Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Ongoing Case of Rakofsky vs. Internet

Posted by timothy on from the oj-simpson-was-a-duffer dept.

Chmcginn writes "Joseph Rakofsky, a New Jersey lawyer whose claim to internet fame is filing a lawsuit against the Washington Post and the American Bar Association for criticizing his performance at a Washington, DC murder trial, has amended his suit to include a number of bloggers and internet forum members — for criticizing the lawsuit. Which is a bigger threat to free speech — direct government action, or fear of lawsuits for frivolous defamation charges?"

26 of 157 comments (clear)

  1. In my opinion . . . by OverlordQ · · Score: 4, Informative

    . . . Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:In my opinion . . . by uncanny · · Score: 2

      It's not libel if it is the truth!

    2. Re:In my opinion . . . by ByOhTek · · Score: 2

      Hey! Be fair! I'm sure there are a lot of goats that take offense at that.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    3. Re:In my opinion . . . by mandark1967 · · Score: 2

      . . . Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat.

      OverlordQ, of Slashdot was quoted today stating that, "...Joseph Rakofsky is an asshat."

      while un-named sources differed in their opinion, stating, "I think he is excellent. There a balance of posts so /. should be all right ;-0"

      Personally, I have no opinion either way. His method of handling this situation, however, could lead one to the belief that he is, indeed, an asshat.

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    4. Re:In my opinion . . . by russotto · · Score: 2

      Because of DMCA, a user generated content site can publish anything, without fear of direct reprise from the person libelled.

      Actually, no. It's Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act which provides this immunity, not the never-sufficiently-damned DMCA. A good thing, too, or else few uncensored user generated content sites could exist thanks to people like Mr. Rakofsky... and apparently yourself.

  2. Clearly, the guy has a case of... by msauve · · Score: 5, Insightful

    SLAPP.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  3. DGA by JBMcB · · Score: 2

    Direct government action. A lawsuit from an individual, you have a chance of defending against. The government makes the rules, interprets the rules, and arbitrates the rules. The deck is pretty well stacked against you.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:DGA by ByOhTek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But there are times one branch of the government will side against the actions of the government.

      That's one advantage of a government that isn't a cohesive whole, it significantly reduces the cases of the government getting away with abuse.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
  4. Direct Government Action by Gr33nJ3ll0 · · Score: 2

    The frivolous lawsuits are often tossed out of court relatively quickly, while the government takes forever, and often tortures and imprisons people. I'll take a bankruptcy over water boarding any day!

  5. Suits, obviously by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just look at the situation in the UK - for example, this analysis from the Morton Report :

    The result is that Britain is suffering from a severe case of 'libel chill', where publishers and newspapers are afraid to publish a story because the subject, usually a celebrity, might decide to sue.

    Freedom of Speech is in many ways the most fundamental of all freedoms, because without it repressions of the other freedoms cannot be corrected.

    1. Re:Suits, obviously by Hazel+Bergeron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freedom of Speech is in many ways the most fundamental of all freedoms, because without it repressions of the other freedoms cannot be corrected.

      There's this habit in the US of regarding freedom of speech as a binary thing, where the US is regarded as traditionally having freedom of speech but "everywhere else" doesn't. This isn't true. The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to copyright to inciting imminent lawless action. There are many civil and private consequences to speech from fines for libel or "harassment" (consider calling someone a "nigger" in the workplace just once) to losing your job for trying to form a union - again, it's all about the malleable definitions of "freedom" and "speech". I once heard a satellite Eastern European stalwart compliment the US for encouraging criticism of its government, then lament that American workers did not enjoy the similar encouragement and freedom to criticise his boss that he did. To a Westerner it may be perfectly reasonable that you can be fired for publicly calling your boss a cunt but unreasonable to have any action taken against you for calling your head of state a cunt. But this requires so many assumptions about the sort of society you want to live in, and no matter how hard the West tries to impose it, it isn't yet a universal view.

      We can have functioning societies with whole swathes of different regulations on speech, even though you may argue that more freedom of speech will produce a better society. But if we lack some semblance of rule of law, or if we lack much more fundamental rights such as the right to life or the right to eat (which is usually a consequence in Western nations of the rights to property and to social welfare), then speech doesn't matter so much.

    2. Re:Suits, obviously by smelch · · Score: 2

      You have freedom to call anyone you want any words you want, and the government must allow the KKK room to speak at its facilities assuming it is used for speeches to other groups. Freedom of speech does not mean you lose your freedom to fire people you don't like [because they called you a cunt]. It just means there can be no government force behind the consequences of your actions. This is where I don't like libel/slander laws. As pertains to your theorized right to eat, I believe we do have the right to eat. We do not have the right to eat other people's belongings. Having said that, that does not mean the government should not have a program designed to purchase food for the soul purpose of giving it to those who can not afford it. Somewhere along the line people seemed to have confused something you are allowed to do if you are able to mean they are allowed to make people enable them, which is wrong. You do not have a right to make people enable your use of rights. A right should be something the government can not outlaw and must not take action against. Nothing more, nothing less.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    3. Re:Suits, obviously by snspdaarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The police are not there because you were called a cunt. The police are there because you called them and apparently reported someone on site who had no reason to be there and was refusing to leave.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    4. Re:Suits, obviously by smelch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well I just disagree with that. Showing up to a place you are not welcome against the wishes of the owner is not a right, and the government is not firing you, making sure you were fired, making sure you were not paid, helping you clean out your desk, and it is a secondary action to the free speech. Perhaps you see it differently. Tell me, just out of curiousity, do you believe in property rights? More importantly, do you believe the right to free speech is more important than the right to free association? It seems that assuming your example is government force behind the consequences of the initial action (calling your boss a cunt) is correct lead to the conclusion that there is no workable system of protecting all rights, therefore society and government require some rights to be given up. Am I correct in this line of logic?

