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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
One of the oddities of the court system is that no court cares, nor can any court know for certain, what you can "afford" or how much money you "have." Nobody knows whether a losing party to a lawsuit has (or does not have) cash hidden under a mattress, or a rich uncle with six months to live. Maybe Mr. Salahi will be able to get a job when he gets out of college and Mr. Kaplan will be able to file a wage garnishment. Maybe someday Mr. Salahi will inherit real estate or win the lottery. Since the lawsuit was based on an "intentional tort," could be Mr. Salahi won't be able to avoid it even if he files for bankruptcy. A judgment creditor can subject a judgment debtor to various kinds of unpleasantness and hassle even if the debtor is truly "judgment proof." Judgments in California earn 10% annual interest, and they can be renewed every 10 years, forever. IAAL.
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
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
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.
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
I wanted to say, "An ad hominem attack is likely to be a tort. If it was an ad homonym attack, it's likely to be a torte." But that's a homophone.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
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."
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
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.
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 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.
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]