Lawyer Sues Yahoo for Message Board Name-Calling

Yardboy writes "Yahoo! News has a story concerning one Stephen Galton who has filed a class-action lawsuit against Yahoo claiming the company 'unfairly protected people who post negative messages on its bulletin boards and falsely advertised that it prevents such abusive messages.' Seems he was subjected to name-calling (such as shyster) when he signed up under the username 'stephengalton' in order to respond to a negative post about an unidentified client. As other users chimed in with negative remarks, Galton filed suit against them (it's not clear from the story for what) and sought their personal information from Yahoo via a subpoena. The lawsuit seeks restitution, a permanent injunction and other forms of relief. What's really interesting is all the message board posts relating to the story have been deleted."

Information

[panxerox (575545)]

That's the trouble with the internet and it's rapid and massive stream of information, some of it your not going to like. Find other ways than litigation to deal with it, as litigation just shines a 10 billion candlepower light on it for all the world to see.

Re:Information

[RLiegh (247921)]

Apparently not, since the posts are all deleted.

Incidently, here in america, we use litigation for everything. Just the morning I used litigation to open a mayonnaise jar that was wouldn't open.

Re:Information

[wankledot (712148)]

And I will now sue you for using the phrase "was wouldn't open"

I'm sure a jury will have no problem finding you guilty.

Re:Information

[RLiegh (247921)]

I'm sure a jury will have no problem finding you guilty.
NOT so fast, there. I was snacking on twinkies and coffee; so clearly my violation of the "User Agrees To Preview Each Comment" clause of the slashdot EULA is not MY fault, but the fault of Hostess and Foldgers coffee.

Re:Information

[rk (6314)]

You may get out of that lawsuit, but you are still clearly in violation of my patent "Decanting a glass, plastic, or other receptacle containing an egg/oil emulsion for food flavoring or other purposes."

In RE: "Mayo Jar"

[Chmcginn (201645)]

This is to inform you that you are facing a summary lawsuit for use of a "not-entirely-pointy not-very-sharp bladed object" to dispense your "mayo". Although we don't have any evidence that you actually used one of my patent-pending devices, my lawyers and I are making the assumption based on the fact that only a terrorist would use a spoon to dispence mayo. And you're not a terrorist, are you? ;)

Re:In RE: "Mayo Jar"

[SEWilco (27983)]

You'll regret knowing that we're using the Source Open Contents 'Verting System. This was reverse engineered from basic science and is compatible with all containering systems. To protect against usage patents, the system randomly chooses what tool to use to open the top, side, or bottom of the container. After the contents are spread, dropped, sprayed, or condensed on the sandwich the container is destroyed in multiple ways so as to make its opening method be in an unknown state. Any legal papers will vanish when they arrive in the legally undefinable area around each sandwich.

Re:Information

[B747SP (179471)]

litigation just shines a 10 billion candlepower light on it for all the world to see.

Whereas if your story makes the slashdot front page, you can take it as a given that sooner or later someone is going to google about looking for you, find a photo of you, and link to it [galtonhelm.com] for all the world to see that you really do look like "overly robust geezer that makes a living walking behind the elephant with a shovel."

Man, if I looked like that, I'd be busy keeping my self out of public view, not inspiring the whole planet to take a look at my fat, ugly, shyster mug!

Re:Information

[gregorio (520049)]

Whereas if your story makes the slashdot front page, you can take it as a given that sooner or later someone is going to google about looking for you, find a photo of you, and link to it for all the world to see that you really do look like "overly robust geezer that makes a living walking behind the elephant with a shovel."

Man, if I looked like that, I'd be busy keeping my self out of public view, not inspiring the whole planet to take a look at my fat, ugly, shyster mug!

While I think the said lawyer clearly exaggerated on his answer to the name-calling situation, I must say to you that every single action you take in real life might be associated to a price you are not willing to pay.

I'm very serious about that. While it sounds (and it actually is) easy to say these kind of things about someone, using your computer, it does not mean that what you just did is not something serious.

A lot of crimes are very easy to commit, but they will not give the society less reasons to punish you for what you did. And they are still crimes, and still wrong, no matter how innocent they might seem to you.

No matter what you think about how this guy looks like, he is still have his right to care about his reputation and not be publicy ridiculized by a bunch of people who has not grown (sometimes mentally) up yet. Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated.

