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."
Countersuit?
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
Looks like things would have gone better if he hadn't made some legal mistakes.
To deny you your right to Appeal to a real court would be to deny you your right to due process.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
My understanding is that both sides have engaged in tainted, sensationalist reporting related to Arab/Israeli issues.
Kaplan is the pro-Israel writer.
Regards.
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
Seriously. It took me two minutes to find this:
California Codes 116.710.(b) The defendant with respect to the plaintiff's
claim, and a plaintiff with respect to a claim of the defendant, may appeal
the judgment to the superior court in the county in which the action was heard.
Maybe because you didn't have enough money to hire a real lawyer? Another victory for the $ystem.
A-Bomb
What do you mean? This is clearly news of astounding, ground breaking importance to geeks everywhere. Are you implying that it may simply be a boring column-inch whine-fest of a petty dispute between a college kid and a hack that no one cares about? Do you wish to imply this isn't of any interest what-so-ever to any geek, being as it doesn't relate to IT or any other geeky pursuit at all, other than the libel was committed "online" in a "blog". Don't you know that if it it happens on the internet, it must be Slashdot worthy news?
Sir! I am ashamed. Slashdot is the premier place to discuss law, your "rights" (Apparently of the "online" variety, but the "offline" rights get just as much coverage), politics and flame-fests.
Slashdot: abandoning it's core readership since 1999!
It was a failure for this individual to not protect himself. Let's count the ways: 1) should have retained counsel 2) should have counterclaimed immediately 3) could have chosen a different venue 4) could have chosen a different court , 5) might have been more clear about the content of the blog, so as to remove any possible doubt of malice of forethought, which is required in most libel and slander litigation 6) might have considered other remedies, including bankruptcy variants, or bar review.
The system isn't fair, and it tipped in the favor of better counsel, or whomever can overwhelm the judge with 'evidence'. The preponderance of evidence is what sways the case, should the unlikely event that the case is somehow brought up for review. Evidence by the truckload usually does it. To counter the evidence, lots of discovery should ensue, making it all that tougher. This is small claims, not a circuit or higher court using almost anything but magistrates.... who are essentially out of work lawyers.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That in itself seams a bit obsessive and maybe seams that Salahi has some sort of vendetta or something against Kaplan. It's as if Salahi is out get Kaplan: not to show fraudulent journalism.
Why doesn't Salahi go after other journalists that do the same thing as Kaplan?
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
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."
If the case were really so cut and dried, Kaplan would have eaten this guy alive in a real court instead of fooling around with small claims. I have a feeling that we will hear more about this.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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."
About as exciting as that second girlfriend that still stalks you to this day huh ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
I'd be very interested in seeing what happens if people copy-and-pasted this article en-masse similar to the 09-F9-11-02-9D... key on their sites and Google-bomb this.
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.
You have a duty to bring all causes relevant in the original action. The matter is decided and the doctrine of "res judicata" precludes relitigating the same matter. But if someone argues that the case has issues that are still viable there is always "collateral estoppel" - issue/claim preclusion to shut down another action.
/. CowboyNeil poll answers.
Besides, small claims and de novo review of a small claims action are not courts of record and this whole business is trivial beyond most
Let it be....
Why file this under "Your Rights Online"? The rights rights guranteed in the constitution, are, in general, protections
of an individual against government action. There is no first ammendment issue in this case, as the governemtn is
not bringing action against the individual.
I don't believe that htis can be considered as a miscarriage of justice, but rather one individual's poor defense against
another. Salahi's blog takes every opportunity to question the integrity of Kaplan and his reporting, and is solely dedicated
to this one individual. It is reasonable to assume this blog was created for the singular purpose of disparaging Kaplan, with
no other viable content.
How any of this has to do with anyone's right is a mystery to me.
MSTCrow5429 wrote:
>
> Yaman Salahi is a de facto supporter of terrorism
You mean he voted for Bush?
Jews are not the only Semites of the world, and criticism of Israel and its policies is hardly criticism of an entire people (let alone, all the world's Semitic people which include far more than just ethnic Jews).