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    5. Re:Suits, obviously by Bengie · · Score: 2

      What he meant is the government will defensively protect your rights, but not offensively.

      The government will protect your rights, so long as they don't step on other people's rights. You may have a right to call me a cunt, but you don't have a right to not be fired for it and you don't have a right to be at my work place, so I can have you removed for imposing on my right to remove anyone who is neither a customer nor a worker.

      Rights stop being rights once they impose on someone else's rights. eg You have a right to property, but you may not take someone else's property to gain it.

    6. Re:Suits, obviously by Rendonsmug · · Score: 2

      It is intellectually dishonest to see an unambiguous, clear-cut chain of events and announce the cause to be somewhere in the middle of the chain, don't you think?

      This is hardly a clear-cut chain of events. For example there is no casual link between "You get fired" and "You show up to work anyways". The actual chain of events is more like "You trespass" > "You get in trouble for trespassing." To pretend that calling your boss a name is absolutely intellectually dishonest.

    7. Re:Suits, obviously by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2

      I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.

      I do X, which causes my girlfriend to no longer want to have sex with me, but I have sex with her anyway. She has me arrested, which is a government consequence for X. Therefore I don't really have a right to do X.

      X = called her a cunt, no freedom of speech.
      X = hung out with friends she doesn't like, no freedom of assembly
      X = wrote something she didn't like, no freedom of the press
      X = converted to religion Y, no freedom of religion
      X = did something under "human right Z", "human right Z" doesn't exist

      Your line of reasoning would negate the entire concept of rights.

  6. I have a feeling by sxltrex · · Score: 2

    I have a feeling that his shit list is about to get a lot bigger.

  7. the internet is composed of human beings by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in any society of human beings, free speech will always be threatened, for various arbitrary reasons, such as this asshole Joseph Rakofsky and his wounded ego

    freedom, in any society, for all time, will always erode, and must always be fought for, and maintained. concepts like freedom are not things that are fought for once, and then that's it: freedom established! happy ever after is here! real life is a not fairy tale kingdom

    no, freedom is constantly under attack, forever, and you, yes YOU have to keep fighting for it, or it will decay. depend upon someone else to fight for it, and if enough people do the same thing, it will also decay, since no one is actually fighting for freedom. so whose responsibility is freedom? YOURS. in a society where enough people think that, and you live in the best society on earth

    aside to Ratfuckski:

    grow up, scumbag: people say nasty things about people all the time. let it pass and move on. you only validate their opinion of you when you react to it. ignore it, and the insult loses power over you, and by extension, everyone else. even better, embrace it, make a joke, and laugh at yourself, and turn a negative into a positive impression about how smooth your are

    but give an insult attention, and you validate someone's poor opinion of you. to the extent it becomes truth. after all, if it wasn't the truth that you suck as a lawyer, why would you react so vigorously to the accusation? you're a loser Ratfuckski. now sue me, scumbag

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the internet is composed of human beings by countertrolling · · Score: 2

      ...no, freedom is constantly under attack, forever, and you, yes YOU have to keep fighting for it, or it will decay...

      Krieg macht frei?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  8. Why THAT link? by Ruke · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's actually an interesting article here, but the link the summary just goes to a page explaining why he won't be expanding on his earlier, better post.

  9. Technically... government intervention... by hellfire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Okay I'm not trolling for any kind of political points here. I'm actually trying to point out that ol' Joe here will not have any effect on free speech because not only has he set up a "me vs the world" mentality, the world agrees and won't bother listening. In terms of the grand scheme of American politics, American society and the world in general, no one has a scrap of motivation to join his side.

    US Government intervention into free speech is an unlikely but serious thing to always think about. Joe affecting free speech ain't happening.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

  10. Wow ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    That takes balls or stupidity ... seriously, who sues the American Bar Association? That's like ... suing all of the lawyers, isn't it?

    And, really, if I read the blog correctly ... it sounds that all this guy did was to voice an opinion (mirroring that of the trial judge) that this wet-behind-the-ears lawyer was out of his depth in this murder trial. And, ultimately did a very piss-poor job of it -- so much so the judge had to declare a mistrial.

    From the sounds of it, he doesn't have a pot to piss in (or a hat to shit in).

    Oh, and for Joseph Rakofsky ... Ha ha ... sue my ass punk, I'm not even in the US. Who is going to trust a lawyer with a Justin Bieber haircut?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  11. Re:So, what is he going to do for a living now? by uncanny · · Score: 2

    Same thing all rejects of morality do: write a book, get a TV show, or run for some kind of political position!

  12. You almost feel sorry for him.... by Unixnoteunuchs · · Score: 2

    "if you would shoot at the king, you had better kill the king." I expect that the ABA and Thomson Reuters will eviscerate this poor fool. He will be begging the court to dismiss them as defendants but they will stick it out the better to beat him with a stick.

  13. Why he has to defend himself by retroworks · · Score: 2

    He needs the work. It's not like anyone else is likely to hire him.

    --
    Gently reply