, a complaint. An unsubstantiated claim. It isn't evidence.
KFG
If you are sued and do not bother to show up for the trial, you should be amazed if you don't find yourself owing a large sum of money. This is not the first time I have heard of a plaintiff suing in a jurisdiction chosen to prevent the defendant from showing up. It is entirely possible that the plaintiff has an ethics problem and her treatment of the defendant would make the allegations of crook and fraud accurate. But the defendant did not provide any evidence to justify her allegations so the court had to find for the plaintiff. If you are ever sued for any reason, do whatever you can to defend yourself. If you cannot hire an attorney, look for one to take your case pro bono. Alternatively do research on your own and try to defend yourself. Do not be foolish enough to be quoted in the paper saying, "I don't feel like I can express my opinions. Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."
Just because it's free to post information on the intranet doesn't make it any different from any other publishing medium - were this a newspaper or television related case, I'm sure most /.'ers would agree that the law is clear; to publicly accuse someone of a crime, you'd better have a little thing called proof first. Print and television journalists know this. Nothing in the US Constitution/Bill of Rights guarantees anybody the right to make defamatory or libelous statements anywhere in public - when you speak of another, either be nice or have the goods to back up your statements.
As for Ms. Bock's assertion that "nobody heard my side of the case" - obviously not true, as it's plainly evident that some number of web-surfers did hear her case. If she wanted to have her case heard in court she should probably have considered showing up in court. I'm sure that the civil trial wasn't held in secret. Perhaps next time, Ms. Bock will deign to favor the court with her presence when she is being sued.
If 'dptalia' insists on posting this article with commentary that indicates he sympathizes with Ms. Bock, that's certainly a constitutionally protected right. ScuttleMonkey's lack of editorial judgement in permitting the article to be posted as is, while also constitutionally protected is nonetheless unimpressive (but not unexpected).
IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Here's a good rule of thumb: if something could get you in trouble doing it without the internet, doing it via the internet won't get you in less trouble.
The internet changes things in two ways in these matters.
Again, as he said, it is a civil matter. Someone must bring the issue to the courts (Buran vs. EvilSpammer) and that starts the process. The courts are not the starting point, the people are. That's the beauty of the system.
A while ago (as in several years ago) I went to Subway and got a sandwich there that was full of staples (due to the way that particular Subway franchise worked at that time -- it was basically like something out of Mad Max). Generally speaking, I left most of the sandwich, although I'm sure there are areas of my gut that are beautifully organized even now.
I wrote a little funny (and educational!) story about it, but I was advised not to post it anywhere because of the libel risk. I felt really guilty because I knew that other people were very likely finding their diet enriched with unwanted stationery.
Now, though, I don't feel so guilty. I feel kind of relieved.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
While it's true that slander/libel are not protected by the 1st Amendment, that's pretty irrelevant to what happened here. According to TFA, the defendant never showed up to offer a defense. The judge, without any other way to go, found a default judgment for the plaintiff. Only at this point was a jury called, and then only to determine damages. If you're a juror, and one attorney tells you, "In my long experience, this sort of pain and suffering (or whatever) is worth $11 million", and no one is there to tell you otherwise, there's a good chance you'll find $11 million in damages. Whether it actually was slander or libel doesn't matter. If there's no defense, the defense loses, regardless of the actual facts. Damned inactivist judges...
It turns out the defendant had her house flooded by Hurricane Katrina and had to leave... the legal notices that the plaintiff was required to send bounced back to the plaintiff and were never received. The defendant didn't show because she wasn't aware of when the trial was. Nor did she have enough money to hire a lawyer. So, odds are, had the case actually been defended, this thing would've either been thrown out or reached a defense verdict.
I'm just suprised that the judge didn't reduce the jury's damages... that said, because the defendant had no money for an attorney, it seems unlikely that this will be appealed (which it should be).
Someone's joking.. Florida does not have jurisdiction as the events happened in Losianna..it woudl be Losiannna courts that would have the case.. Is all law in Florida crooked?
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
n/t
you had me at #!
again prove "Weird Al"'s point...
Monstar L
In general, one cannot discharge intentional torts, such as defamation, in bankruptcy. Basically, the defendant can be garnished and collected against for the rest of her life. I assume she will never have any property titled to her again.
Juries often give outrageous awards way out of proportion to the offense committed, then the judge injects some sanity and reduces it to a more reasonable amount.
If the $11 million is the final figure accepted by the judge, the judge should be de-frocked. One woman, who isn't a well-known public figure, talking smack on the internet isn't going to do nearly as much as $11 million or even $1 million of damage.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Not saying it's a hard and fast rule but, generally, when someone says it isn't about the money... it's about the money. And it doesn't have to be money from the defendant. They could be just banking on the publicity.
I have a thing against overcompensation. Was her reputation currently worth 11M? I think if someone does that much damage - they shouldn't be sued, they should be in jail.
I think the punishment should fit the crime.
Have lawsuits made our country truly better? One of the most frequent lawsuit targets, healthcare, is barely accessible anymore and the costs keep mounting. Compare this to, say some European countries, and there can be a major difference in price and accessibility to the common man.
Long story short: A relative had a stomach operation here, 2 days in hospital with surgery cost $16,000 with insurance. They didn't do the stiches correctly and he started having internal bleeding during a business trip. Had to get the same surgery there redone, another 2 day stay in hospital. Even though his insurance wouldn't pay because the hospital wasn't American and therefore "they couldn't tell if the place met the high standards", the bill came to only $2400. For the same thing. This was in France. I am not talking about Puerto Rico here.
The way lawsuits are structure here, it is hardly doing anybody good. But don't expect the lawyers to change it either:/
Man, I seriously cannot believe this country anymore. Everyone sues everyone for everything. In this case the person sues someone and doesn't even CARE. Now the defendant who can't even afford a lawyer is fucked with an couple million dallar bill. And what did this woman do that is worth 11 million? You know I probably won't have a personal output of $11 million over my whole life. What is really worth taking the personal 'worth output' of a person in this way?
Day after day I'm seeing lawyers fuck this country up. People critisize the government for its inefficencies, but the thing which is truly starting to drag this country down is the inefficency of our legal system. Just about every task in this country requires some expensive lawyer to get anything accomplished. Why is it that people who are merely supposed to fascilitate the justice system getting so rich? Our country is taking massive ammounts of productivity and wealth and basically putting it to the torch every time another lawyer fee is extracted. Cases such as this are not only abserd because the punishment is out of wack with the crime, but because the system actively encourages people to pursue such suits.
I think it is a bit shady that the lawsuit basically defaulted to the plantiff since the defendant didn't "offer a defense", so who knows if the merits of the case were legit or not. So you tie up tax payers money (courts, judges, etc.) to bring a case where the defendant can't defend themselves to win an award they can not pay out of principle? Greeeeeat. What did this prove?
He fell victim to the PATRIOT Act.
It requires you give your home address to the bank and that it be verified by a major credit reporting agency.
If there's a conflict, your account gets frozen. By law. The bank has NO leeway.
I tell my employees to explain this in depth to customers whose accounts get frozen, so they know how the USAPATRIOT Act has violated their rights...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Has anyone else noticed that alot of suits like this ask for completely unreasonable amounts of money? There is no possible way that slandering someone on the internet cost 10.4 million dollars. This reminds of the RIAA suits in which they charge 150 dollars per song. We need to bring damages back to being what you lost. If you slander someone and they loose 50k because their clients drop them, you pay them the 50k plus legal expenses. Your emotional well being is not worth millions of dollars.
Anti-Spam Conviction Is Upheld: N.C. Man Flooded AOL Customers With Unsolicited E-Mail:
[...]
If I have two friends who buy XYZ hard drives, and they both tell me the XYZ drive sucks, I'm that much less likely to buy an XYZ drive, simply because the sum of my knowledge is slanted against them. It doesn't mean I take it as an absolute fact that XYZ drives suck, but I'll at least think twice about spending money on one. It's the concept of "preponderance of evidence", which is also the standard of proof in a case like this one -- if one side is not represented it pretty much means the other side wins automatically. (That also means this lady would have been better served to file her defense in writing than to simply make no defense at all. By failing to appear she implicitly concedes that the other side is 100% correct and there is nothing to defend.)
In a world of perfect and complete information flow, where everything that is said is known by or at least accessible to everyone instantly, there's no need for libel or slander laws, but that day is not yet.
-- Old Man Kensey
This is the end of our civil liberties, right to arm bears, freedom to download pirated software, and anything else we want to do!
Where else would you move? Everywhere else sucks. That's right, everywhere else! SUE ME!
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
Updating the address on your license is not necessarily required by state law. According to the information I have available to me, living in Indiana, I am not required to amend my driver's license with my updated address (I moved from an apartment to a house last year). I did follow my legal requirement to update my car's registration.
There may be facts regarding this case that support the contention that the Defendant could not get a fair hearing due to situations out of her control. If she is convinced of that, then she and her attorney should file an appeal.
defamation != free_speech. protected(free_speech) == true. protected(defamation) == false. do the math (or the abstract algebra or whatever.)
"Crude and slow, clansman. Your attack was no better than that of a clumsy child."
Curious what happened?
I moved out of that guys house a couple of months later, because he was a dickhead, continued to use my brand new bank account and forgot about it. About 3 months ago, I started getting letters from debt collectors sent to my work address. They got really heavy about it too with legal threats. The most ironic thing is that I do the same thing (credit management) for my job.