And again, no matter what do you think about him, he still have his rights, and they should be respected.

Re:Information

[Brightest Light (552357)]

"...still have his right to care about his reputation and not be publicy ridiculized by a bunch of people who has not grown (sometimes mentally) up yet. Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated."

What the hell are you talking about, exactly? "Rights to not be humiliated"? What nation do you live in that gives its citizens a right to not be humiliated? The same with a "rights to a fair treatment". Here in America, where I'm from and whose laws I'm basing my statements from; you have a right to state your opinion about somebody or something, as long as its not slanderous or libelous, which only a judge in a courtroom can decide.
For example, I will now state my opinion that you are an asscandle. That is a pretty fair statement, I think. That statement is not slander, because it was not spoken; nor is it libelous unless a judge decides that I had knowledge that you are in fact not an asscandle, and I made that statment maliciously.

I know of no "right to care about one's reputation" either, but I will agree with you that people generally expect to be able to defend their reputation. The gentleman in question was at one point called a "shyster". Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about that:

shyster n. Slang: An unethical, unscrupulous practitioner, especially of law.

It is my opinion that filing lawsuits against a message board because some of its members said things you didn't like to hear is the action of a shyster lawyer. Despite what you seem to think, people (at least here in America) do have a right to state their opinion, which generally includes ridiculing people, most especially when their actions are deserving of ridicule. Unless its slanderous or libelous (which only a judge can decide), at which point they're open to legal action.

Your freedom to say things about him stops exactly at the start of his rights to a fair treatment and to not be humiliated.
It is my opinion that you sir, are an asscandle. Possibly a fucktable as well, depending on your reaction to this post.
So sue me.

Protected speech

[BWJones (18351)]

Yo Stephen! There is this little thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution that has something to do with another something called free speech. Grow up and learn how to deal with the kids on the playground.

Re:Protected speech

[gcaseye6677 (694805)]

It seems like there are a number of lawyers who have not yet figured out that the first amendment does in fact apply on the internet, as we can see by these examples [phillipsnizer.com]. Although this is becoming a little less common, many business owners/managers have tried to have critical websites shut down for little reason other than they don't like what is being said.

Re:Protected speech

[Bill_Royle (639563)]

The first amendment doesn't apply to this. A private entity has the right to restrict what is transmitted or stored on privately owned property. If the server or service was located on governmental property of some sort, then yes, it would be a violation. However, it wasn't.

This guy is out of luck, regardless. Google and Yahoo can get away with passing the information on without editing, as they serve as intermediaries, not initiators - at least they can in the US.

The irony here is that a shyster can generally be determined by the frequency with which the attorney sues... so even if he does get to court and gives a compelling case, he's basically showing the characteristics of one by suing everyone he can find.

Re:Protected speech

[B747SP (179471)]

Google and Yahoo can get away with passing the information on without editing,

Right up until the bit where they set themselves up as editors. Deleting the 'offending' posts, if in fact they have done that, constitutes an edit. Now, they're not intermediaries any more, they're active participants, and they're editors. They put them selves in the sights of some dodgy lawyer as a result.

this is the single biggest problem that I have with all forms of censorship. Even the stuff that your boss installs to block pr0n and warez and b00bies from the office web proxy. Apart from the fact that those tools fundamentally do not work, he's setting himself up for the one day when poor sensitive Mrs Jones over in accounts catches a glipse of a goatse man or a tubgirl that the filter somehow missed. The shyste^W^W^W^W^W^Wlawyers words go something along the lines of "You undertook to protect Mrs Jones from such horrors when you installed the content filter, and you failed your duty to Mrs Jones when she saw tubgirl. J00 15 ownz3d. Giz bulk cash!".

Filtering or editing in any commercial and/or public context is just plain dumb.

Re:Protected speech

[Compholio (770966)]

Shhhh! If he finds out about /. we're all screwed!

Re:Protected speech

[doodlelogic (773522)]

Shhhh! If he finds out about /. we're all screwed!

Only those of you with mod points!
I knew there was an advantage to being a newbie.

Re:Protected speech

[AK Marc (707885)]

Yes, I've heard of them. Yahoo didn't engage in them. So what's your point?

