Goldman Sachs Tries To Shut Down Dissident Blogger

The Narrative Fallacy sends along a piece from the Telegraph on efforts by Goldman Sachs to silence a blogger who is posting commentary critical of the bank. "Goldman Sachs has instructed Wall Street law firm Chadbourne & Parke to pursue blogger Mike Morgan, warning him in a recent cease-and-desist letter that he may face legal action if he does not close down his website goldmansachs666.com. According to the C&D letter, dated April 8, the bank is rattled because the site 'violates several of Goldman Sachs' intellectual property rights' and also 'implies a relationship' with the bank itself. Morgan claims he has followed all legal requirements to own and operate the website and that the header of the site clearly states that the content has not been approved by the bank. In a post entitled Goldman Sachs vs Mike Morgan, the blogger predicts that the fight will probably end up in court. He went through a similar battle with US home builder Lennar a few years ago after he set up a website to collect information on what he alleged was shoddy workmanship in its homes. 'Since I went through this with Lennar, I've had advice from some of the best intellectual property lawyers, and I know exactly what I can and can't do. We're not going to back down from this.'"

Comments

Um....

[Darkness404]

Why do companies go to these great lengths to censor these people? Its a lot more effective to let the bloggers blog in relative obscurity then to make a big deal of it and then increase the pagerank of their blog. Pursing these types of cases only leads people to believe you do have something to hide, and that something to hide just got a lot higher up on Google by threatening to sue them....

Re:Um....

[Gerzel]

Because most of the time it isn't more effective to let them blog in obscurity.

I'd be willing to bet that most people blowing whistles or posting such sites have not crossed every "t" and dotted every "i" and do have some legal leverage that companies can use to shut them down and in many cases wipe them out. Most fold quietly and are never heard from or else are destroyed by legal fees. These bussinesses would not pursue these practices if they were not effective in most cases.

Sending a scary legal-looking letter especially to a young or low-wage person is more than enough to get them to shut down and shut up what ever they are doing that you don't like. Often you can get the person to sign something to have them give up more rights while they are scared and thus have even more power over them once and if they ever come to their senses.

Re:Um....

[PhreakOfTime]

But then again, posting such a poorly thought out Cease and Desist letter might end up in more attention being drawn to such unethical business practices.

Since you are a betting man, what do you think the odds are that the lawyer who wrote that letter has severely questioned the decision to do so?

Re:Um....

[Golddess]

Gerzel's point was that, most of the time, $BIG_CORP trying to shutdown $LITTLE_BLOG does not end up like TFA. Now, I don't know if that is true or not, but Mr Morgan fighting back against Mr Sachs does not automatically invalidate what Gerzel said.

striesand effect

[timmarhy]

when will lawyer types understand the world is more complex than litigation. even if sachs win this it's too late, they've given him all the credibility he needs just by reacting to it.

if they just ignored it and called it blatantly untrue, he'd slip off the radar never to been seen again. the other side to this is that there are lots of guys like this blogger who take up causes like this just to try get their 15 minutes. this guy strikes me as one of this self rightgeous types.

Re:striesand effect

[oldhack]

"when will lawyer types understand the world is more complex than litigation."

I'm sure lawyers understand that better than most.

Re:striesand effect

[timmarhy]

call me jaded, don't i don't see lawyers not advising legal action. that's simply not what we see happening in the courts these days.

Re:striesand effect

[Saysys]

It does not matter if it is right or wrong to the lawyers.

What matters is how much they can convince GS to pay them for the privilege of making GoldmanSachs look bad.

Re:striesand effect

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you don't see the lawyers advising against legal action in courts.

They are against going to court in the first place!

Re:striesand effect

[qbzzt]

Goldman Sachs probably has a PR department. It's the job of the PR department to weigh in and say this is not worth doing.

Lawyers are experts on how things would appear to a judge and a jury - not how the rest of the world would perceive them. Often the best legal course is a really bad PR course.

Re:striesand effect

[CodeBuster]

Often the best legal course is a really bad PR course.

That is true, but unless the bad PR reaches a mighty crescendo of public outrage, as the AIG bonus scandals did, then a bank holding company, like Goldman, is unlikely to change its ways. Goldman is not a consumer products or entertainment company and so is more insulated from, although not impervious to, the direct actions and opinions of the public.

Re:bad law, not Kosher

[davebarnes]

Goldman Sachs Cheeseburgers.
Too funny.
Especially near Passover.

Right as Rain

[Seraphim_72]

But you know, even if you are right, being an asshole still shines through. You always have to consider the messenger.

Re:More of the many abuses by banks:

[ip_fired]

Someone associated with the big banks, acting for "The Fed", determines the interest rate that will be paid on savings. There are often news stories saying how brilliant he is for lowering the interest rate, which allows the banks higher income, and means that those who save money get less interest.

Huh? Banks determine the interest rate that they will pay you. It's on your monthly statement. If banks need more money, they'll offer a higher interest rate to entice people to transfer more money over to them. If you want a fixed rate, you need to get a CD, which will lock you into a rate. By using a savings account which you can withdraw from, you get less. Less risk (because your cash is liquid), less reward.

The interest rate you are talking about is the inter-bank lending rate, where banks will make very short term loans to each other (overnight, or a few days) so that they have the requisite amount of cash to meet the needs of their depositors. It doesn't always effect the rates at which you can lend at.

In response to your other gripes:
IRAs) Don't invest in CDs. Put your money in managed funds that will get you better returns without you having to do all of the research.
Credit Cards) Don't buy what you can't afford. It doesn't matter what interest rate you have on the card if you pay it off in full each month.
Savings Accounts) Move your money out when the bank lowers the rate. Move it into something with a higher return if you can afford to have it be locked up for a while.
Bank Representatives) Not sure what bank you're with that causes you think this, but it isn't true of all banks. Start shopping around a bit more.