Why didn't I update my licence?
Mainly because it was only a provisional licence at the time, and I don't own a car. I live in the UK so there's no particular law saying you need to update your details unless you're actually using a car.
Working for Burger King
Time is money, and even if you work for Burger King your free time is worth a lot.
If I worked for Burger King, my free time would be very valuable indeed. To find a new job with, BK can't pay for my extravagant lifestyle. Rent, bills, food and crazy shit like that!
"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."
Sure you can express your opinions - you've already been sued for 11 million dollars, what else can anyone take from you?
And only one side of the story was told because YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP IN COURT!!!! If you don't show up, of course nobody will hear your side.
To anyone stating an opinion about libel - read the article, she lost the case because she didn't defend herself. It will bear no precedence for future cases because it was a default judgement.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
A person that exercises her right to free speech and states her opinions and experiances gets sued... She can't afford a lawyer to defend herself in this civil case so there was no point in showing up... The judgement against her was one in default of a defence. This woman may or may not have been guity of defamation but I think rather not. In order to defame someone in my opinion you have to be someone that others listen to; i.e. someone with some measure of authority. Sounds to me like this woman hardly has a pot to piss in, I can't hardly imagine her ruining a persons business.
Shame on the jury.
because you'd have to be brave in order to do anything in it, even post your thoughts and opinions on the Internet.
I just wasted your mod points! HA!
Free speech isn't absolute...
Defamatory Libel is a crime in Canada and most likely the USA as well.
So before we all jump the gun and say BUT ITS FREE SPEECHES!!!! keep in mind you CANNOT say anything you want without consequence...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
This seems to all have come out of a set of disputes over how to deal with troubled kids that led to them being placed in a school that is part of a group that has a long trail of allegations and convictions for child abuse.
Sue Scheff's site is here: http://www.helpyourteens.com/index.html
A google for "WWASP" and "PURE" "Sue Scheff" gives interesting information.
The original thread and allegations are here.
Members of that board don't have anything particularly nice to say about this event.
From TFA:
"Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked."
Bock is the Defendant and Scheff is the plaintiff. Bock basically was in Louisiana when Katrina hit and had to evacuate. When she got some of her lift back on track, it looks like she just say "awww fuck it, my life is turned upside-down, I can't deal with this" and simply let it go. Bock didn't even show up for the trial and had to let go of her lawyer!
If you make no effort to show up for a trial in order to present a defense, then you will lose by default. Scheff won essentially on a technicality, not the facts of the case. I took a prior landlord to court once and he lost because he didn't show up for trial. The Judge ruled in favor of him simply because he didn't show up, and didn't even bother to look at the facts of the case. You have to show up to defend yourself or you are in contempt of court. The reason why the judgement was so large was probably because that was the maximum Scheff asked for or could get, and with no one to defend the outcome, no one was there to defend the penalty either!
Here's more details from the article:
Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.
Basically we make a jump from Scheff providing services to help Bock to Bock becoming critical of Scheff, with no facts in between as to why. I can't blame the author of the article because she's not reporting on a violation of free speech, jus the facts of the case. I also can't judge if she was able to obtain why Bock was critical and what comments she made and where. Obviously the submitter of this article wanted to stir up he "Slander is not free speech" crowd, and succeeded in doing so, but you can't go that far unless you know more about what Bock said and what Scheff did to make Bock say those things.
Scheff won on a technicality due to natural disaster. Winning on a technicality is not news, except for USA today, which never has any decent articles. This is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen on slashdot. Maybe I should sue the editors and submitter for letting bullshit like this get on slashdot.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Not only that, she's a crook, coward, liar, and thief! Come sue me, you bitch!
Yours truly,
AC
"People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that." -- Unless they do so anonymously. The defendent's mistake was in allowing the slander to be traced back to her. Any web-savy individual would have used a throw-away identity. I say we use the power of the 'net to punish stupidity and ALL start anonymously criticizing Parents Universal Resource Experts. Let's see if Scheff is willing to pay court costs for several hundred judgements she will never collect...
This is even better than performing an operation on them to prevent them from reproducing! I think we should spade all lawyers immediately.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
The concept of "freedom of speech" you're putting forward would be virtually meaningless. If you are not prevented from saying something but then you are harmed afterward, this is still an infringement of freedom of speech. If you got thrown in jail for criticizing the government, that would still be a violation of your first amendment rights, no matter if they allowed you to make the criticism initially. Generally this is how censorship is largely accomplished. It has the same end effect as blocking speech in the first place, because fear causes people to self-censor. In fact, this is probably the most effective form of censorship, because you can instill fear in far more people than you could ever effectively censor directly. Contrary to your claim about China, the threat of retaliation after the fact has been a major part of censorship in China, the USSR, Nazi germany, and virtually every other totalitarian regime. So, the distinction you're making is simply not the correct one to make.
You may be correct that this is not a freedom of speech issue in this case, but not for the reason you seem to be saying. The point is that freedom of speech, as it is understood in the US, is freedom from the government taking actions against you as a result of (or to prevent) your speech. It does not prevent others from taking actions in reaction to your speech, as long as those actions are lawful. In this case, one could say that it's not the government taking action against someone but government courts acting as arbiter in a dispute between individuals. More to the point, however, most people would admit that the freedom of speech (as any other freedom) is not absolute. If your exercising that right causes direct, demonstrable harm to others then their right not to be harmed must be weighed against your right of free speech. We attempt to craft laws that restrict speech only when serious harm is being done and the restriction on meaningful speech is minimal. It can be argued that libel laws fit this bill.
All that being said, unless the bar is set very high for proving slander or libel cases and the damages are set small, then the mere threat of such cases may allow people (or corporations) with a lot of money to scare people into not speaking, whether their speech is actually libelous or not. Because of this, I think one can legitimately question whether such laws do more harm than good in the end.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
...Judge Judy got burned by a blog as a child...
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck." -George Carlin
As numerous people have noted, libel and slander are crimes. Calling someone a crook and suggesting that they criminaly defraud their customers is against the law. I suspect if your reputation (and consequently your client base) were damaged by someone's lies, you would seek reparations as well.
Apparently Mrs. Sheff gets paid to refer people to specific schools... and it has been alleged in the past that she does so under false pretenses. If this is true, Mrs. Sheff is indeed the liar, con artist and crook the defendent claims she is. If it's true, it isn't libel.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
Yet again we see American "Justice" sold off to the one with the money to pursue her personal obsessions. You can't pay, you lose. Period.
You can say "In my opinion she is a crook and con artisit", That is still protected speech. Because you can say that because its your opinion.
When I punch you, I am doing the damage. When I slander you, I do not necessarily do any damage. Other people hear me, but they can choose to believe it and take action or not. In other words, physical assault is an initiation of force. It is coercive in the strong sense of the word, and I voilate your rights if I do it. Slander is not an initiation of force against anyone; I do not compell any action whatsoever, and it is not coercive in the strong sense of the word. I do not violate your rights when I slander you. I am merely an ass.
It's almost impossible to be completely out of touch in this country - even the Amish have access to telephones (and know how to use them). Where was Ms. Bock that she couldn't even be bothered to contact the court to tell them her situation and reschedule her case?
From my limited interaction with stry cat, I can only assume he is a pedophile. His post is disappointing on many levels but his speech pattern indicted to me that he enjoy sex with little boys.
I am not an expert on this subject mind you, and all this is just my opinion (should have been apparent as I am posting it) but I suggest you all ignore him in the future?
Slander or not?
Even if she found out too late to appear in person, I've never heard of a court that won't let you appear in writing. Even a simple letter to the court explaining your side is better than just blowing the whole thing off.
To me this looks like the lady knew she was going to (and deserved to) lose, and tried to take an easy out when a hurricane forced her to relocate. She got hit with a bigger judgement than I would have expected, but I can't say I feel too much sympathy for her even so. The jury was probably punishing her for wasting their time as much as anything else.
-- Old Man Kensey
This was a civial case, not a criminal therefor there was no crime. In these cases theJury decides the punishment.
Gone!
Tell ya what - lemme be totally anonymous so that I can go out to someplace popular (YouTube? MySpace?) and post an article about how you're a cock-smoking, ass-sucking gay Nazi biker. Let's see how much you want to protect my anonymity then.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Suit yourself! Like I care about an anonimous idiot posting BS about me on random places on the web... and more importantly, like *other people* care.
Global warming is a cube.
Just askin'.
USA uses three times as much on health care as EU, but USA does not have a healtier population. Moreover, the poor in USA even pay more for the same services than the rich or those that have them covered through their employer. The US health system is in much need of reforms, and more public (i.e. not corporate) services should be established. And then we have the abonimation that is the US legal system that drives the insurances through the roof.
I'd rather club them.
Skeptical Limericks
Any idiot knows the first rule of online defamation is to post anonymously... oh CRAP!
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
That will be quite a challenge on your part, seeing as how you don't know who I am.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
And I wager you'd care when it started affecting your ability to earn a living or live your life free of unwarranted accusations.
You can't go around destroying someone's reputation when what you're saying is a lie. Mr. Chavez, the president of Venzuela, has publicly proclaimed that George W. Bush is the Devil. So should Mr. Bush sue Mr. Chavez for slander/libel, and will Mr. Chavez be able to prove in court that his statements were true?