Re:Protected speech

[Bull999999 (652264)]

Yahoo didn't publish those messages, the users did. It's like suing the phone company because someone called you a dork on the phone.

Re:Protected speech

[BWJones (18351)]

Standard defense of libel or slander would include 1) speaking the truth, 2) statements of absolute or qualified privilege and 3) which is the most important and relevant here: Fair comment which means we are all free to state what is on our minds concerning public interest as long as there is no direct malicious intent.

Re:Protected speech

[by Anonymous Coward]

Actually in some countries (notably Australia and some other commonwealth nations) speaking the truth is NOT a defense against a slander charge. Example: John calls Mary a whore in order to harm her reputation. It's not relevant in those countries whether or not Mary engages in prostitution, it's only relevant if the "whore" statement is harmful to Mary's reputation and if John intended his comment to be harmful in that manner.

Sounds freaky to Americans, but it's true. It's a bit of a legally enforced i

Re:Protected speech

[localhost00 (742440)]

Ever heard of libel or slander?

Yes I have. Libel is making a false statement of a person. Calling him a name is not a true or false statement, but is rather opinion. Libel is not calling someone an asshat or shyster. Libel is saying he killed Nichole Brown Simpson. Libel is saying he accepted money from Evil, Corp. when in fact he didn't.

Libel is the difference between demeaning opinions and demeaning false statements.

Re:Protected speech

[Pharmboy (216950)]

Neither should be crimes. Lying should only be illegal when it is done on the witness stand.

Actually, lying to a police office (or other govt. official) who is conducting an investigation is a crime in the US. It is called "Obstructing Justice". You have the right to say nothing, but you don't have the right to say something false. Of course, neither apply here, the lawyer is just a pussy. Yahoo users keep posting new comments, and Yahoo keeps deleting them.

Oh wait, I just looked again, now over 100. Holy shit, Yahoo is getting slashdotted, lol

Re:Protected speech

[wrf3 (314267)]

... the lawyer is just a pussy,

Oh, great. Now all of /. is going to be sued.

Next Case

[darth_MALL (657218)]

The State vs. @55|-|@t-84

You don't know who I am Stephen...

[by Anonymous Coward]

... but you're a weenie!

Stephen Galton's Contact Info

[ambrosine10 (747895)]

I assume this [galtonhelm.com] is him?

[e-mail] [mailto]

Go on, tell him what you think.

Re:Stephen Galton's Contact Info

[by Anonymous Coward]

Boy is that man ugly! I think that with a mug like that, he should have sued his mother for punitive damages.

[e-mail] - [phone]

[Jailbrekr (73837)]

http://news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?action=m&board= 37172369&tid=nmtechyahoomessagesdc&sid=37172369&mi d=60

I think its important to post this information, before yahoo deletes it.

Please note that I am not posting anonymously. :)

Re:[e-mail] - [phone]

[Jailbrekr (73837)]

Sorry, here is the correct link [yahoo.com]

Suing for namecalling? He is a shyster.

[OldSchoolNapster (744443)]

Seriously pal, your not doing your profession any favors here.

Re:Suing for namecalling? He is a shyster.

[0x0d0a (568518)]

The problem isn't really that someone is a lawyer. Being a lawyer is simply a profession that involves knowing a lot of laws and how they interrelate and have been judged on in the past so that you may advise people.

The problem is that we in the United States did a poor job of setting up our court system, with extremely lucrative punitive damages. As a result, it is very profitable to prosecute bullshit lawsuits, and a number of people, not surprisingly, do so.

Furthermore, it turns out that most people are irrational and swayed by emotion, and those that serve on a jury are no different -- hence efforts by lawyers to try to sway jurors, and the perception of them as manipulative people.

We recognize that our country has issues with its legal system; the problem is that we then blame lawyers for it.

Slashdot effect....

[by Anonymous Coward]

Wonder how this Lawyer is gonna feel when he sees a zillion Slashdot users calling him "Loser" or worse...and lemme guess next case... Lawyer vs. The rest of us...*sigh*

As per an earlier story...

[The Master Control P (655590)]

I nominate this litigious asshole to be a Lawyer in Space... With no space suit.

Step 2 discovered!

[Ghoser777 (113623)]

1. Get insulted on slashdot
2. Sue Slashdot and those who insulted
3. Profit!

Man, that applies to me in so many other online forums... I could make billions... or even millions! Bwahahaha!