Lord High Crapflooder The Right Honourable Vlad Craig Esther McDavenpherson III
Destroyer of Mercatur.Net
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Read the court docs. The defendant sent emails to businesses saying he would ruin them if they didn't stop hiring this guy. It has nothing to do with his posting stuff on his blog. He certainly deserved to lose.
Maybe on the merits? I can understand that he might actually want to know what those merits were, though.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
How can any post that says,
"I conclude this guy is wrong" followed by "what were they arguing about anyway?"
be deemed insightful?
If the case were really so cut and dried, Kaplan would have eaten this guy alive in a real court instead of fooling around with small claims.
There are half a dozen comments already in the story, along the lines of "man, what a scumbag, suing in small claims!" or "small claims court sucks, OMG, NO RIGHTS USA SUXORS!"
You have the right to request a small claims court case be moved to a "real" court. You may have to do so immediately, however. There is nothing preventing you from bringing a lawyer with you to small claims court.
Small claims court is a place where a common man who can't afford a lawyer, actually stands a chance. Evidence standards are dropped for both sides, and at least in my state, the laws supporting small claims court state that everyone, from clerk to judge, needs to work to assist both parties as they are *laymen*. It instructs them to be helpful, explain stuff, and be lenient with minor technicalities in paperwork and procedure for the same reason. In "real" court, if you mis-spelled the defendant's name in your filing, you'd risk get your case tossed out. In small claims court, the clerk says, "uh, you mean Smith, not Simth, right?", and everyone moves on.
With the exception of borrowers using lawyers pushing lawsuits through small claims court to sue debtors with lots of bad/false/misleading evidence, small claims court is an excellent service to the public. It fills the niche of crimes the cops don't care about in dollar amounts lawyers cost too much for.
The blogger in this case was too stupid to fire up a browser and start reading how small claims court works in his state- or he simply lost his case because the other side (gasp!) had a legitimate claim. Either way, cry me a river.
Please help metamoderate.
According to these guys:
http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=1663
Quote:
The student set up a smear website against Kaplan where he fabricated stories that Kaplan had been sued for libel, posed as a congressional staffer and engaged in criminal activities.
Hello? If that is the case, it sounds like he deserved to loose.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
This student set up a website for the sole purpose of slinging mud at one journalist. Losing a sum of money in court might be something he should get used to.
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.
Well, I am the defendant in this case. Though I've been a slashdot reader for at least 8 years, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post a comment, let alone create an account. I've looked over some of the comments above and it looks to me like one thing that the summary misses completely are the merits of the case. I suppose it is partially my fault because I haven't written about that yet, though anybody that looks through the court documents can see what is going on. I would advise people to please take a look at the court documents and consider the content of the blog before jumping to conclusions. A note for those who think the website wrongs in focusing on Lee Kaplan: the title is a parody of the group CampusWatch, with which Lee Kaplan was once affiliated, if he is not today.
I will not respond to some of the other ridiculous things people have said above regarding politics and terrorism.
Here is a brief summary that I think Slashdot readers especially will find illuminating:
1) On the defamation charge
Lee Kaplan presented one allegation against me during the trial regarding defamation. In this regard he claimed that my website had the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag" and linked to another site with his face photoshopped on to gay porn. Had these allegations been true, he very well might have had a legitimate claim against me. However, these allegations were false and he presented them knowing that.
My website does NOT contain the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag." However, this spoof of my website on YTMND does (http://leekaplanwatch.ytmnd.com). Lee Kaplan printed this screenshot out and submitted it to the court as evidence, claiming that he got it by taking a screenshot of my website. He further lied and claimed that when clicking on the phrase, it would take you to another page on YTMND with the pornographic photo (http://doucheparty.ytmnd.com/). However, if that phrase was indeed a link to that page, it would appear in the same color as the other links.
The important things are: 1) the material he claims is defamatory was never on my website, nor was it anything I was involved in authoring or disseminating; and 2) he knowingly lied about how he found the materials and lied when explaining their source.