So what bank was this? (perhaps you'd prefer to answer as AC)
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
The jury awarded that more because she wasted everyones fucking time, more than because of what the claim against her was, if I had been dragged in to rule how much to punsh a woman because she didnt show up to court I would have given them the full amount as well. Maybe in the future she will realize we have laws in this country.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
I think we should spade all lawyers immediately
Nah... I think we should club em instead
btw, I think you meant 'spay' (or neuter) them instead
Enjoy your hallucination, buddy. The reality is that what Bock did was wrong, an assertion which the court has confirmed. The fact that she got caught is a good thing.
"Maybe 11.x some million is a little steep but you can't go out and slander someone."
Well, the article was a little light on details. We have no idea...maybe she really was a "crook", a "con artist", and a "fraud". I don't know if the law takes any of this into account, but:
1. these are all rather vague descriptions. There's no detail like "she stole $x by promising she would do y, but she didn't". They are statements that to me leave things open to interpretation. You may call your car mechanic a "con artist" because you think he soaked you on car repairs...the listener generally knows that he's not guilty of a major crime; you're just unhappy with the service. Similarly, you can call a politician a "crook" and everyone knows it's pretty much metaphor.
2. the forum she posted on (as some random person on some small online forum) doesn't lend a lot of credence to her statements. E.g. I'd expect a respected CBS news anchor to have more responsibility for making a false statement than some unknown person.
3. the awarded damages should accurately reflect damages suffered. It's up to the plaintiff to demonstrate that some random comments on a forum had a quantifiable impact on business. Punitive damages should be awarded sparingly and with awareness of the defendant's means. Given the defendant's predicament, a few thousand dollars would be a significant deterrent. $11 million is ludicrous. This woman wouldn't do $11 million of business over her entire lifetime - at $500 a client, she'd have to help 22,000 clients. I doubt she can show that she lost 22,000 clients because of this posting. If the woman can't prove damages, the case should have been summarily dismissed (eg. even if all the plaintiff's claims are true, no damage was suffered should be cause for dismissal).
The whole idea of punitive damages is questionable. The idea behind the judicial system is to "make things right again", not to be a big stick with which to bludgeon people you don't like.
I'm also a bit confused...in one part of the article it says that she never got the paperwork. Can a case really go forward, if the defendant doesn't receive a summons? Did she really get the paperwork, just at a later time?
Why don't you go ahead and take that hypothesis out for a spin once, hmm?
Sorry, that's just a piss-poor excuse. If we were discussing a matter of days or even weeks, I could see how this could get dropped. Over the course of a year, I'm quite certain Ms. Bock was 1) aware of the situation and 2) had opportunities to contact the court.
mod me redundant, but I will NEVER install a program on my computer that will possably lead to child pornography getting on my computer. Give me an option to restrict what is on my hard drive, and then I will use FreeNet.
I know the philosophical argument for FreeNet, but in modern American politics that does not matter one wit. If you are found with child pornography on your computer you mine as well kill yourself because you will be a marked person for the rest of your life, and NEVER be able to make anything of your life.
I am sure there's a few more lawsuits here based on flames and other permathreads....
"Question everything, including this!" - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/
Seems like $11m is the going rate for a default libel ruling in an undefended case; almost the same as Spamhaus got stuck with by an Illinois court for "defaming" a spammer.
From the article, the point the Plantiff wanted to make is: "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that." Having worked in large companies for several years, I have seen the politicking and scheming that goes on with some people. I've yet to see a lawsuit against somebody for being a back-stabbing *ss. While I do agree it isn't exactly nice to inaccurately slander someone on the Internet, it seems like the Plantiff has a skewed view of life.
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
You are also, by the way, deemed to have been served if copies of the papers were sent by registered mail to your last known address, whether or not you ever sign for them. USPS posts a delivery attempt notice on your door, and the law assumes that you check your mail at regular intervals or at least come home now and again (often enough to get such a notice and sign for the letter before it's returned, at least). So the fact that the papers came back at this stage doesn't necessarily mean anything to the lawyers -- they probably just assumed it was another lame attempt to dodge service, because a year later is plenty of time to have filed a forwarding address and informed the court of your new temporary residence, at which point I expect they would say "and by the way, your trial date has been scheduled, it is..."
You can make a defense to either of these cases by showing that the other party knew or reasonably should have known that the address they served you at is not your current address, so the burden goes both ways.
In this case we have someone who knew there was an ongoing legal proceeding against her and just dropped out of sight in the middle of it. That's never a defense to presumption of service.
-- Old Man Kensey
... you can use lawyers. From the linked story (emphasis added):
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"
...
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
That's the part I find appalling. Given that the defendant did not appear in court (either because the summons was not delivered, or she couldn't afford it after having house destroyed by flood, or whatever), I find it pretty unlikely "fairness" (or lack thereof) of the comments could have been established. Even if she used the words "fraud" and "con artist", doesn't necessarily mean its libel. You can say that about someone if its true, but you have to be able to back it up. And we have know way of knowing, since defendant was unable to tell her side in court, and is unlikely to do so in the future
Whether or not the original accusations were true, IMO instead of salvaging her reputation by seeking this judgment, she has destroyed it. I personally would not want to seek help from someone who has been known to sue her dissatisfied customers into oblivion. I hope it was worth it.
How many people are going to push the envelope if they know they may end up having a million dollar judgement dropped on them? Shoot, I'm wondering if I rate someone badly on ebay if I'll get sued!
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
Damages are the issue here. I know I've hit the backspace a few times to back off what I was really going to say.
Free speech is great, but when it causes financially damaging results to another person or business, that is grounds for litigation in any society. It's a crime. And should be punished.
I think people forget about these rules when they sitdown at the keyboard to blog or post about their experiences with certain businesses, or persons. It's a judgement call. "Is what I am writing here going to cause damages (financially especailly) to the entity I'm writing this about?" And if it will, at least explain your experiences in full detail, and do it in a place where the other party can respond to your claims.
Bombthrowing bloggers and forums are a big problem.
Think twice before you press the "Submit" button.
... by doing the dishonorable thing and robbing the defendant of her entire livelihood. As pointed out by a few posters here, it's not like a single person ever gets deep penetration on the Internet; and the public perception if this story gets wide enough dispersal will likely be, "Wow, Sue Scheff is a crazy, suit-happy bitch." She said she didn't care about the money, she did it on "principle;" apparently the principle here is, "You pissed me off to a point that's not worth $11m; but I want to see you bleed so I'm going to destroy your whole financial future anyway."
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I don't like you. There. Sue me*. *By reading this comment, you waive all lawsuit rights on its expressed or implied meanings.
For sale: Parachute. Used once. Never opened. Small stain.
So to equate it to the current case...
You got screwed.
If you had complained they could have sued you in another bloody state than the one you lived in or made the comments from, sent notice they were suing you to the OLD address on file, and then gotten a monstrous judgement against you since you didn't appear in court.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
that's great. yet another jury awarding a ridiculous amount for something that doesn't matter. so she gets called a crook on the internet. so what? anyone who knows anything about the internet knows it's where people go to vent, bitch, moan and piss away their frustrations for which they have no other outlet.
.... seriously?
... and that's true. one lady felt cheated ... now she's even more cheated for expressing her feelings. the other lady didn't win any money but successfully ruined her own reputation on a national scale because now she's in the news. she took a pointless case to court, to stroke her own ego and make her feel like she's a good person. because everyone knows that if the court tells you you're something it must be true *cough*OJ Simpson
... ooh or maybe i shouldn't say that ... she might sue me too
one person posting on i don't care how many forums would not ruin someones reputation. furthermore who's reputation is worth $11.3 million
one poster above said both people lose
yet another inane abuse of our court systems and a general waste of time. thanks very much to this lady for being a general drain on society
-asleep
The right of free speech does not grant you a right to slander, defame or libel someone. When you call another person a "crook", you are expected to have reasons to back it up. In this case, the person sued actually performed, and still was defamed. All the defendent had to do to be on the right side of the line was to clearly state the facts and her reasons for being dissatisfied. The amount awarded is astonishing, but SOME amount was justified.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I am very surprised that some free speech or Internet advocacy group isn't stepping up to offer her free legal help. One would think that if this was truly a miscarriage of justice, somebody would volunteer to help this woman fight it.
"In a chilling slap at free speech"
It is no such thing, rather it is bringing the Internet in line with the real world.
If she (the defendant) had said the plaintiff "sucked" or "was not very good" aka opinions there would have been no case to answer but instead she leveled pretty serious accusations ("crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud.") against the plaintiff, accusations aired on websites selected to maximize damage to the plaintiffs business
If anyone had printed, or even said such things off the Internet they would be opening themselves legal suits, legal suits they would lose if they had no evidence to back up their claims
I especially love the last bit in the article
"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."
Well duh, ok she could not afford a lawyer but nothing was stopping her from representing herself, she choose not to exercise that right so trial went on without her, did she expect otherwise? (*imagines a world where murderers, rapist and such walk free because they refuse to defend themselves*)
Only thing out of wack with this case was the amount awarded, but as the defendant had no money jury probably felt what the heck might as well award a OTT amount because either was the plaintiff is getting getting nothing
I had trouble with Bank of America - and I have no compunction about spreading the truth. This was well before any Patriot Act excuses came around. My grandma sent me a check to buy a car. I deposited it in the ATM. They pulled the money out of her account and did not deposit it in my account. Then they froze my account. I spent my entire work week on the phone arguing with the bank until eventually I reached a vice president that unfroze my account. My favorite part was when they told me that after 60 days they would send me a check for whatever amount THEY THOUGHT they owed me. This was all because they had the wrong name on my account - using my middle name for my last name - even though my last name was on my checks.