Messages deleted?

[Tackhead (54550)]

> What's really interesting is all the message board posts relating to the story have been deleted."

Well then, if someone's being defamed or libeled, and all the defamatory or libelous comments are deleted, then any accusation that the message board that hosted the defamatory or libelous comments would be questionable at best. One might go so far as to say that the sort of person who'd press a suit accusing the message board provider of negligence in such a situation was an ambulance-chasing shyster with less personal appeal than the Goatse Guy... except, of course, that anyone who said such a thing would probably open themselves up to a defamation of character suit from Mr. Goatse himself.

You missed the point

[nasor (690345)]

He isn't claiming that the critical comments on yahoo aren't protected speech under the first amendment; he's claiming that yahoo failed to fulfill their promise to prevent abusive postings, which doesn't have anything to do with the first amendment.

Re:You missed the point

[nwbvt (768631)]

I'm curious, where does Yahoo! promise to prevent abuse postings? I'm going through their TOS [yahoo.com] and I see no guarentee that abusive postings will be prevented.

I do see the following:

Yahoo! does not control the Content posted via the Service and, as such, does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity or quality of such Content. You understand that by using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is offensive, indecent or objectionable. Under no circumstances will Yahoo! be liable in any way for any Content, including, but not limited to, for any errors or omissions in any Content, or for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of any Content posted, emailed, transmitted or otherwise made available via the Service.

Which seems to throw out his argument. Just below that it does say

You agree to not use the Service to:

1. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

but then it continues

You acknowledge that Yahoo! may

or may not pre-screen Content, but that Yahoo! and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse, or move any Content that is available via the Service. [emphasis mine]

So it sounds like to me that they can remove the content he objected to as it is arguably harrassing or defamatory, but they are under no obligation to prevent it.

If you can find anything on Yahoo!'s site that goes against that, feel free to post it.

No control over content

[Zaranne (733967)]

Yahoo!'s user agreement doesn't protect someone from being abused like that. At least that's not how I read it. It states the user is responsible to NOT post such abusive things, and that Yahoo! cannot control what its users try to post (to a certain degree). It also states that a person may be exposed to things that will offend them. Therefore, Stephen, by registering with Yahoo! he agreed that this stuff might happen.

Another case of someone just trying to make a buck.

Frivilous Lawsuits and Abuse of the Law....

[HighOrbit (631451)]

....is almost completely committed by lawyers. This yet another example why America needs tort reform now! On a related matter, the regulation of lawyers by the state bar associations (which are not gov't bodies but are more of a lawyers guild) needs to end. Lawyers should be regulated and punished by *state* (i.e. gov't) institutions elected by the people (not appointed by other lawyers). Only when lawyers like this guy are punished and possibly stripped of their licences will this kind of abuse end. I won't even go into how much lawyers have caused the price of medical care to rise with fivilous lawsuits......

Re:Frivilous Lawsuits and Abuse of the Law....

[apc (193970)]

This is frankly bullshit. I'm an attorney in Pennsylvania. I am regulated by the disciplinary board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is elected (not appointed, elected), by the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. If a person has a complaint about my conduct as a lawyer, it goes to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. When I make out my check to renew my license every year, it's to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Most states, at least in the eastern part of the US, are like this. Many states, including my neighboring state of New Jersey, post details of all ethics investigations of individual lawyers on their Disciplinary Board websites, whether the lawyer is found guilty or not. Incidentally, I've never seen a state do the same for doctors and malpractice complaints. Or engineers and structural failures. I had to pass an intensive background check before I was able to work in the profession I devoted three years of study to. How about you?

The ABA, Pennsylvania Bar Association, Philadelphia Bar Association, etc. are *private organizations* which collect dues. Many lawyers aren't members.

It never ceases to amaze me, as a former network consultant, how people who would scream and yell at the slightest sign of ignorance of a computer-related topic are perfectly willing to make the most outrageous statements about other people's livelihoods (which, let me assure you, require equally arduous study as CS) without the slightest bit of knowledge to back them up.

Some lawyers are crooks. Some doctors are incompetent bunglers. Some politicians are liars. And some slashdot users? Can't spell "frivolous..."

