Criticize Online, Get Fined 470
maxpublic writes "Yet another outspoken critic of corporate America has been SLAPP'ed - only this time, Dan Whatley didn't even know he'd been sued until he was presented with a $450,000 judgement. For those who don't know, SLAPP stands for 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' and is used to silence people who openly criticize thin-skinned corporations." In this case the company doing to suing is Xybernaut, the makers of
wearable computers mentioned here many times in the past. This article is a must
read. And now Xybernaut has joined Amazon and others on my list of Must-Avoid
companies. This is a creepy run around the 1st Ammendment, and you should
be aware.
Another SLAPP. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is probably the mail company's fault (Score:2, Informative)
I incline to believe the third one.
Except that in the US, certified mail is specifically a service of the US Postal Service. It's not some sleazy company serving papers, it's the Mail Carrier knocking on the door saying "letter for mister such and such". They don't care about the company, the suit, or the defendant. They're civil servants who just want to keep their jobs. Not delivering certified mail and forginf the signature on the receipt is an easy way to get fired from your cushy government job.
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Informative)
mod this post up! (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't the best example of SLAPP suits. (Score:3, Informative)
A much better example would be a few years back when a woman found out a business in her area was dumping waste behind a school. She notified the state agency to confirm it, and as a resident of that school's district, had a right to be on the property. As a result, she was SLAPP'ed, by the contractor who was hiding the waste. Now THAT is scary. What possible right could that contractor have for suing her, when he WAS guilty?? She was nothing more than a whistle-blower, I don't think any of us would argue with that.
Suing someone over a troll-like post on a messageboard is childlike, and shows a company to be immature. Suing because someone exposed you for poisoning the planet is just downright low, even lower than dumping waste materials behind an elementary school in the first place.
You can read more about SLAPP and that particular lawsuit here at ZeroWasteAmerica.org [zerowasteamerica.org]
Re:Criticize? (Score:3, Informative)
jon
Libel not likely on Slashdot. (Score:2, Informative)
Both the statute (CDA's Section 230 provisions) and case law are very strong in the exemptions granted to the operators of a computer service from the duties and liabilities of a traditional publisher. Every direct challenge brought against an online service provider regarding speech contributed by a third-party has been defeated both at trial and in appellate court.
Re:harry potter (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Criticize? (Score:2, Informative)
Pbur
Typical Xybernaut behaivoir (Score:1, Informative)
The thing is that noone into wearable computing would ever think of buying a Xybernaut product. Buying low-power hardware for 10 times what it is worth isnt for the researcher or pioneer (wearable computing people are pioneers) and the problem is that Xybernaut hates the fact that when a newbie asks about what to buy to get into wearable computing
Re:USPS definition of certified mail-- (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually up to the sender to provide the proof, as the "return receipt" represents the return of the green postcard with a signature of it being received as proof.
If you're ever in a situation where this comes up, demand to inspect it. I had one where the other party waived up the certified letter as proof I was aware (which I never received). The little green card was sent to an address not within 10 miles of anywhere I've ever lived, and apparently some idiot with a different name signed for it. Took care of that matter.
*scoove*
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, under some child welfare and animal abuse statutes, there is also no due process -- you are presumed guilty until proven innocent. This is why in some states (California for one), children are sometimes removed from a home based entirely on unfounded, *anonymous* "tips" alleging abuse. In those cases, you also have no right to face your accuser.
Yes, THAT is probably unconstitutional, but look how far anyone gets fighting other legislative or judicial stupidity committed in the name of "for the children".
not exactly correct. (Score:5, Informative)
Since their libel claim was that they were libeled because I said that they violated the FMLA, ADA, MGL c.151B (the Mass. version of the ADA), I was able to bring this under those laws. Those laws specifically allow for punitive damages, where simple abuse of process does not.
Suit by Mail (Score:2, Informative)
Have a look at Rule 4 sometime. Have a look at the small claims court rules. People get served by mail all the time.
In some states, you don't even have to go as far as filing the case or getting the judgment. For an example, see http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001270
That's personal jurisdiction (Score:2, Informative)
If the Court never had personal jurisdiction because of bad service, the judgment is void.
Further, to enforce the judgment, it must be docketed in the home state of the defendant or a state in which the defendant has assets. When the plaintiff attempts to do this, the defendant can assert the defense that the judgment is void and should not be docketed. If the judgment is not docketed, it cannot be collected. Any attempt to collect it is abuse of process.
Re:Beware of having your opinions taken seriously (Score:2, Informative)
There is no libel here.
There is no libel but not because what you say is an opinion. It's because your target is a public figure. The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to allow "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials".
As I read the law, if you were to say that a public official had committed a criminal act and you knew the accusation was false and you did it with "actual malice", you could be sued for libel.
Private individuals have a different status. Whatley did more than call Newman a fool but the story doesn't say why the court found for the plaintiffs. Wrecklessly, maliciously and repeatedly calling into question a private individual's competence is plausible grounds.
In any case, I don't see how you could define "opinion" as permitting a lower standard of truth that some other kinds of public statements. Conceivably vagueness would be a defense.
Not really... (Score:2, Informative)
Something Like:The views and opinions, if any, expressed (or implied) by any, all, or part of are strictly opinions and not stating fact. You cannot sue me now ha ha ha.
Or something like that.
Unfortunately, that's not going to cut it, for two reasons:
1. Whether your post contains "facts" (which could potentially be actionable) or "opinions" (which aren't) is something determined by the content of the post itself, not the text of your disclaimer. So, if you said, "Bill Gates was Hilter's right hand man and last week molested four school children and raped a goat. But that's just my opinion, so he can't sue me," you won't be protected. The statement is clearly factual in nature.
2. Even if you could, it wouldn't matter anyway. The point of what's going on here is not on the merits of any one defamation case. What's happening is these ultra-sensitive CEO's are filing lawsuits against people that probably have no basis whatsoever to them. Then, one of two things happens: either 1.) they try to "notify" them in such a way that they never actually find out they're being sued (which gives the CEO a default judgment for whatever he's asking for regardless of the merits of the case), or 2.) they do what they did to the lady mentioned in the story. They have their lawyers call you up and basically let you know that you'll have to defend a long, drawn-out, out of state court battle that will suck out all your money and they'll win anyway, or you could just play nice and retract your statements. Either way, they get around having to deal with the First Amendment by never actually having to try the case in the first place. If one of these suits was actually litigated, it would be thrown out of court immediately.
Re:someone's lying, but who? (Score:3, Informative)
Due Process per the 5th amendment applies ONLY to CRIMINAL prosecution; it has absolutely nothing to do with CIVIL suits.
How in the world did this get modded to a 5, and why didn't anyone correct this person yet? See Hustler Magazine, Inc. et al. v. Jerry Falwell [bc.edu].