The same branch did a similar thing to my roommate when she deposited a check from her mother - pulling the money out of her mother's account, but not depositing it in hers. That caused her mortgage to bounce.
In both situations, we ended up getting our money - but we both went through a huge headache to get it, and I was treated like a criminal during the process.
So I hate bank of america. A lot of people do, with good reason. Sue me.
Was her reputation currently worth 11M?
The damage done was not worth $11m, clearly. The plaintiff "doesn't care about the money" and did it "for the principle of the thing." This emphasizes the point that the damages were pretty much nil-- and the normal thing to do here (this has been done) is to have the judge point at the defendant and say, "BAD! NO DONUT!" and be done with it.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
People here are saying that free speech is not freedom to libel... which may be true, but we don't even know if this was libel... the accusations could be completely true! One affect this will have is that it will stop people from voicing negative opinions on the internet in fear of getting sued. Is this a slap to free speech? I think so.
Meh.
I <3 dead lawyers.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
What if I make a comment about you that's simply absurd with the purpose of being humorous.
Can I still post those things?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
You seem to have missed that part.
No I didn't. That's the cause of a default judgement. I didn't even address that particular issue because it wasn't relevant to the point.
No matter if she was right or not, she gave the middle finger to the judicial system and they broke it off for her.
She was in disaster survivor housing in Texas when the summons was returned from her effectively nonexistant house in Louisiana. The case was heard in Florida. She had already spent what little money she had attempting to answer the claim. Even if she had known the trial date she had no means to travel to Florida to answer the complaint, let alone the means to do so effectively.
She did not "give her finger" to the judicial system, she didn't have the power to do so.
Was the default judgement legally sound? Under the circumstances, given the knowledge available to the judge, yes. He really had no option.
Did the jury find the defendent guilty of libel, the issue to which I responded? No, they did not. Nobody did.
She was found liable by default. There was no opinion on the validity of the claim.
KFG
I can now sue (and win) anyone on /. that mods me down as "irrelevant" "flamebait" "redundant" or "troll"?
Or what about all of those other forums where trolls run rampant and and call me various insulting names just to raise hell?
If ever there was a get rich scheme that actually works, I think it's the American judicial system.
From TFA: "'I don't feel like I can express my opinions,' Bock says. 'Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side.'"
That's because you didn't show up.
I caught the Mountain Wumpus! He gave me his treasure chest ($100) to let him go free again.
This isn't a free speech case people. It is about protecting other people's characters. It has always been illegal to say false statements about someone to others. This case now extends that law to the internet.
\
Now, I don't know the specifics of what she said, but it's fair to say that anything that someone says without factual backing is a person's opinion. Saying "I think" in front of something that she thinks is redundant.
In a writing class, you should get a ruler-slap (the metaphorical kind, rather than the older, now illegal, kind) on the wrist for adding "I think" to that which you, by virtue of writing, think. The tone of your writing should be appropriate for the context, which, if it were on an internet forum, doesn't bear much factual weight. Funny that the legal system could put a pressure towards more explicit qualification upon the language as a whole when used for public communication. It won't overcome the tide of AIM-chatting middle-schoolers and their reduction of the English language into a series of ones and exclamation points, but it's interesting, regardless.
I don't know if it's good...
Wow. That was interesting reading. I've now had my helping of emotional turmoil for the year.
Let's recap. Parents who can't control their kids send them to camps/schools where they fear their children are abused. The parents are very upset about this perceived abuse.
You'll have to excuse me now, I have to go have a vasectomy. AGAIN!!!!
Im not sure how I feel about jumping on the 'lets bash lawyers cause they are ruining America' bandwagon. Lets remember that lawyers are in abundance because of the demand. If America (yes, im American, so dont go off on a euro vs us tangent) wasnt so damn messed up, we wouldnt have as many law firms as gas stations.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
It is astonishing that anybody could think that the centuries of libel laws are irrelavant. It is simply not permissible to libel or slander someone out of spite. People think that just because of the volume of communications on the Internet that everything ought to be free because, hey, it's not as if all of a person's customers are going to read a few blog comments about a specific person. Unless they use Google.
It is one thing to state an opinion that you THINK someone is incompetent or that the services she rendered were poor, or even that you wouldn't recommend that anybody engage with this person. However, calling someone a con-artist, criminal, or thief crosses a line.
I mean, if I felt that Tim Spengler ripped me off when he supposedly "refinished" my floors, I couldn't go out and say to everone "Tim Spengler is a bloody thief! He stole my money and swindled my through his con!" A more appropriate reaction would be to follow whatever legal recourse there was and word any comments appropriately, like "I feel as though Tim Spengler ripped me off. He promised, in writing, that the job would be done in 3 days, did not show up on time, did not complete work on the last day, and has left me with floors that are only half finished. Before you hire this man, I would strongly recommend that you check his references, because he certainly was no good for me."
Do you see the difference.
My apologies to any real Tim Spenglers, I just grabbed htat name out of a hat. Except for you, Tim Spengler!
Poor plaintiff. Being too stupid to make his own decisions, he was duped by evil lawyers to sue someone for more than he could possibly ever have hoped to get. He didn't know that he had to pay the legal fees if he won. Until we live in a society where non-lawyers are capable of making decisions, we need must some limits on litigation.
Except they weren't "random places", it was places where people who would use the services of the plaintiff were known to visit. Sure, I wouldn't care if somebody wandered somewhere around London or Paris carrying a sign saying I was a jerk, but it'd be different if they paraded in front of the office where I work, or in front of my home.
Just junk food for thought...
Yeah, free speech allows for expression of opinions but if you make up assertions/facts that are false that is not protected (and should not be). It's okay to write/say that "so and so is a jerk" but you are not allowed to say "so and so is a criminal" unless they have been actually convicted of a crime.
It seems to me the problem is calling someone a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." is the problem.
If it had simply been a reasoned explaination of why the services didn't work out in that particular case, or why she was unhappy, them's facts, and not libel.
I have left "negative" feedback on Amazon and eBay, that is legally definsible; E.g. "Seller delivered DVD set meant for the Chinese market. Trouble with playback on some players and has inferior packaging". I didn't leave feedback saying "Seller is a crook and a fraud!".
I think my feedback is more useful than the later example.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Loose lips lose elasticity
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
The defendant could've showed up. Looks to me like justice won the day.
I was recently threatened with a law suit from a fairly large company because of an unfavorable review I posted on my website. I received a letter promising a similar lawsuit if I did not take the review down. I complied and replaced the review with an article lamenting the loss of Free Speech. I received another letter stating that that would not do and I must remove the entire comment.
This is the resulting page: http://blog.emptycrate.com/teamnational
I will shortly make it my personal goal (probably after the current US election cycle) to get anti-SLAPP law(s) passed in Colorado so that others do not have to deal with this same nonsense.
I Do C++
Perhaps our newly neutered laywers could use a pair of Neuticles?
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/15/17172
The article stated that she knew the trial date was approaching so she was at least somewhat aware of when she was to appear. As for Katrina, that's a tired, worn-out excuse. A first-class postage stamp costs $0.37 now. She could have found that in soda machines and in the gutter with ease. Writing the court stating her case might not have won the day but she would have at least "appeared" in court and given the judge and later jury something to consider. At the very least she could have petitioned the court for a postponement given her circumstances. I very much doubt the judge would have disagreed, especially in Florida given our hurricane history of late. She did neither of these things, she chose to just blow it off, which was disrespectful to the court, the judge and the jury of poor slobs who were missing work/life to be there.
Oh god, here we go again. A) how do you know the lawyer won anything? If the plaintiff's attorney was working on contingency they don't get a damn thing. B) Do you have any evidence that the defendant now has to go into bankruptcy? People have judgments against them all the time that they can't afford to pay, if they don't have the assets then generally the plaintiff won't go after them, because then they WILL have to go into bankruptcy and the plaintiff will not only not collect but will have to go to the extra expense of seeking an attachment of assets. C) This woman didn't defend herself, which was foolish. If someone's suing you you make it a point of finding out the details; if only one side is willing to come to court, guess who's going to win? D) I work in the legal field in south Florida; Broward county has a perfectly good legal aid service who exists precisely for these types of situations, she should have gone to them. She can even go to them now and they might help her with the appeal. Hell, if she had showed up in court she could have defended herself, judges are obligated to cut pro se litigants a lot of slack because they don't have legal training, but they're supposed to be neutral arbiters so they can't just take over one side's duties. E) Lawyers generally do what their clients tell them; I guarantee you the lawyer didn't see this woman's online postings and run to the plaintiff and offer his services; the plaintiff undoubtedly came to the lawyer instead. F) If someone is libeling you online and adversely affecting your business, what is your recourse going to be if not the legal system? Maybe, just maybe, the judgment was fair. What, exactly, is your problem SPECIFICALLY with the whole process? That the lawyer got paid for doing their job? The implication seems to be that there was a moral lapse on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer; what was it? The only person who I think didn't act properly was defendant's lawyer, but lawyers can't abandon their clients mid-litigation without permission from the judge and a show of cause, so even in that case they might have had a legitimate reason to be released.