Stephen Galton a pseudonym

[Bingo Foo (179380)]

His real name is Steven Bosell. [philhendrieshow.com]

Been there, done that

[prostoalex (308614)]

I worked as a contractor for a company that was at the height of the Internet boom in 2000 and is currently defunct. After the first round of layoffs the yahoo message board for the company stock (now deleted, since the company is no more, and neither is the nasdaq ticker) suddenly gained a bunch of users, discussing in excruciating details some "secret" deals that were on the way, some internal budgeting and executives' personal life.

Some of the stuff was pretty nasty, but at times it was a good laugh, and after a while the company started posting the legalese messages on the board, like "This is the legal dept of such-and-such, just to let you know, this board is being monitored and archived".

Anyway, they sued Yahoo! and subpoened Yahoo! for a bunch of online identities who were clearly former employees discussing what was called "sensitive information" on the public board and that had something to do with "negative public image". Needless to say, Yahoo! just kinda ignored the lawsuit for a while, although a bunch of people were a bit scared about the outcome.

Unfortunately, I dont remember whether it was the court that denied any reponsibility on Yahoo's part, or whether it was the company dissolving (I quit after being there for 2 months), but the identities were never revealed, and since the company went bankrupt, not that it really mattered.

I wonder how long it will take...

[mikeophile (647318)]

Till the name "Stephen Galton" is Google bombed with the word "shyster"?

Does this mean ......

[3seas (184403)]

.... we have to remove all the lawyer jokes from teh internet?

Illustrates a huge problem with our legal system

[theLOUDroom (556455)]

See the problem here is that this lawyer can file total bullshit suits like this with no fear of reprisal.

This waste the other party's time AND the government's time costing us all money.

What should happen here is that the first judge to see that paperwork should call him a "stupid crybaby" and fine him several thousand dollars.
It a shame we can't deal with baseless legal threats the same way we deal with threats of physical violence.
These types of threats really do hurt people, and the system should take that into account.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. This is why we have bullshit lawsuits about this like "one click" shopping and the fucking ALT key.
The end result is that both parties spend a bunch of money on litigation. We as taxpayers spend our money as well, and a couple lawyers who knew full well the suit was bullshit get rich.
It's bad for everyone but the fucking lawyers. FUCK LAWYERS.

Are you a "good" lawyer? Then do something about it! Purge the assholes from your ranks!
Do you think doctors would tolerate this type of behavior within THEIR ranks? You're supposed to be fricking professionals.

Why people don't like lawyers

[penguinoid (724646)]

I think I know the reason that lawyers are so hated and often seem childish. It is because they try to follow the law to the letter but not to the spirit, and will often sue those that are following the law to the spirit but not the letter. And since our (Awerican) laws are supposedly based on the Bible, I would just like to point out that we are supposed to follow the spirit of the law, not the letter (2 Corinthians 3:6 [gospelcom.net]). Why going against the spirit of the law while following the letter seems childish is because that is what children tend to do. Only after growing up a little do people learn that laws are meant to be followed to the spirit; those who don't seem(are?) childish.

California SLAPP Information

[Chatmag (646500)]

The California Code of Civil Procedure [casp.net] outlines the California anti-SLAPP statute, which would be applicable in this case. The California Anti-SLAPP Project [casp.net] site has more detailed information.

Apparently the lawyer isn't.

Hey, Steve! Fuck You, Shyster!

[Master of Transhuman (597628)]

Heh, heh...let's see /. get out of this one...

Reminds me of the guy in San Francisco who was interviewed on the street by a local TV station running a story on why people hate lawyers.

He said it was because lawyers were lying, cheating, back-stabbing, no-good, whatever, I don't remember the exact words.

They asked him what he did for a living.

He said, "I'm a lawyer."

A couple of weeks later, they did a follow-up story. It seems this guy was just out of law school and was looking for a job with a local law firm.

He got a ton of offers from local law firms after his ten second spot in the original interview.

Re:Cry baby

[robochan (706488)]

The problem with lawyers is that 99% of them give the rest a bad name.

Re:Let's get this straight.

[Izago909 (637084)]

The Scientology comment [slashdot.org] was the most advertised removal on slashdot. What's worse than a cult? A cult with thousands of highly paid lawyers that leech money from the ultra-rich.