Slashdot Log In
Student Blogger Loses Defamation Case
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Jun 16, 2007 05:47 PM
from the small-claims-is-a-bear dept.
from the small-claims-is-a-bear dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
From his site (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like things would have gone better if he hadn't made some legal mistakes.
Re:From his site (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks to me like instead a complicated legal maneuver designed to get around a clear hole in the fairness of the legal system.
I would not consider failing to countersue or failing to move the court to be a legal mistake, using the definition of mistake as failure to engage in proper actions.
Parent
Re:From his site (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:From his site (Score:5, Insightful)
And a system where the legal code is so complex that we have made it a crime for non-certified professionals to attempt to interpret it (in most every state, lobbied for by the same lawyers who want to get paid exhorbitant fees to defend you and to to prosecute you, thank you very much), is a system of INjustice.
Parent
Re:From his site (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm with you. It's utterly ridiculous that there are aspects of life which can be performed more effectively by the highly trained. INjustice INdeed!!!1
-b
Parent
Re:From his site (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:From his site (Score:5, Funny)
Sir, based upon your post, which I took as legal advice absent any statement to the contrary, I opened up a private medical practice in my home. Now, I have been arrested by the police for impersonating a doctor.
I trust that I will be compensated by you for this in some way.
Parent
The article did say (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:From his site (Score:5, Informative)
I had a buyer bail out of buying my home one week after closing. I showed up, my wife showed up, the lawyer and realtor showed up... just not buyer.
We gave them another shot. They didn't show up again. Now, during this time, I had a home I was buying and was supposed to close on. The seller of that house was a realtor and a real prick. When he heard what happened, he raised the price $10,000 USD. So, my buyers that didn't show, now cost me $10,000 USD. On the second no-show, the prick I was buying from raised the price another $5,000 and demanded I give him our down payment of $10,000 as CASH with no chance of getting it back. Which we did since we wanted the house.
We found other buyers, closed and bought our new home. The first buyers gave us $5,000 down. They wanted it back. However, the contract said that if they failed to buy, they lost the deposit. I went to a lawyer, it would have cost me at least $5,000 to try to get the $5,000 out of escrow! That didn't include any other "fees" like licking a freaking stamp ($20) or answering a phone call ($50) or sending an email ($75), yes, our lawyer charged me $75 to send a one line reply to my status update email!
Well, I am done bitching. Most lawyers are scum. They don't care about your rights. They want the big bucks. Do you really think all those ambulance chasers care if you are really injured or not? Nope. They only look at how much they can make the insurance companies settle for.
I am not a lawyer hater, I just think 98% are trash money chasers and are totally screwing up our legal system.
Parent
Re:Moderated Informative - you've got to be kiddin (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Moderated Informative - you've got to be kiddin (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
This is a racial dispute. (Score:5, Informative)
Kaplan is the pro-Israel writer.
Regards.
Parent
Unbelievable! The guy's website is still there (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe on the merits? Mr. Salahi's website describes Mr. Kaplan as a "fraudulent journalist," which is another way of alleging he's incompetent to do his job, which the law calls "libel per se."
Anyway, the offending website is still up, so presumably Mr. Kaplan can sue Mr. Salahi yet again and win a second judgment for another $7,575.
no dog
small claims court is NOT evil. (Score:5, Informative)
If the case were really so cut and dried, Kaplan would have eaten this guy alive in a real court instead of fooling around with small claims.
There are half a dozen comments already in the story, along the lines of "man, what a scumbag, suing in small claims!" or "small claims court sucks, OMG, NO RIGHTS USA SUXORS!"
You have the right to request a small claims court case be moved to a "real" court. You may have to do so immediately, however. There is nothing preventing you from bringing a lawyer with you to small claims court.
Small claims court is a place where a common man who can't afford a lawyer, actually stands a chance. Evidence standards are dropped for both sides, and at least in my state, the laws supporting small claims court state that everyone, from clerk to judge, needs to work to assist both parties as they are *laymen*. It instructs them to be helpful, explain stuff, and be lenient with minor technicalities in paperwork and procedure for the same reason. In "real" court, if you mis-spelled the defendant's name in your filing, you'd risk get your case tossed out. In small claims court, the clerk says, "uh, you mean Smith, not Simth, right?", and everyone moves on.
With the exception of borrowers using lawyers pushing lawsuits through small claims court to sue debtors with lots of bad/false/misleading evidence, small claims court is an excellent service to the public. It fills the niche of crimes the cops don't care about in dollar amounts lawyers cost too much for.
The blogger in this case was too stupid to fire up a browser and start reading how small claims court works in his state- or he simply lost his case because the other side (gasp!) had a legitimate claim. Either way, cry me a river.