The defendent wasn't even at the trial. The jury listened to whatever the plaintiff said and made a decision. The defendent didn't even get a chance to put her 2 cents in. She had to leave home because of Hurrican Katrina, but that didn't stop the plaintiff. So who's to say if the plaintiff was actaully slandered or not.
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
A good start
What's the difference between a dead dog and a dead lawyer in the street?
There are skid marks in front of the dog.
0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
I had a situation with a national tire shop, I will not state which one.
When emailing their customer service center I CC'd my address book (all 600+ of them)
The next morning I received a call from the tire shop attempting to solve the issue.
I again emailed them and CC'd my address book with my response to their offer.
They then emailed me back with an acceptable offer.
I got my point across to them about how unhappy I was and at the same time I told 600+ people.
Now I got what I expected as service from them and 600+ people knew of the issue, and its outcome.
There was never any question of Liable as I was talking directly to them and just had 600+ people listening to the conversation.
FYI - The end result was an offer for a free alignment and the tires at cost (saved me $300 on my Dually).
--
Power to the people does not mean that the people have the power; it means we get to choose who has the power
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
The DVLA website says:
"There are duties and obligations you must meet before driving or keeping a vehicle on the road. You must also tell the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) of any changes to your personal or vehicle details."
So if you change address, you must advise the DVLA if you hold a licence.
Sucks that nasty things happened, but you really should have changed the address on your licence else not relied on it as a form of ID.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Ms. Cobb referring to Ms. Scheff - "She is trying to maintain control over people and what they say and what they hear! I beleive that is wrong.". Apparently Ms. Scheff was successful.
Now, either Bock is a frickin' brilliant and world-class defamer, or this Scheff woman is really a scuzz-bucket. It *appears* that she's fraudulently profiting from parents who are afraid that their children are being abused. Obviously the truth can not be established from snippets from various online resources, so I certainly hope that some law enforcement or other governing body takes a good long look at what Ms. Scheff is doing. IF this is the case, I would love it if this whole thing backfired on her.
Of course this perception may be completely wrong and truly indicative of why Ms. Scheff felt compelled to press this suit, but I'm getting a 'spammer suing spamhaus' vibe from all this..
There is no proof that Hamilton County, OH prosecutor Scott Blauvelt, 35, who was arrested on Monday on two indecency charges stemming from alledged video survailance of his naked body after hours in a government building, was actually *not* released from jail pending a hearing a hearing in the court where he normally works.
ROR!
/me erases every post ever made about anyone that had a story on the /.
So someone should not be able to sue for defamation? Obviously the jury thought enough of the evidence to award judgement to the plaintiff. Free speech does not mean that you can say anything about anyone. And if anyone that replied actually read the article referred to please note that the defendant did not bother to show for trial. You can argue the amount is excessive, but if she decides to actually take action this time she can always appeal.
Playing the "poor katrina refugee" card is sad.
Another $11m default judgement, another issue of questionable jurisdiction. The plaintiff lives in Florida and sued in the Florida court system. The defendant has resided in Louisiana and Texas, and was unable to afford a lawyer. Will the plaintiff be able to enforce the judgement in Louisiana or Texas? As I understand it, if she tries the defendant will have the right to argue (in the courts where she lives) that the case never should have been tried in Florida for lack of personal jurisdiction and prevent the judgement from being enforced.
None of which has any bearing on whether or not she actually libeled the plaintiff, the only issue to which I responded in my original post.
But if those damned poor people weren't guilty they wouldn't be poor, now would they? There's actually a slang legal term for people in her position. That term is "judgement proof."
If they don't have the means to respond, they don't have the means to pay either.
Plaintif claims a "moral" victory, but there has been no finding that she was libeled. She has only been found to have more available resources to spread around her home court against a visiting team; who doesn't have money to put gas in the bus. A default "moral" victory.
And for puroposes of bias I will point out that I am inclined to favor the work done by the plainiff. Anyone who reads my posts on some sort of regular basis will know that children's rights are one of my "issues" and I am not keen on the current in loco parentis powers of the state.
Anyone who takes a stand for the rights of children in their own right is going to draw some pretty heavy fire; as I have in this very forum.
I am socially unacceptable to many people because of my views. I can live with that. If, however, I choose to view your responses to me as libelous and sued you here in the NY court system that would make me an asshole, something I try, admitedly not always successfually, to avoid.
If you chose not to abandon your life in Florida to spend weeks, perhaps years, of crippling legal expenses here in NY, that is what I would expect, and claiming a "moral" victory against you would just make me a fucking asshole.
KFG
You can sue anybody for anything. If you can get a name and address, you can sue somebody who sits at the next table in a restaurant for ruining your meal with their rancid farts. You can sue me for sunning in my front yard and making the neighborhood ugly.
But in order to win you need three things - a legal principle, evidence of some kind of loss, and a preponderance of evidence to support your claims.
A fellow pilot at my local airport is a judge in town who handles a lot of small claim cases. He has had cases where a person was sued for treating the plaintiff unfairly, not being friendly enough, and plenty of other stupid reasons. If you file a lawsuit without a real basis, not only will you show yourself to be an idiot but you run the risk of a countersuit for misuse of process.
Put "I Think" before she said all those things and then it becomes her opinion and she would have never lost the case.
this is the stupidest thing i've ever heard! bottom line is that truth is an acceptable defense and if what this person said on the internet message board is true she would be a total moron to file for bankruptcy b/c she could simply appeal and get the case thrown out. some people are just stupid and that goes for the plaintiff and the defendent.... THEY ARE STUPID i hope they try and sue me for saying that!
So basically you have such a low self-esteem and such a frail image in front of your peers that a loony parading with a sign is enough to make you run crying to Granny Gov't? Holy crap people like you make me sick.
Oops did I just make you cry? I'm sorry. NOT.
Global warming is a cube.
Just another example of the legal system overstepping its bounds to reinforce the notion that if you don't have a lawyer you're screwed. Lawyers taking care of lawyers. According to International Survivors Action Committee's (ISAC) website, Sue Scheff's organization P.U.R.E has had numeruous complaints by the parents of children she referred to a particular home/school (Whitmore Academy) for troubled teens. It sounds as if the parents have a beef as the school in question is under investigation for child abuse. I only hope the ACLU gets involved somehow because if this judgement stands it sets a very dangerous precedent. Especially in light of the fact that the defendant may have had every reason to disparage Ms. Scheff and her organization.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
This is no different than if Ms. Bock had stood in the town square crying out that Ms. Scheff was a fraud/conman/thief. She would still have to be held accountable for what she says in public (and posting information on the internet is public speech). Here, let's do an experiment . . .
You give me your full name, city and state of residence, your employer's name and your title and responsibilities for that employer. Then give me immunity from prosecution for anything I publicly say about you or your employer. Then wait.
What? You mean you aren't a muslim terrorist come to destroy our way of life? Mea culpa - I'll think about removing that post later (when threatened with a lawsuit, of course).
Can I murder the woman who sued for the principle of the thing?
You will need a pretty long chain if you plan to use lawyers to combat the Borg in space.
The Judge ruled in favor of him simply because he didn't show up
I think the readers got the point, but to clarify, the Judge ruled in favor of ME because he didn't show up.
Proofreading is our friend. Thanks for pointing that out.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
What kind of idiots think you should be able to go out and fuck up someone else's life with your stupid mouth? I RTFA, and the defendant was fighting with her ex about the "behavioral problems" of their boys, and the ex had put them in a boarding school in Costa Rica. The Florida woman put her in touch with someone who got her kids back. What's to bitch about? Psycho parents are a good cause for 'behavioral problems'. In TFA the defendant claimed "no one got to hear my side". Bull fucking shit. You STARTED it by posting your side all over websites this woman uses to do her job, you moron.
Let's say I help a neighbor out in some sense or other, but they freak out and start putting up posters that I'm a child molester on all the phone poles in the neighborhood. Is that fine with you idiots? Your right to free speech ends where it wrongly harms others.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Though I don't agree with all or even most of Murray Rothbard's philosophy, I believe this quote has merit.
"Reputation is strictly a function of the subjective opinions of other minds, and they have the absolute right to their own opinions whatever they may be. Hence, outlawing defamation is itself a gross invasion of the defamer's right of freedom of speech, which is a subset of his property right in his own person." -Murray Rothbard
The defended never showed up; nay, could not show up for court.
You know what happens when one party doesn't show up? Either the case is dismissed, or they lose.
This isn't some landmark sensational case that proves you can't libel someone on the internet, only that under certain circumstances you can work the system into doing almost anything for you. Something we already knew.
This statement from the defendant sums it up: "I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."
She lost because she wasn't even there.
Secondly, no one, not even the plaintiff actually expects her to pay. The article even says the plaintiff knows the defendant doesn't even have $1M, let alone $11M.
This story is nothing more than a series of vindictive acts by both sides. It reminds me of that video where two women in a parking lot bang their doors into each others' cars, then it escalates to totalling both vehicles through a series of deliberate acts (not real events).
Question everything
Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
Yeah, that is what the court system is for so back off internet.
because she was unable to show up in court.