For those who are interested, Lee Kaplan is on the ytmnd site in the first place because he threatened to sue its owner over another site on their server mocking him.
2) On tortious business interference
Lee Kaplan alleged that e-mails I sent to his webhost complaining about defamatory material he posted about me (alleging I was a member of the US Nazi Party) were actually e-mails sent to his employer. QuantumMedia is listed on every page on his websites; I had every reason to believe this was his webhost and I had every right to file an abuse complaint.
Later, Kaplan claimed that after my e-mails, the individual at QuantumMedia, Haim Kamer, renigged on a promise to hire him as the editor for a sports blogging website called SportsBlogger.com. In my opinion, the likelihood of such a job existing at all is slim--I still believe the story to be entirely fabricated, and I think that that is a reasonable conclusion given that: 1) I have never seen, or been able to find, any sports writing by Lee Kaplan; 2) SportsBlogger.com did not exist last summer, and it does not exist this year either. What Kaplan showed in court as evidence of a passworded website-in-development was simply the standard default page for a new blog, populated with Latin text. 3) Lee claims he lost a $40,000 job offer, but sued e for only $7,500 in small claims court. 5) In an e-mail to me, Haim Kamer wrote that he had not spoken to Kaplan in 5 years. One month later he wrote a letter to the court under oath contradicting that statement. 6) There was no contract ever presented in court proving that such a job offer ever even existed. 7) if you really think about it: what blogger gets paid $40,000 a year, especially one whose own websites are filled with grammar, s
In California, lawyers are generally not allowed in small claims court. One would need special permission from a judge to be able to be represented by a lawyer. One can of course hire one on the side for advice though, and it sounds like this might have been a good idea in this case!
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.
Of course something you do as a blogger could be subject to legal action! Did you think blogging was somehow a magic fairyland where you get to say whatever you like about somebody without having to put up with the consequences? Your free speech stops, and always has stopped, when you start defaming other people. Just because it goes on all the time on the Web, and bloggers get away with it, doesn't make it right -- or safe to do. One blogger just learned the hard way that there's a limit to people's tolerance for abuse, and damn right too.
I piss off bigots.
Anyway, the case involved more than simple defamation. Salahi threatened third parties in an attempt to hurt Kaplan's ability to earn a living. Kaplan suffered actual financial damages as a result. The fact that Salahi used threats makes moot the usual defense of "My claims were true."
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
you have 10 days to file to move a small claims action to superior court. Of course this is not what our constitution says as we have an unlimited right to trial by jury in civil or criminal matters but it is better than most states laws.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
The brutal treatment of Palestinians comes directly and indirectly from the thugs who rule Palestine: Hamas and their ilk.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Disclaimer: I'm not of any Middle-Eastern descent, and have no personal interest in the case, just in the legal aspects. (It's sad when you have to make such statements...) Also, IANAL.
Salahi posted a response below, where he defends some of the charges. And he has a point regarding the claim ("tortious business interference"), because his original email, cited as Exhibit A in the plaintiff's reply to the anti-SLAPP motion, does not reference the job at all. In fact, the e-mail was sent in regards to Quantum Media, which is the web host (and a website design company, apparently). And the sportsblogger.com website is password-protected, so I also doubt whether Kaplan was going to be hired to write for a nonexistent site.
I'm not saying Salahi is innocent. It seems like both sides try to do an end-around of the legal system. Kaplan says Salahi used fake addresses and claimed to have never been served the motion to appear (=lying in court), which would probably be illegal. (I'm just summarizing his arguments from glancing over the documents.) Though I did find Salahi explanation of the picture prank thing to be quite amusing.
For what it's worth, Kaplan probably did pose as a congressional staffer and engage in criminal activities. See this article, which was cited in Salahi's legal filing. Here's another article about Kaplan and pro-Palestinian groups from the same paper.
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
THERE IS NO PRECEDENT - this is a small claims court. This is not a "fine" it is a "civil judgment."