Parent
Re:I don't think so. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Maybe he should hire a lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
California Codes 116.710.(b) The defendant with respect to the plaintiff's
claim, and a plaintiff with respect to a claim of the defendant, may appeal
the judgment to the superior court in the county in which the action was heard.
Non-story. (Score:4, Insightful)
-jcr
Not related to blog (Score:5, Informative)
So was he really guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=1663 [dafka.org]
Quote:
The student set up a smear website against Kaplan where he fabricated stories that Kaplan had been sued for libel, posed as a congressional staffer and engaged in criminal activities.
Hello? If that is the case, it sounds like he deserved to loose.
From the horse's mouth (Score:5, Informative)
I will not respond to some of the other ridiculous things people have said above regarding politics and terrorism.
Here is a brief summary that I think Slashdot readers especially will find illuminating:
1) On the defamation charge
Lee Kaplan presented one allegation against me during the trial regarding defamation. In this regard he claimed that my website had the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag" and linked to another site with his face photoshopped on to gay porn. Had these allegations been true, he very well might have had a legitimate claim against me. However, these allegations were false and he presented them knowing that.
My website does NOT contain the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag." However, this spoof of my website on YTMND does (http://leekaplanwatch.ytmnd.com). Lee Kaplan printed this screenshot out and submitted it to the court as evidence, claiming that he got it by taking a screenshot of my website. He further lied and claimed that when clicking on the phrase, it would take you to another page on YTMND with the pornographic photo (http://doucheparty.ytmnd.com/). However, if that phrase was indeed a link to that page, it would appear in the same color as the other links.
The important things are: 1) the material he claims is defamatory was never on my website, nor was it anything I was involved in authoring or disseminating; and 2) he knowingly lied about how he found the materials and lied when explaining their source.
For those who are interested, Lee Kaplan is on the ytmnd site in the first place because he threatened to sue its owner over another site on their server mocking him.
2) On tortious business interference
Lee Kaplan alleged that e-mails I sent to his webhost complaining about defamatory material he posted about me (alleging I was a member of the US Nazi Party) were actually e-mails sent to his employer. QuantumMedia is listed on every page on his websites; I had every reason to believe this was his webhost and I had every right to file an abuse complaint.
Later, Kaplan claimed that after my e-mails, the individual at QuantumMedia, Haim Kamer, renigged on a promise to hire him as the editor for a sports blogging website called SportsBlogger.com. In my opinion, the likelihood of such a job existing at all is slim--I still believe the story to be entirely fabricated, and I think that that is a reasonable conclusion given that: 1) I have never seen, or been able to find, any sports writing by Lee Kaplan; 2) SportsBlogger.com did not exist last summer, and it does not exist this year either. What Kaplan showed in court as evidence of a passworded website-in-development was simply the standard default page for a new blog, populated with Latin text. 3) Lee claims he lost a $40,000 job offer, but sued e for only $7,500 in small claims court. 5) In an e-mail to me, Haim Kamer wrote that he had not spoken to Kaplan in 5 years. One month later he wrote a letter to the court under oath contradicting that statement. 6) There was no contract ever presented in court proving that such a job offer ever even existed. 7) if you really think about it: what blogger gets paid $40,000 a year, especially one whose own websites are filled with grammar, s
You lost, big guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds to me like you're guilty. You might want to leave Lee Kaplan alone from now on.
Parent
Re:From the horse's mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not your attorney, so instead I'm going to say: YOU ARE A GODDAMN FOOL FOR DUMPING FURTHER MATERIAL REGARDING A CASE ONTO THE GODDAMN INTERNET. Accusing someone in the public press of criminal conduct (read: AS IN THE ABOVE GODDAMN MESSAGE WHERE YOU GODDAMN PRINT A GODDAMN PERJURY CHARGE FOR CHRIST SAKE) is not only very actionable in court, but can put you on the receiving end of a libel case that can result in findings the SIZE OF A GODDAMN HOUSE. No, I'm not GODDAMN KIDDING. How would you like to own a GODDAMN QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS? But you're going to keep running your fingers over your GODDAMN KEYBOARD, aren't you!?!?!?
C//
Parent
Re:All negative opinions expressed forthrightly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:All negative opinions expressed forthrightly... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:I have a tag suggestion (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Some guy commits the very definition of libel and is sued for libel. He appeals and the appellate judge still thinks he committed libel. It happens all the time. From what I know, they're not going to let him appeal to a higher court, because the higher courts read the case and say: "This is a clear act of libel and it's only seven and a half grand." Why the hell should we care? You ARE responsible for what you say, even on the internet. Case closed.
Parent