During the case, she lost everything to katrina.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Mainly because it was only a provisional licence at the time,
Curious that this didn't cause a problem itself. When I was learning to drive, I was surprised that passing the driving test was considered so important for opening a bank account...
Afraid? Sorry - we didn't mean to scare widdle you.
If we've dispensed with the "self-esteem" insults, perhaps we can ask the big question - can Ms. Bock say whatever she wishes about Ms. Scheff, regardless of the truth or falsehood of those statements without being held accountable? Holy crap people like you are why the courts are clogged with idiotic cases like this.
Oops did I just make you think? I'm sorry ('cuz the answer to that question is 'NOT')!
I would love to believe "Only when we can tie the feedback to a real person who someone out there can verify was a legitimate customer does the feedback have any value".
But the sad truth is that most people will believe anything written, and bad news seems to travel fast and farther than good news.
Gosh, I only wish that what you said was true.
Onepoint
if you see me, smile and say hello.
so i = 2 dead lawyers?
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Okay, to follow up on your hard drive example, lets say that you hear from some random person on the internet that XYZ hard drives are made from the souls of orphans, not unlike this case, except in this hypothetical example it's definitely false. The orphan-soul theory is, however, the preponderance of evidence that has been presented to you. Which is the better outcome:
:P
1)XYZ sues the random person on the internet; (you might believe it or not, doesn't matter)
2)You use your critical thinking skills to judge for yourself whether you believe the internets or not.
You're right, in some ways: to many people, the first impression they have of a company or person will stay with them a long time, even if it's from a known unreliable source. Wouldn't it, however, be better to let society do the critical thinking and decide for themselves if they're going to believe everything they hear? Plus, that way, you don't get into messy free speech issues when slander is used as excuse for suppressing opposing speech.
I just don't get why the government can't leave well enough alone and let the people figure out for themselves that not everything they hear is true. But, then, maybe people would believing everything said by the government, and we couldn't have that
groupthink: It's good for self-esteem.
RTFA; she posted on community websites where the plaintiff contacts her customers. This isn't 'random' places on the internet, it's like she bought a billboard outside a store saying the store is a ripoff joint because she bought what she wanted but didn't like it when she got it home.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
the "right to scam" state.
this is the home of insurance scammers and low wages and immigrants galore!
They're using their grammar skills there.
Wow, way to go. The only informative post on this whole thread. You are the reason why Slashdot exists. Now why USAToday couldn't get this aspect of the story...?
I'm sure Katrina and its effects are even now still winding their way down, how does this constitute an excuse to ignore (and she did ignore) an active court proceeding? Something like this must've been the one and only possible thing on Ms. Bock's mind for that whole year, right? She decided to ignore the common rules by which we preserve our civilization and our society and you think she's being abused? Because the person she slandered decided to spend money she'll never recover to recieve vindication from the courts? That's just ridiculous.
I am not entirely familiar with the case but lets just say that it was no ordinary boarding school but a gulag prison for teens whose parents are desperate and get tricked into sending their kids to these places. There is a lot more to this story but defamation lawsuits are usually a way these cult programs deal with criticism. Check out the fornits.com forums for more info. They talk about Sue Scheff a lot there. I am not sure what the full story is but its something along the lines of how these gulags pay large referal fees to "educational consultants" to recruit for their programs. They charge hundreds of dollars a day to basically warehouse and abuse kids.
Dear so-called internet journalists. You won. Blogs are now indeed a form of publication. Now, you may be sued over defamatory, just like any newspaper. Enjoy, and no, you can't have it both ways.
While loosed lawyers are much more powerful than chained ones, the chained ones are safer.
Holy crap, someone used the word "loose" properly!
You're so emo.. ;)
Now she'll write a book, join Michael Moore's crusade against the freedoms of this country!
I'll say it right now, she's a crook!
The plaintiff summed it up best. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
The courts have already dealt with that in the advertising world, in which they've consistently held that statements so outlandish no reasonable person could believe them are not false advertising. I would presume some similar standard exists for slander/libel, and if it doesn't, I think it would be a good thing if it did.
Wouldn't it, however, be better to let society do the critical thinking and decide for themselves if they're going to believe everything they hear?
In some ways the law is trying to deal with the fact that people are imperfect creatures. For example there was the case of a guy with a serious cognitive deficiency who ended up owing a dealership for some absurd number of new cars. His family sued on the grounds that the dealership knowingly took advantage of his memory impairment (he would literally forget he had bought a new car within a day or two). As I recall they won.
You could think of it as taking unfair advantage of the terrain -- if you know where a gopher hole is on a football field, and you play in such a way as to try to maneuver the opposing team's star receiver into stepping in the hole and breaking his ankle, you're not really playing fair, are you? Libel/slander law is just trying to keep people from taking unfair advantage of this particular hole in the perfection of the field.
-- Old Man Kensey
How long before we get the rest of the full set of Fark tags?
Judges are lawyers, politicians are lawyers. The entire power structure of the USA is a big Lawyeracracy.
In the USA, the worst you can do by filing lawsuits is to break even. So scam artists file often. Once somebody files a lawsuit against you: you have already lost, no matter how the case turns out.
Big money files bogus suits to shut up those who dare speak against them; or to inconvience competitors. Sexual harassment lawsuits have become largly a cash-grab scam. It goes on and on.
Talk about having those who file scam suits having to pay, and the association of trial lawyers goes balistic. Why do you suspose that is?
Why do you suspose the USA is by far the most litigous nation on earth? Why does the USA have about 10X as many lawyers per capita as other nations?
Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., is a crook, a con-artist, and a fraud. And she has a pun for a name.
It's a start....
ALWAYS the women, ALWAYS the endless, pointless, HARMFUL bickering.
2 craving hussies have perfectly set a precedent case for much stupor to happen around the net - now you wont be able to talk your mind out anymore - some bitch might sue you because she doesnt like what you said
Its another step backwards for the US legal system. The lawyers and their "cut of the winnings" style of payment is disabling the United States. I read a case once where someone tried to help someone, and was sued for it because they didn't do a good job. The moral of the story? Don't help anyone. Ever. Great. So if I have the facts right, some lady complained about services provided by another company and was awarded damages? Was what she said right? If it was right, why was she sued? If it wasn't right, then sure no problem, but if she was right. And 11 million dollars? What????????????? Wow, that's insane. Good luck, brothers to the south.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.
...she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it.
When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June.
Maybe it was wouldn't, because she was getting sued into submission by someone with more money. I guess you've never been in any situation where the shit was piled so high, that you just didn't care about proper procedure anymore. That is not justice any way you slice it, proper procedure maybe, Scheff never broke any law, sure. But 11 million default judgment != a single private citizens' complaints strewn across a few pages of internet. Period.
Whatever, I just hope everyone is prepared to walk on eggshells the next time someone on eBay or Amazon screws someone them over.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
The judge and jury's hands are tied if the defendant didn't show up.
It sounds like the defendant did at least know something about the suit, just not when it was happening. That's her fault for not finding out.
If at the very least she could have bummed a bus ticket down to florida to show up in court, I'm guessing you're right, the whole thing would have been tossed. The judge would at that point have much more leverage as to what happens.
Hopefully there will be an appeal available to her.
Beware of geeks bearing formulas.
Bock threw an online troll shit-fit, which was free to her. Oh, but when reality knocks, "I'm too poor to defend myself!" Well, the plaintiff didn't get a chance to defend herself from your libelous posts.
Notice the trolls are all together on this one. We should extreminate their tribe.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Pseudonym techniques can allow persistent identities that aren't linkable to the real author, and the cypherpunks movement spent a while discussing the technical/social implications back in the 90s.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This case should have been won by the defendant, but sadly that's what happens when you don't take these things seriously enough to stay on top of it. I know she had extenuating circumstances, but by not presenting her side of the story, the jury had "bad facts" and made "bad law."
That said, Ms. Bock really did bring it on herself. Ms. Scheff is probably exactly what Ms. Bock describes her to be - but that's irrelevant. Our court system certainly implements the ancient wisdom "two wrongs don't make a right!". Now, if Ms. Scheff truly is the reprehensible person that Ms. Bock alleges her to be, I would expect Ms. Bock to countersue and collect even larger damages from Ms. Scheff.
And it is justice - remember, justice isn't about "right" and "wrong", not about "fair" and "unfair", not even about "good" and "bad" - it's about justice - what does the law say should happen here, not "what's fair/right/good".
You're assuming that they were lies.
Yup. This is a case of the lawyer not being the problem. The lawyer didn't win, he just got paid for doing his job, which I certainly wouldn't work at MY job for nothing.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
The thing is, the women was likely not lying. That is not slander.
Natural (or other) disasters are no excuse to ignore legal obligations for over a year.
Being (or percieving yourself to be) slighted or wronged is no excuse to ignore the laws which elevate all of us above the status of the common mob.
Using the internet as a medium of expression is no less protected (and should be no more protected) than any other form of communication.
Ms. Bock sold her future for a moment of retribution and vengeance. Boy, I hope it was worth it!
Just because it's free to post information on the intranet doesn't make it any different from any other publishing medium
Absolutly it does. Postings on a web forum are completly different that advertisments. I post messages in product forums all the time saying a product "sucks", or it is a "rip off". A web forum is like an informal conversation... you can be no more libel for what you say that saying something bad at a dinner party.
The defendant didn't purchase ad banners slandering the plaintif, she mearly expressed her informal opinion to other parents.