You are totally ignorant of the law and you are proud of it, to boot.
Mouth off to a judge and you WILL be held in contempt. You can have your say and/or appeal - but NO, you are proud of your experience breaking the rules of civil procedure.
OH, and if you think:
(1) that $7.5k is a lot of money; or,
(2) that it will ever be collected - then you are as dumb as a box of rocks.
Now, if you want a piece of me - fine - I'll grind you into Vegimite. But that Constitution has appropriate time, place and manner restrictions on "free speech" and the famous example is that you have no legal right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater (when there is no fire) thus causing a stampede that injures people.
Now, contempt-boy - repeat after me: this is a BS case that is dumber than the CowboyNeal options in the polls. It will bind nobody else but the twit who started the fight.
Goodnight Gracie.
Strawman? Flamebait? You have to be kidding me. The GP post was concise, informative, and very convincing.
You, on the other hand, only have your own supposition about what was in the best interests of the parties involved to support your paranoid claims. Also you make the laughable argument that the loser of this little tussle will be happy to give away his $7,500 because he's getting "coverage" for his "cause".
I think there are some strawman arguments and some flamebait going on here, but it's not in the GP post, it's in yours.
The GP post was concise, informative, and very convincing.
Care to tell me more? The superbanana's 500 word praise of small claims court as good for the common man is off topic and anything but concise. Then he contradicted himself to tell us how the same court's lax requirements are used to screw debtors. Mostly, I'd like to know what he managed to convince you of.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Read this, wizard - the Courts don't work the way that you dream they do http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/4 894900.html/
He was responding to your supposition that if the case really had merit, Kaplan would have filed his claim in a "real" court instead of small claims court, which is a position you once again assert in response to his response to you.
In his response to you he explains what the benefits of small claims court are for the parties involved, and also that one party can request that the case be taken out of small claims court if the request is filed in a timely manner.
You completely ignore the possibility that Kaplan didn't want to have to involve lawyers and the expense thereof when he felt that the judgements that small claims court can award would be sufficient to satisfy him.
If it's true that anyone bringing a suit that they feel confident in winning would win more and better judgements in non-small-claims court, then why would ANYONE ever file a claim in small claims court? The only reason would be that they didn't think they had a good claim. If you're saying that the only people who file claims in small claims court are people who think they have a weak case, then I think this is patently absurd. Small claims court has many benefits (as explained by in the post we are arguing about) that can easily explain why someone would file a claim there.
As to what that post convinced me of; it convinced me that there are aspects to small claims court that make it an attractive place for someone suing for small sums of money to take their case to. And it also convinced me that the defendant could have moved the case out of small claims court if they'd made any effort to do so. Both of which directly contradict your assertions, and lead me to believe that your arguments are weak.
The blog does refer to the fraudulent journalism of Lee Kaplan--but it does not do just that and walk away. If you read through some of the articles we've written, you will find that we have indeed caught this writer in lies. For example, check out this story where I show him to have lifted photographs from another website and then claim he obtained them another way, and that they are of something that they are not.
lol! maybe this would be true if 'thugs' like Hamas actually got to rule Palestine. Unfortunately, as Palestine has been denied land and autonomy, it seems likeliest that the primary reason for the brutal treatment of Palestinians is their persistent refugee status and their lack of a State.
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."
You know when I was at school, the cool kids sat at the back of the bus. Everyone fought to be there. Nice wide seat, See everyone infront of you. Look out the back and wave to drivers etc.
:)
Interesting how times change
ps. Don't post as AC, be a man/woman.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
We can't have the whole story on the appeal. In CA apparently, he can appeal to superior court for a new trial. Random info off the web. After a verdict there, I bet the same appellate procedures that apply to any trial would apply to his, i.e., he could appeal to the CA Supreme Court, and if he's really lucky, it could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I should say though, I have no actual knowledge of CA law.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
You know, I was just passing this bye, and thought, interesting viewpoint. Then I went back to my google browser page and said, "You know what, this person needs a high-five"! HIGH-FIVE I really do appreciate what you said, that those people that label themselves really mean, "My way or the highway". While I agree with you totally, in the respect of politics, I will say, as a devout Christian, I do believe GOD said that in so many words, but then if you have a problem with that, you should take it up with GOD and not me :)
But overall, I loved your sentiment and wanted to applaud you for stating it!
