Tempers Flare Over Ill-Tempered Sword Remarks 69
msaulters writes "The Austin American Statesman is reporting on Daniel Watson, a Hays County swordsmith who is suing a group of San Francisco-based techies, charging that they extorted him by posting negative comments regarding his sword-making business on the discussion forums they host and then offering to clamp down on such comments if he bought advertising with them. On the one hand, this sounds very chilling, as the defendants, Sword Forum International, are very well-known and respected in the world of sword-making, and abuse of that position would be very un-cool. On the other hand, they make some valid points in the article, and historically, the ability to express your opinions freely online is one aspect of the internet that arguably should never be curtailed."
Libel (Score:5, Insightful)
"I think you suck" is an opinion.
"You suck and here's a bunch of untrue claims about you" is libel.
There are existing laws that can be enforced if any have been broken. There is no need for news laws, or any reason for this to have a chilling effect on web sites.
crux of the matter (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole suit, both sides, is hooey except for this allegation. If this is true, it is extortion. "We will trash you in a public forum unless you pay us money." If not, the judge should open up his can of whup ass and let the complainant have it.
IANAL, IMHO, YMMV, RTFM, ETC
Magic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Daniel Watson's web site can be found at http://www.angelsword.com/ . After looking through the site carefully, I found no mention of "magic." Although the man may have some unusual beliefs about his work, it is clear from looking at his photo gallery that he is an amazing swordsmith.
I do not doubt the fact that the spreading of lies to damage another's reputation is libel, and blackmailing a fine craftsman like Mr. Watson is downright slimy. Take a look at his stuff, and if you're as impressed as I am, tell the guy in the cube next to ya. You don't have to wait for some court to award damages to get this problem solved....in a time when government seems unstoppable remember that all of the machinery of justice and corruption merely utilize a tiny fragment of the collective will of the apathy of our civilization.
Re:Magic? (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course it isn't. Anyone who thinks they can distinguish the quality of a sword from a picture doesn't know much about swords - at least not of the quality these purport to be.
Re:crux of the matter (Score:4, Insightful)
It's extortion if the complainant has any proof. If not, it's just more BS. I have personal experience with this phenom, on a much smaller scale.
I wrote a weekly computer column for the local paper for a couple of years. One summer day I woke up and the air conditioner wasn't cooling. I called a company that advertised widely, who sent out a guy right away. He checked my system, added refrigerant (he said) and told me the whole system was broken and needed replacing. Then he handed me brochures detailing his overpriced systems and financing option, charged me $70.00, and away he went.
I always get second opinions before spending any substantial amounts of money. The next guy came by, added refrigerant, and shazamm, the system was working again.
I asked the first company for my money back, and they wouldn't give it back, even though I'd caught them red-handed. So I wrote a column about how a fictitious company, let's call them Airconditioning Ripoff Specialists, Inc. had ripped me off, and what I could do online to make sure that fewer members of my community got ripped off, if I chose to take it that far. After the column appeared, the real company complained to my editor that I'd threatened to expose them in my column if they wouldn't give me my money back.
I had never mentioned to them that I was a columnist, and they didn't complain until after the column appeared. Furthermore, they weren't identified in the column, so the whole thing made no sense.
I don't know the particulars, but it's easy to allege extortion. I suspect there's no proof, or criminal charges would have been brought, not a civil suit.
Very clear (Score:3, Insightful)
"In a lawsuit pending in federal court in Austin, Watson accuses Sword Forum International of driving away customers by ridiculing his work. "I was presented as a charlatan," said Watson, 51. "
At the heart of the lawsuit are posted messages such as one by a Sword Forum moderator titled "Muffinhead Alert." Watson said the message refers to Angel Swords and tells readers to "steer clear of them." Another posting by a Sword Forum staff member said some of Angel Sword's advertising is "just insulting to anyone with even the most basic science background."
If all Watson has are postings on a review site whose reviewers decided his "Techno-Wootz" was not up to snuff, then this lawsuit is frivilous. If he has actual evidence of an extortion scheme, then Sword Forum International is liable for civil or criminal penalties. But either way the outcome is very clear, and not at all specific to the internet. It does not "speak to questions of freedom of speech on the internet" (reporter shorthand for "it's about talking on that newfangled internet thingie"), it is a very clear case of either abuse of media outlets by people looking for advertising money or a frivilous lawsuit from a craftsman upset over a review, both old-media problems.
I'd personally like to stay on and find out who is right and who is full of bullshit, but I have a gripping George Bush vs. Saddam Hussein debate to return to on Fox.