For example, if GM purchased an ad in the New York Times that said "Ford cars death traps!", that would be libel. If I go into a web forum on cars, and someone says "Ford cars are a death trap!", that IS NOT libel... that is simply an opinion in a conversation. It isn't any different than if I went to a car club and stuck up a conversation with people. There is a difference between formal speech with implicit truthfulness, and informal speech used in public discourse.
Yeah, one thing I think Slashdot's features lack is the ability to edit one's own posts. I mean hell, even youaredumb.net 's forums have the ability to delete or edit posts.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Scheff's grandfather was in the SS where he helped kill 3 million people. Scheff is a crook, con artist, and she worships Satan. Be careful or she will eat your children. Avoid this crazy bitch. Signed, AC SUCK MY COCK BITCH
This is a flame bit but not for the normal reasons. The plaintiff doesn't like people saying bad things about her well lets see her try to sue me.
Dear Ms. Scheff,
You are an asshole that no one likes or cares about personally. You have made the stupidest choice in your entire life and our about as liked by me as I like someone raping me in the ass like you have to free speech. The Internet is for saying whatever I choose to say as long as I am right. The constitution protects the rights of people in America and if I speak out against someone on the Internet its as if I was talking aloud.
Just to re-iterate I hate you with all my heart and hope the swiftest of deaths upon you and filth that destroy our rights!!!
And she dare sued a victim of katrina what a bitch. I'm about a 30 minute drive from weston FL and I'd love to give her a visit and use my right of free speech to tell this bitch just that.
P.S. my validation word for slashdot is atrocity, even the servers know shes a bitch. Come and sue me!
P.S.S you are a crook fraud and anything else the woman said you were because you just proved it in court congrats. a fraud takes someones money wrongly and you have done so so this is fact and you can't sue me.
Please e-mail this lady all your opinions she deserves it.
The internet, by its very nature, is a variation on print media. Arguably, it is impossible for "casual speech" to take place on the internet.
Oh, and just because you can get away with an obvious statement of opinion ("Ford cars are a death trap"), you cannot get away with publicly alleging criminal wrongdoing ("She's a fraud/conman/thief"). An opinion can be supported by facts, but cannot be proven by facts; Ms. Bock made factual allegations which the court has determined to be false. There's a huge difference there.
Libel laws are the slippery slope to a totalitarian state.
Person x is a crook
Libel:
Person x is a crook because she stole my hair dryer (assumes she did not steal the hair dryer; if she did it is not libel.)
The case was won ONLY because it was a default judgement. The amount awarded was substantial ONLY because the jurors were morons (Go ahead jurors
In case all of the people with free speech opinions missed it: Note that Law Professor Lyrissa Lidsky, expert on free speech issues, does not state that this not a free speech issue. It is a free speech issue, and it exposes to the core faults in the US/Florida legal system.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"She knew the trial was approaching, but did not know the date." What part of this sounds like she was paying attention? She sounds like some low-life bottom feeder to me. First, she hires someone to get her kids out of a situation she doesn't approve of, and then after they do what she hired them to do, starts bitching about it. And not "I'm not happy with the service I received" or "I don't feel they provide good value for the money", but "I was conned out of my money by some fraud". That clearly crosses the line between expressing your opinion and libel.
You say maybe she didn't care about proper procedure anymore. That's really not an option when you're involved in a court case. Maybe you're in the wrong, maybe you're not but you don't have the resources to fight it. In any event, you need to limit the damage. Do whatever it takes to minimize the hit you have to take. Figure out what your options are, then pick the one(s) that help you most. Call the judge, find someone in your area who can give you some free legal advice, read up on the procedure, whatever it takes. It sounds to me like Bock thought she could just walk away, like it would just go away if she ignored it. Guess she knows different now.
Just junk food for thought...
Complaints are one thing. Public allegations of malfeasance/wrongdoing/criminal conduct must be held to a higher standard. Ms. Scheff prevailed by assiduously, zealously pursuing her rights within the court system, while Ms. Bock chose not to do so.
I agree, $11M is not fair or right, and I think even unjust - I personally think $1.00 (plus a court ordered retraction in all affected media) would've made a lot more sense. Oh, and court and reasonable legal fees, of course.
Lawyers (and some plaintiffs) merely take advantage of the situation. And as a result, we get fun little brochures in everything we buy clearly outlining things a village idiot aught to be able to figure out.
WARNING: A risk of fire and electrical shock exists in all electrical appliances and may cause personal injury or death
Do not use appliance except as intended.
Do not place on or near hot gas or electric burner, or in a heated oven.
Do not place any part of this toaster under water or other liquid.
Unplug from outlet when not in use.
Unplug before cleaning.
Do not insert over-sized foods, metal foil packages, or metal utensils into the toaster.
Do not immerse in water
Do not physically hold down the toast lever.
and that's just the digest version...
Research Institute
205, route d'Arlon
L-1150 BELAIR
Luxembourg
Global Offshore Services
205, route d'Arlon
L-1150 BELAIR
Luxembourg
Please be aware that Mr Patrick D. Greene, the owner of Global Offshore and of Research Institutehas not paid the salary of at least 15 employees since January.
Check out DieGrenzgaenger.lu [diegrenzgaenger.lu] and this site [globaloffshore.org] and go on from there. You can find references to Mr Greene's past in the internet. He is a Hungarian resident but native from the Bahamas. Also check out firms like Cambridge Global and Slender Lifeoperating in Vienna.Use the "webarchive" [archive.org] and the Google cache to check the past.
YES! With this court prescedence now I can finally get my money back from my ex-wife!
Thank you LiveJournal, MySpace, Blogger, Friendster and Allpoetry.com
----
That boy's about as sharp as a sack full of wet mice.
Hindsight is 20/20 and so is the view from the peanut gallery.
The judgment was too much, this has a chilling effect on private citizens giving them responsibilities without increasing the actual authority they have, it shouldn't have ever gone to the courts, being in the situation she was in she was most likely doomed from the start.
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
Much like the Spamhaus case in Illinois, this case reminds us that if you don't show up in court, the default judgement is going to suck.
In both of these cases, only the plaintiff's side was heard. Granted, Ms. Bock didn't seem to be in a position to defend herself, but there's nothing new about someone without money getting shafted in a US court. She already knew she was embroiled in a civil suit, and while I can understand that there were circumstances beyond her control, she would have fared better had she so much as showed up and asked for time to find another attorney to represent her. The adverserial system assumes that if you don't care enough to get someone (even yourself) in there to defend you, then you're prepared to spread 'em wide.
I do find it a bit odd that the court proceeded when a reasonable person would know that millions of people - including Ms. Bock - had recently been displaced. This'll be something to bring up should she manage to find someone to file an appeal.
Slightly off topic: it was already mentioned that in the Spamhaus case, theoretically all that Spamhaus needed to do was send an attorney to the court to state that the court didn't have jurisdiction for reasons 1 through N, to avoid the potential hassles with DNS. I say theoretically, since the judge could well have ruled tough shit, tell it to the appeals court. With any luck, the Federal Government will quash this case by the time it gets to the ICANN, or it's gonna increase the pressure to pull the organization away from the US.
Luke, help me take this mask off
In reading through all the relevent arugments, well researched facts, and irrelevant droning on about some peoples ignorance, i had a wonderful idea pop into my head.... Eliminate Lawyers and hand the arguing over to slashdot users.
I found more information about the law and what actually happened in my fellow slashdotters rants then I ever recieved when I was a Juror and had to listen to a pair of lawyers' views on the law. bring hundreds of brilliant minds together, filter through the junk, and you will come out with as much information, if not more, than if you had a single "expert" on the subject.
That being said, next time I have to sit in a courtroom, i will save my money and not hire a lawyer. i will just post my case on slashdot and let this wealth of knowledge come up with my defense....
Hehe, that was an entertaining call and she seemed to go a little crazy when I mentioned the saffron...
Awesome.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Ah, but as the defendant, it is not her responsibility if she has not been legally served. If the legal papers were returned, then she was never served. She has really good grounds for filing for a mistrial.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
Just nitpicking. Otherwise a argument.
In the same spirit:
What's the difference between a pity and a shame?
If a bus full of lawyers goes off a cliff, it's a pity. If there are any empty seats, it's a shame.
So the moral of this story is freedom of speech exists, but only if your so poor no one can take anything away from you. This is most disturbing. I also find 11 million crap, because odds are a life time of referring wouldn't even have netted her a million.
Off-topic, I know, but what the heck.. And no, I'm not a joke-nazi (derivative of spelling-nazi?!)!
I think you mixed 2 jokes in that first one:
#1
Q: What do you call 1.000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start!
#2
Mixed Feelings: A busload of lawyers plunges off a cliff leaving no survivor.
-- there were 5 empty seats.
the mistake of the left is the increasingly successful attempt to make the main purpose compensating the injured
The second anyone (left, right, up or down) pulls the political card in a non-political article, I have trouble trusting anything else they say.
Last post!
I think there's a lot more to that story than meets the eye. The World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools is both infamous and notorious - they run Tranquility Bay. See Wikipedia. Being sued for defamation by WWASPS is like being sued for defamation by Scientology.
NOBODY calls me a biker! Where do you live?
IAAL, and I can tell you with certainty that most of the people on this site will never accept your key point.