Ok, now that that's out of the way. A buyer walked on you and you "gave them another shot". You're an idiot. You take the deposit and walk. What are you babbling about escrow? If you had them sign a well written (this is why I use a realtor / buyers agent) letter of intent and give you (or your realtor) the deposit then you just keep it if they back out - no fuss. Sounds like you screwed up.
Now, how did the other seller find out what happened? Again, sounds like you screwed up. And why weren't you already under contract with him? Another screw up. He would have to have been stupid not to raise the price.
And last - quit your bitching. You paid this guy $15,000 more for a house (i.e. raised your monthly payment by approx $50 for a 30yr mortgage), so what? You said yourself you wanted the house. If it wasn't worth another $15,000 then you should have walked away. You didn't so either you got what you wanted or you screwed up. Based on your post we'll just mark you down for another screw up.
Oh, and I almost forgot - how the hell does someone bail out of buying your house "one week after closing"? How dumb/confused are you? If it was "one week after closing" the house would have already been sold, deed transfered, etc - that's what happens at "closing".
It sounds to me like you should just rent and leave property ownership to the adults.
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.
Bingo! So why does this blogger vs blogger dispute gets front page? I repeat: I don't see the connection. I do see there is a dispute, just that I didn't expected /. to cover the "issue".
I think your statement - "anybody who labels themselves has that "my way or the highway"" - has about as much merit as "all liberals support terrorism" or "all conservatives are sheeple who have been brainwashed by the corporations"
*All* blanket statements are seriously broken in very fundamental ways
I'm in federal court now defending against a defamation per se lawsuit over comments I wrote on my website. Summary judgment motions are scheduled for August. I contacted a lawyer, but I have been representing myself.
Anyone know Michael Zubitskiy? I was sued when the other party published a photo from my website and I wrote about it. They said the photo was really taken by Michael Zubitskiy, a Russian-speaking man they met in a health club sauna. This corporation claims they later paid Zubitskiy $850.00 in cash for a CD-ROM with some photos, but have lost the CD and Zubitskiy's contact info.
The case was filed in 2005 and my website was under a restraining order for the first week. In the past two years, nobody has located any trace of this Michael Zubitskiy (no health club membership, driver's license, address, credit record, unlisted number, etc.). I have long since produced the certificate of copyright registration for my photo, and a second photo I discovered the other party had published.
They are suing me for a million dollars. They have a sales agreement signed by Zubitskiy, but their employee who notarized it surrendered his notarial comission to the attorney general in a consent decree to avoid a hearing on misconduct. If it's helpful to compare the difference between small claims and federal court, there is a detailed chronology of events at the link below. I believe people should speak up, as you can be sued at any time for anything anyway.
details: vilana financial
www.cgstock.com
I live in the Columbia area of SC
I'm.... I'm so sorry. That's a horrible place to live. I should know.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
I think that is beside the point, although you are right, not everyone who declares themselves this or that has the attitude that they know they are right and there is nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. "Just about everyone" was a bad choice of words. My point was, it's not just "liberals;" it can go for an adherer to any ideology.
"We have exactly as much freedom as we are willing to demand and as we can defend."
The journalist sued for damages (bruised ego?) and won. The blogger appealed and lost the appeal.
Again, No 1st Amendment Rights Violated!
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Then what are you bitching about? On the one hand you say you wnt to be a "nice" guy, then you bitch when being nice instead of smart costs you money (which you claim you don't care about if you can help a "nice" family out). The guy you were buying from raised his price? Guess what? You paid it, which means it was worth the extra $$ (it's called "fair market value"). You're complaining about your lawyer when you didn't follow the terms of your selling contract and hadn't yet entered into a contract on the house you were buying? The problem wasn't with your lawyer, the problem was in your mirror.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
"Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
Then we have Freedom of speech everywhere.
