Student Blogger Loses Defamation Case

An anonymous reader writes to tell us about Yaman Salahi, a UC Berkeley student and blogger, who lost a lawsuit brought against him by Lee Kaplan, a journalist for FrontPageMag.com. Kaplan had sued Salahi in California small claims court for tortious business interference and libel, in response to a blog Salahi had set up about him called "Lee Kaplan Watch." Salahi lost in small claims court and then lost an "appeal" — which is essentially a retrial by another small-claims judge. No written opinion was offered with either decision, though all other court filings are available. From Salahi's update on his blog: "...because [Kaplan] sued me in small claims court, I did not have the protections of the anti-SLAPP [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Policy] statute... I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal, because small claims judges are not obligated to release written opinions with their rulings.... I will never have the opportunity to take this to a real appellate court where my first amendment rights might be protected."

It's Not That Simple

[jellie]

Disclaimer: I'm not of any Middle-Eastern descent, and have no personal interest in the case, just in the legal aspects. (It's sad when you have to make such statements...) Also, IANAL.

Salahi posted a response below, where he defends some of the charges. And he has a point regarding the claim ("tortious business interference"), because his original email, cited as Exhibit A in the plaintiff's reply to the anti-SLAPP motion, does not reference the job at all. In fact, the e-mail was sent in regards to Quantum Media, which is the web host (and a website design company, apparently). And the sportsblogger.com website is password-protected, so I also doubt whether Kaplan was going to be hired to write for a nonexistent site.

I'm not saying Salahi is innocent. It seems like both sides try to do an end-around of the legal system. Kaplan says Salahi used fake addresses and claimed to have never been served the motion to appear (=lying in court), which would probably be illegal. (I'm just summarizing his arguments from glancing over the documents.) Though I did find Salahi explanation of the picture prank thing to be quite amusing.

For what it's worth, Kaplan probably did pose as a congressional staffer and engage in criminal activities. See this article [sfweekly.com], which was cited in Salahi's legal filing. Here's another article about Kaplan and pro-Palestinian groups [sfweekly.com] from the same paper.

Re:You lost, big guy

[Catbeller]

That's Republican logic. Just ignore the facts and manufacture a reality. Deny and assert. Repeat until reporters' heads explode.

The man just said that the evidence accepted by the court was false. No matter what the judge said in small claims court, he was not guilty of posting the web pages in question. The liar in contention here, tho, is a douchebag. Since justice has, is, and will be for sale to the highest bidder in the social compact we accept, the defendant can never win.

Re:small claims court is NOT evil.

[yamansalahi]

You raise a number of very important points. Small claims court has its purposes. I don't think a defamation case is one of them. Evidence is everything in such a case, and having lower standards simply opens up the vulnerability for abuse. My entire point is that the plaintiff introduced "bad/false/misleading evidence," as you put it, and the burden of disproving it was on me. This is an incredibly difficult task to accomplish, especially during a hearing with, really, no rules except the judge's discretion. I had three witnesses with me, for example, and none were allowed to testify.

Re:You lost, big guy

[Anonymous Coward]

And I guess O.J. isn't guilty of killing anyone, is he? After all, the court is always right and they acquitted him... Maybe Ron Goldman should have just left him alone. Oh wait, no, he SUED AGAIN, in a different court, and the second time around he won. What a jerk he must be.

Courts screw up. And I'm sick and tired of everyone here jumping to hindsight conclusions about the way court cases came out without looking at one shred of evidence and with what amounts to a complete lack of understanding of the legal system.

Re:All negative opinions expressed forthrightly...

[Gorshkov]

That state of mind is not reserved just for liberals... In my experience, it seems just about anyone who labels them self as anything (liberal, conservative, etc.) has that "my way or the highway" thinking.

I very, very strongly disagree. If you ask me what I am, I will say "conservative", because I tend to be to the right of center. But on some issues, I'm on the left - on others, further right

I think your statement - "anybody who labels themselves has that "my way or the highway"" - has about as much merit as "all liberals support terrorism" or "all conservatives are sheeple who have been brainwashed by the corporations"

*All* blanket statements are seriously broken in very fundamental ways ..... including this one.