Slashdot Mirror
Student Blogger Loses Defamation Case
An anonymous reader writes to tell us about Yaman Salahi, a UC Berkeley student and blogger, who lost a lawsuit brought against him by Lee Kaplan, a journalist for FrontPageMag.com. Kaplan had sued Salahi in California small claims court for tortious business interference and libel, in response to a blog Salahi had set up about him called "Lee Kaplan Watch." Salahi lost in small claims court and then lost an "appeal" — which is essentially a retrial by another small-claims judge. No written opinion was offered with either decision, though all other court filings are available. From Salahi's update on his blog: "...because [Kaplan] sued me in small claims court, I did not have the protections of the anti-SLAPP [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Policy] statute... I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal, because small claims judges are not obligated to release written opinions with their rulings.... I will never have the opportunity to take this to a real appellate court where my first amendment rights might be protected."
Looks like things would have gone better if he hadn't made some legal mistakes.
I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal.
Maybe on the merits? Mr. Salahi's website describes Mr. Kaplan as a "fraudulent journalist," which is another way of alleging he's incompetent to do his job, which the law calls "libel per se."
Anyway, the offending website is still up, so presumably Mr. Kaplan can sue Mr. Salahi yet again and win a second judgment for another $7,575.
no dog
Maybe because you didn't have enough money to hire a real lawyer? Another victory for the $ystem.
A-Bomb
A man was libeled, he sued, he won. The defendant appealed and lost. Happens all the time.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Just to keep some perspective: I catch flak for negatively mentioning Ubuntu once a month in slashdot posts. Imagine if I put up a website!
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
So the statement that he was not allowed to appeal is false? It seems to me that this story does not rise to any reasonable journalistic standard. Perfect for slashdot.
If you read the student's blog, he was not sued for defamation -- in fact, he was sued for "tortious business interference".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
...then it is you who are the anti-Semite. It is not only people in the UK, and in fact in nearly every other country in the world (going by General Assembly resolutions) who are against the Israeli occupation, won in a war of conquest in 1967. It is also a very large minority of the Jewish Israeli population itself. It is absolutely disgusting to equate the policies of the Israeli government with the Jewish people, and to equate anti-Israel sentiment (which stems from those policies) with anti-Jewish sentiment.
There is no first ammendment issue in this case, as the governemtn is not bringing action against the individual.
That is not true. The government is enforcing a law that is punishing someone for their speech. While the courts have long ruled that some types of speech do not get 1st Amendment protection, the general idea still stands.
If the power of the government is being used, then the 1st Amendment applies. The only exception there is is contract law, which pretty much allows those in the contract to sign away all except for a few rights.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
How can any post that says,
"I conclude this guy is wrong" followed by "what were they arguing about anyway?"
be deemed insightful?
I think anyone who won't even be told _why_ they lost or have the ability to appeal deserves some sympathy.
Regardless of the merits or guilt of the case, the small claims system has an issue here that has clear abuse potential.
He had the ability to appeal. He used it. He lost again. It'd be nice to know why, sure, but that's not what matters here. He was sued in small claims. There's a hard limit to how much he can lose, which is probably less than all the advertising revenue he's going to get off of being Slashdotted. Odds are, that's why he started posting inflammatory stuff about public figures. It looks to me like he was begging for a lawsuit and all the attention and ad revenue it would bring, but small claims just isn't that newsworthy, so he was stuck. Sucks to fail at gaming the system.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
Agreed. Some guy commits the very definition of libel and is sued for libel. He appeals and the appellate judge still thinks he committed libel. It happens all the time. From what I know, they're not going to let him appeal to a higher court, because the higher courts read the case and say: "This is a clear act of libel and it's only seven and a half grand." Why the hell should we care? You ARE responsible for what you say, even on the internet. Case closed.
My UID is a prime number. Yeah, I planned that.
Dear Mr. Anonymous Coward,
:p
I'm going to be REALLY nice here and assume there is some substance under your ramblings, not just pure trollage.
What exactly did Salahi lie about in court?
Please enlighten us, since you were there. Just claiming someone lied, on a public website, would be libel, wouldnt it?
You and Kaplan claim Salahi harassed his employer, Salahi claims he tried to contact Kaplans ISP, to make them pull nazi allegations about Salahi from Kaplans webpage. Until I read the letter myself, I wont make up my mind. You obviously have, though.
Btw, I started reading the court documents, and I feel that any plaintiff who refers to the defendant as "the kid" in a letter to the courts ought to lose by default, but I guess thats just me.
You lost. Then the case was reviewed by another judge, and you lost again.
Sounds to me like you're guilty. You might want to leave Lee Kaplan alone from now on.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Supposing I were your attorney, I would suggest to you in the most polite possible language, that you should never ever discuss a case with any third party other than me or perhaps your spouse.
I'm not your attorney, so instead I'm going to say: YOU ARE A GODDAMN FOOL FOR DUMPING FURTHER MATERIAL REGARDING A CASE ONTO THE GODDAMN INTERNET. Accusing someone in the public press of criminal conduct (read: AS IN THE ABOVE GODDAMN MESSAGE WHERE YOU GODDAMN PRINT A GODDAMN PERJURY CHARGE FOR CHRIST SAKE) is not only very actionable in court, but can put you on the receiving end of a libel case that can result in findings the SIZE OF A GODDAMN HOUSE. No, I'm not GODDAMN KIDDING. How would you like to own a GODDAMN QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS? But you're going to keep running your fingers over your GODDAMN KEYBOARD, aren't you!?!?!?
C//
That state of mind is not reserved just for liberals... In my experience, it seems just about anyone who labels them self as anything (liberal, conservative, etc.) has that "my way or the highway" thinking.
"We have exactly as much freedom as we are willing to demand and as we can defend."
On point 1 -- this seems like a case of perjury doesnt it? Isnt that pretty serious?
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Get a lawyer.
I just can't repeat it often enough. Sure, depending on the law a lawyer can't represent you in small claims court, but he can certainly prepare you for it behind the scenes, greatly increasing your chances. Besides, just preparing you costs a lot less.
Get a lawyer.
The confusion over what court is what and how appeals go simply endorses the point.
Get a lawyer.
Before it's too late (like after you lose).
Or maybe it's not too late. Think "countersuit," especially if you're right about him falsifying evidence. You might have a nice little defamation case on your hands.
Get a lawyer.