Mundus Vult Decipi
You know, this is one of those few occasions where bold, +10 point capitalisation is the only appropriate font for communication.
Well done.
Insert
This blogger did nothing wrong according to OUR CONSTITUTION.
"Freedom of speech" is not synonymous with "freedom from consequence".
The rules don't apply in the Corps and you can say anything that you want in Court? The UCMJ says that you are wrong about the Corps and the Rules of Civil Procedure mean that you can't do what you want to in court - but that the guy whose case I cited can keep $100meg because the IRS/DOJ screwed up a pleading and the rules of civil procedure barred a second bite at the apple.
While engaging in the flame war you still don't get the core issue: $7.5k in a "small claims" action only effects the ONE person involved. The court is not a "court of record" and the twit lost $7.5k (the limits of the court's jurisdiction) because he committed a civil wrong. There is no precedent set.
Now, suppose I went to your boss and showed him photoshopped images of you and that goat. Then your boss calls you in and tells you that you are fired because he saw photos of you and a goat engaging in goatse.
You would be out of a job and I would be liable for false light defamation. That is apparently what went on in this case.
Quit maligning the Corps and have a good Father's Day.
SCO can waste $millions of public money suing IBM for years over less than zero, to produce an encyclopedia of "how not to sue IBM" from which IBM gets priceless protection.
IBM doesn't even pay its fair share of taxes to support that subsidy, like most US corporations.
But a blogger staking out the rights we'll all have to protection of our free speech for the rest of the century (and hopefully more) doesn't even produce even a record of how the judges might have made mistakes that thwart all our free expression. Because some penny-ante corporation strategically sued the blogger in a court that censors its own expression while suppressing someone else's.
Really what's wrong with this picture is that corporations are first class citizens, humans are second class, and we slaves must pay to protect them. Such a deal!
--
make install -not war
He knew what the evidence was, and he should have come prepared, especially at the second trial, to refute it.This is an idiotic statement. Salahi lost in small claims court, where no lawyers are allowed. It's just one person vs. another, and a judge who uncovers the truth.
The truth has been uncovered, and justice has been served.
"Avoid employing unlucky people - throw half of the pile of CVs in the bin without reading them." -- David Brent
Shockingly the Democrats use the same strategy.
If you are such a brilliant real estate mogul, how did you get taken so badly on this deal? And why the profanities? You sound a little insecure in the decisions you made.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Same here, but it really depends whether we're talking fiscal policy, human rights, foreign relations, social policy or any number of other subjects.
The very important difference between the Right/left wing whack jobs and the rest of the populace is the ability to change ones own opinion when it no longer makes sense. And that is definitely not something which is relegated to one or the other side of the spectrum.
The problem here is that a small group of zealots were able to claim conservative without actually being conservative. If the President and the congress had been adhering to a genuine conservative agenda things would be somewhat different. The deficit wouldn't have grown so outlandishly, the government wouldn't be sticking its nose into the lives of the people to a degree which would have made FDR blush, the federal government wouldn't have ballooned up in size and there would be some degree of accountability by civil servants. None of those things would have been done by somebody that is legitimately conservative, perhaps one or two, but definitely not the whole list. It just goes against what the conservative movement was about.
I don't know what the proper name for that is, but it isn't liberal, it isn't conservative its just messed up.
You "progressives" are all for free speech on campus until a Republican comes to speak. Then you shout them down or assault them or otherwise harass and intimidate them.
BTW, I was reading on your blog how you support Hamas's supossed support for a cease fire. LOL! Whether it's lobbing rockets at Israel or starting a civil war, they've really been ceasing fire! Ha, a recent poll in Gaza showed that a large plurality of Palestinians preferred Israel running Gaza. That independence has worked out great for your precious Palestinians. It never ceases to amaze me how blind the left is on this issue.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
"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."