./ we get the same tired old nonsense about it being "a field day for lawyers" - but when the EFF actually wins something, or the Supreme Court says torture is illegal, or any number of other 'good' judgments are discussed then nobody, nobody acknowledges that some *lawyer* (shock, horror) must have fought that case and won.
There are shady lawyers, just like there are dubious characters in nearly every industry. However, in my experience, good lawyers spend a large amount of their time trying to convince litigious clients NOT to sue anybody, and there are plenty of good lawyers. It may also interest some of you to know that the percentage of legal actions filed that actually make it to trial (i.e. that don't settle) is absolutely miniscule, usually because the lawyers are telling their clients to avoid court at all costs - it's expensive, and it leads to a win-lose situation rather than a compromise, so is inherently very risky.
And let's not forget the endless string of cases where those awful lawyers (yes, people with the same basic training as those representing the plaintiff in this case) protect your rights, take down the bad guys, hold the government accountable, allow the little guys to stand up to the huge corporate monoliths, and so on. I love how every time there's an article about a 'bad' judgment on
But don't worry. Every time some idiot sues some other idiot over something, and the laws made by the politicians YOU elect are enforced by a judge appointed by the same politicians, with the result that idiot A beats idiot B and is awarded a huge payout by a jury of your peers (and lawyers CAN'T be on juries, fyi) that causes you to just clench your little fists up in rage, lawyers will be there for you to blame. Hey, it's a lot easier than learning about tort law, developing your own political movement, pressuring politicians, raising awareness and actually *changing* the law if you think it's so terrible.
Read Pynchon.
So this isn't a slap to free speech, it's a glorious example of why it works.
So now it is illegal to say that you don't like someone's actions and provide evidence and examples thereof? Man, this is just another problem with America. If you don't like someone, sue them.
.....Of A Racial Majority: Claim that they are a racist and openly declare them so. Sue for Racial Riscrimination. Claim Emotional Trauma and/or Slavery Reparations (if applicable). .....Of A Different Race: Claim that the other person is vehamantly against your race and is out to get you and your people. Sue for Racial Discrimination. Claim Emotional Trauma, and/or Slavery Reparations (if applicable).
For people who are sue-happy, please consult the following table:
Table 1.1
If you are suing someone, then consult the table and claim the following in your suit:
If the other person is:
-Richer Than You: Claim that they are enslaving your group, and trying to starve you and your family to death. Sue for any reason. Claim Emotional Trauma.
-Smarter Than You: Claim that they are of some "Priviledged Class" that you are not a member of, and blame any social inequalities. Sue under Affirmative Action. Claim Emotional Trauma.
-Of Heterosexual Orientation: Claim that they are homophobic, and openly label them as such. Sue for Sexual Orientation discrimination. Claim Emotional Trauma, Monetary Damages.
-Not Disabled: Claim that they have a better job because they are not disabled. Sue under Americans With Disabilities Act. Claim Emotional Trauma, Monetary Damages.
-Has No Criminal Record: Claim that they paid off the judge and jury. Sue under the RICO Act, or any of the aforementioned reasons. Claim Emotional Trauma.
-Has A Better Criminal Record: Claim that the police are out to get you. Sue under any of the aforementioned reasons. Claim Emotional Trauma, Monetary Damages.
-Someone who doesn't feel like kissing your ass, sue for anything. Claim Emotional Trauma, Monetary Damages.
-Saying Why They Don't Like Your Business: Sue them for $11,000,000. Take their house, ruin their life, and throw a temper tantrum until a bad judge gives in so he won't have to listen to your pathetic voice any more. Date more lawyers, then claim Emotional Trauma. Sue Lawyers for damages because they have lots of money and they hurt your feelings because they never called you back the next day after you slept with them.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
The second anyone (left, right, up or down) pulls the political card in a non-political article, I have trouble trusting anything else they say.
That's exactly where I stopped reading the article to come back here and read your reply.
Whenever I read something like that(which happens way too often these days), I translate it in my head as them saying "Hello, I'm a retarded partisan tool. Anything I say has a partisan agenda because I'm incapable of indepdent individual thought outside of a partisan group think context. Please ignore me at will and you ignoring me will be taken to mean that you are a ____ winger because that's the only logical conclusion."
Partisans epitomize what it is to be tools of political power.
ahh, good point. something to that effect was what i meant to say, but the jumbled retort called 'parent' came out in as my first response.
Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
Freedom of Speech is the right to speak freely. It is NOT the right to speak without repercussion.
So then saying that, "I have the right to murder everyone in the world," would be a perfectly true statement by what you're saying. I just don't have the right to murder without repercussion.
I don't quite think that would be considered clarifying and improving the language of an argument. Seems to me to be a needless distinction.
I bet the folks over at the Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division would be delighted to have you on board.
please forgive the caps, I will explain:
A few years ago, while i was still actively writing on slashdot, i was part of a listserv calling themselves the Trekkers. If you read my posts from a few years back you will see me mentioning a break with my parents, a school, and a somewhat unpleasant aftermath. I was in a school very similar to the one, whose parent company, WWASP, she sued. A full court transcript can be found http://www.isaccorp.org/documentsnz.asphere as well as some background information on Sue Scheff (who filed the lawsuit).
She contacted me online prior to this trial after she found me on a WWASP affiliated forum raising hell on my own. She called me on the phone to make sure i was not a program staff member.
After that i was a member of their list for a while but neglected it after it turned into a constant drama session, ranting and raving and arguing between parents over how to do this and that. At the same time that she was claiming to be out to take down abusive schools, it turns out, she was starting her own little referral service of her own, raking in the dough on her own. She betrayed the trust and used us all as tools of propoganda so she could win a case and/or hurt her foe. Since she lied about so many things, it is difficult to guage whether her motives were sincere. Whatever the case, she began referring more Children to abusive programs (although she claims she had no knowledge of this there is evidence to the contrary.)
If you read the court transcripts you will find that Ironically, she used "slander" on the internet as a tactic of her own, posting with multiple user names, weaving conversations with herself. She claimed this was done to create awareness when on the side she was setting up her own business. Her lawyer went on and on about free speech and all that. Now she sues a homeless woman for 11 million. As if the program the woman's child went to didn't rob her of enough of her money.
Disposing of inconvenient children is quite an industry in the United States. Each year, thousands of kids are shipped off to schools in the US and abroad (especially third world countries where restrictions on humane treatement are more lax). Slander is often a convenient method to shut up ex-students and parents who will not stay silent knowing what they know.
I used to believe litigation against slander served a purpose, but i would rather live in a completely sceptical, free society, where anything is said, and everything is questioned.
Despite the hubbub on here, this is not the end of Free Speech. In a wild west internet where anyone can say anything about anyone, I for one am pleased to see some law and order imposed.
Learn to know, the dark side of the force, and you will achieve a power greater than any Jedi...the power to save your w
But only the mule shows up. Horse a no-show. Race held anyway. Mule wins. Headline in newspaper: "Mules now faster than horses." All that a jury decided in this case was what someone guilty of libel should be forced to pay X amount. Absolutely nothing was decided by a jury relative to use or abuse of free speech on the Internet. Personally, I believe libel law should protect businesspeople from being unjustly accused of crimes on the 'Net ... or in a newspaper ... or on TV. What exactly constitutes "unjustly" has always been a matter of dispute, both inside and outside of courtooms. All the Internet has done is add a whole bunch more players to the game, many of whom have no idea of the rules -- or even that there are rules.
Some people have thin skin. ;) I think some people like to label a bad 2nd degree burn as a 3rd degree burn. The usual definition [PDF, p.72] of 3rd degree includes charring of the skin. I see that people also use "degrees" above 3rd for "3rd degree burns that go way deep".
Does anyone have the email and web url for Ms. Sheff?
Oooh fuck! How stupid can slashdotters be?
You can always do anything you want. In the worst case police shoots you. Still you
would say that I am free to kill?
Retarded!
How many posts have you ever see including words to the effect "I was going to post but changed my mind"? This is NOT the same as verbal conversation, where utterances flow straight from brain to mouth without obstruction - here, there is typing and consideration (theoretically). This forum can't be described as "casual speech".
The lawyers appear to have a pretty nice "good ole boy" system setup. After looking at his ads and seeing the same things that every other PI lawyer advertised, I never spoke to our lawyer except in answer to a direct question and refused to shake his hand at meetings when offered. Childish? Sure, but with the emotional state I was in after a year of uncertainty of whether or not my wife and I would have a house to live in when all was said and done, I felt it better to bite my tongue and keep my hands to myself.
Yes, she was at fault, but again, it was a minor accident that should have never made it to the court system. Were the plaintiffs harmed? That was debatable and was very much in question even after the hearing. Unfortunately, it appeared that the "good ole boy" system kicked in to make sure that all the lawyers concerned were paid off.
Multiply my story by the number of lawsuits filed for the thousands of minor accidents that take place daily, and yes, the system is highly screwed.
In a context where opinions are being stated without a factual assertion, qualification of statements is considered redundant. The same writing professor should advocate the use of regimented language where appropriate. Failure to adjust tone for context merely makes one read like a metric doof. (See how I used a tone appropriate for Slashdot?)
Not every discussion is a logical argument, and using language in contexts other than than logical arguments does not constitute "mental disease." I doubt that you are advocating the beating of one educator by another with a baseball bat, which largely makes my point for me.