Has your site ever been slashdotted? My blog's been slashdotted twice. On the biggest/best slashdotting, I didn't even make enough in extra ad revenue to pay his court fees.
Assume he gets 100,000 visitors from being slashdotted. If he gets a 2% clickthrough on Google ads and is getting a buck a click (which may be high, given his subject matter), he earns enough to pay off 26% of the judgement. But Slashdot readers aren't known for their penchant to click on pay-per-click ads. He can probably expect 1/4 of that or less in his clickthrough rate. And if he's getting an average of 50 cents a click, he earns enough to pay off 3.33% of the judgement.
Now, let's say he's got a good mix of CPM, CPC, and CPA ads. If he's able to sell the entire CPM inventory, that's 100 x whatever CPM rate he gets. You think he's getting 5, maybe 10 bucks? All right, let's go 15. That pays off 20% of the judgement.
Basically, in a best-possible situation, the guy pays off maybe half the judgement from a slashdotting, but that assumes that his experience is different from most other sites that get slashdotted. In reality, his ad earnings won't top a grand, and he'd be lucky to get close to that much.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
S'long as you're not a playa hata, Imma OK.
It sounds to me like you should just rent and leave property ownership to the adults.
... er, *adjusts*. See here and here.
Heh, I'm not sure most adults seem to understand mortgages either. I've seen mainstream, middle-class-targeted publications, very frequently, fielding questions from, and giving advice to, people who can't even understand that an adjustabe-rate mortgage
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
2) Although he admitted to the second judge that he knew he was sued and thought "it was his right" to not sign for legal service documents he knew were notice to appear in court, he was given a new hearing and the original judgment vacated for him. During the second trial, his only defense consisted of libel he made up on LEE KAPLAN WATCH as evidence Lee Kaplan was a bad person who justified what he was doing. It should be noted, Salahi keeps referring to pornographic homosexual images with Lee Kaplan's head photoshopped on them that were introduced with other evidence in the declarations visible on the Web as somehow central to the case. This evidence was not introduced at the first or second trials due to time constraints and both judges still found in favor of Lee Kaplan. The case was not based on this evidence in the declarations even during Salahi's last appeal as it never came up in front of the judge during the Superior Court trial. Salahi claims he could not have posted links to the porno shots on the LEE KAPLAN WATCH website because the hyperlink was not the same color as others. Anyone who knows about web building knows you can have hyperlinks of different colors that still work, but even that was not relevant to the case. After maintaining he had nothing to do with the porno images he then claims to know of another lawsuit against another website about them. How would he know this if he had no contact with the other website's publisher? The fact is, Salahi was shown to have changed and deleted evidence on the Internet many times over the course of the trial that were proven in court.
3)In all his rants on the Internet trying to elicit sympathy he claims his First Amendement free speech rights were violated by this case so as to enlist the support of other bloggers on the Web. He then says nobody asked or told him he had to remove the LEE KAPLAN WATCH site and he intends to continue posting on it. So, pray tell, how were his First Amendment rights curtailed? Because he was held responsible for libel and writing Lee Kaplan's business associates costing Lee Kaplan work? He threatened Lee Kaplan's publishers with the same things he was doing to Lee Kaplan on the Internet. He stated in an interview in the Daily Cal he enver sent any emails, then admitted to sending the emails and making phone calls in court. One of Kaplan's publishers had to contact the police. Salahi hopes that people who did not see the evidence in court will feel sympathy for him. The judges were not so gullible.
4) Salahi claims he changed the headline to appear on the Google caches from "Lee Kaplan named in federal libel lawsuit" to Lee Kaplan MENTIONED in Federal libel lawsuit. Of course, he doesn't mention he did this change only AFTER he lost in court the first time and the damage to Lee Kaplan had already occured. The dates of the changes were clear to the final judge who heard Salahi's appeal in Superior Court. This leaving out pertinent information is classic Yaman Salahi and why he lost this case." - http://www.leekaplandeconstructsleekaplanwatch.blo gspot.com/
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997