Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Courts News

Lawyer Sues Yahoo for Message Board Name-Calling 492

Posted by CowboyNeal from the striking-close-to-home dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawyer Sues Yahoo for Message Board Name-Calling More

Lawyer Sues Yahoo for Message Board Name-Calling

Comments Filter:

  • Information (Score:5, Insightful)

    by panxerox ( 575545 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:11PM (#9894707)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:25PM (#9894850) Homepage Journal
      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 (Score:5, Funny)

        by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:30PM (#9894912)
        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 (Score:5, Funny)

          by RLiegh ( 247921 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:09PM (#9895232) Homepage Journal
          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 (Score:5, Funny)

            by rk ( 6314 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:20PM (#9895324) Journal

            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."

            • my patent "Decanting a glass, plastic, or other receptacle containing an egg/oil emulsion for food flavoring or other purposes."

              However, that can be worked around via my patent of "dipping into the jar", which is available royalty-free under an open-license for anyone who does not have similar patents or who makes their own patents available to the public on similar terms.

              • In RE: "Mayo Jar" (Score:5, Funny)

                by Chmcginn ( 201645 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @08:06PM (#9895611) Journal
                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" (Score:5, Funny)

                  by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @01:00AM (#9897072) Journal
                  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.
                • You are hereby notified that your comments thread has run off the right side of my screen, causing me extensive suffering and anguish. The subpoena would be forthcoming, but my mouse is at the edge of the mousepad, so I can't get the cursor on top of the "Quicken EasyLawsuit 2000" application to click it.
      • Apparently not, since the posts are all deleted

        Apparently so considering the /. readership far exceeds that of any Yahoo message board.

        • Re:Information (Score:3, Informative)

          by tomhudson ( 43916 )
          Apparently so considering the /. readership far exceeds that of any Yahoo message board.
          ... and google searches slashdot, unlike yahoo message boards. Galton blew it.
          • I believe the relevent term for this guy is: pwn3d

          • Re:Information (Score:3, Insightful)

            by colmore ( 56499 )
            Galton only "blew it" if he loses his case and foots a big bill. He's a lawyer. I doubt very much he's sitting up at night really worrying about curbing those mean ol' internet insults. This guy's after the money. Most likely he will get a large out of court settlement from Yahoo, since I'm sure they don't even want to play around with the chance that their message boards could be regulated out of existance.

    • 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.

      Not a problem if you're right, and the guy posting to Yahoo is libeling you.

      Rather than letting 1000 people on Yahoo think Mr. Anonymous is right when he defames me, I'd rather sue him and let that billion candlepower light you speak of illuminate th
      • Not a problem if you're right, and the guy posting to Yahoo is libeling you.

        Rather than letting 1000 people on Yahoo think Mr. Anonymous is right when he defames me, I'd rather sue him and let that billion candlepower light you speak of illuminate the truth "for all the world to see.

        ... then there's the problem that people will perceive you as an unprofessional crybaby and a litigious bastard, and SCO will demand $699 for using their IP.

      • Re:Information (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Wavicle ( 181176 )
        Not a problem if you're right, and the guy posting to Yahoo is libeling you.

        IANAL, but... Don't you also have to show that a reasonable person would read the posting, believe it, and in some way (maybe not investing in your company) damage you?

        If someone writes "That investment was stupid, he should stop smoking crack," they may be libeling you, but the lawsuit wouldn't fly.

    • Re:Information (Score:5, Funny)

      by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:26PM (#9896071)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gregorio ( 520049 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @10:46PM (#9896533)
        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 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BlackHawk-666 ( 560896 )
          Whatever happened to freedom of speech? I know you can be sued for libellous speech but I also believe that it would need to be reasonable shown that people would believe this. In any case, calling a fat person fat is not libellous. You might have trouble with shyster since you would need to show they are a shyster, but fuck sakes, he's a lawyer and that is automatic qualification into the shyster category. I'd say that an anonymous posting on a website wouldn't carry the necessary weight to be believable b

        • Re:Information (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Brightest Light ( 552357 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @07:27AM (#9897996) Journal
          "...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.

        • Re:Information (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Xyrus ( 755017 )
          So let me get this straight. You're saying that it should be a crime to call someone names?

          You're kidding right?

          What about letters to the editor, opinions, etc. etc. .

          If I think G.W is an utter moron who's running this country into the ground, I shouldn't say anything because it might hurt his feeling?

          This is the INTERNET. This is a PUBLIC FORUM. If you don't like what someone is saying IGNORE THEM or FIGHT BACK.

          Some people didn't like what this guy did or was doing. They called him on it. Some respons

  • Protected speech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:11PM (#9894708) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gcaseye6677 ( 694805 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:15PM (#9894745)
      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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Bill_Royle ( 639563 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:24PM (#9894842)
      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 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by B747SP ( 179471 ) <slashdot@selfabusedelephant.com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:44PM (#9895498)
        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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by Compholio ( 770966 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:28PM (#9894887)
      Shhhh! If he finds out about /. we're all screwed!
    • The first amendment protects you from CONGRESS not from private citizens. "Congress shall pass no law" is how the amendment starts. As far as I can tell, this guy isn't a member of congress. The first amendment doesn't apply here.
      • If they haven't violated a law then he has no case. And the first amendment specifically states that there can be no law of this kind for them to violate. So it certainly does apply.
    • Can be a fine line. For instance:
      "MacGabhain spent most of the 1990s smoking ragweed and cohabitating with a llama." would almost certainly be found to be libel if said outside of a pretty clear comic sense (or, of course, by me).
      "Stephen Galton is a poopy-head!" would not be, as it contains no factual claims. Not sure of the content of what he's asking Yahoo! for. Entirely not sure of why he thinks he can make a class out of this.

  • Next Case (Score:5, Funny)

    by darth_MALL ( 657218 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:12PM (#9894717)
    The State vs. @55|-|@t-84

  • You don't know who I am Stephen... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:13PM (#9894724)
    ... but you're a weenie!

  • Stephen Galton's Contact Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by ambrosine10 ( 747895 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:14PM (#9894732)
    I assume this [galtonhelm.com] is him?

    sgalton@galtonhelm.com [mailto]

    Go on, tell him what you think.

  • sgalton@galtonhelm.com - (213) 629-8800 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 ) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:14PM (#9894735) Homepage
    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. :)
  • Seriously pal, your not doing your profession any favors here.
    • Seriously pal, your not doing your profession any favors here.

      I'm sure he'll listen; after all, lawyers have such a stellar track record for considering the greater good of their actions.

      • Re:Suing for namecalling? He is a shyster. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:38PM (#9894990) Journal
        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.

  • Cry baby (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cytoman ( 792326 )
    This lawyer must be really without any clients if he has the time to pursue such a stupid claim!!!

    Stephen Galton cry-baby, "waa waa, these people are calling me names and making me cry, waa waa".

    Sheesh! Get a life, find more useful things to do in life, idiot!

    How many times do these lawyers need to be reminded of the 1st amendment and right to free speech??? Don't they learn about this in law school?

    Reminds me of a '00 story when Microsoft tried to sue /. over some postings here!!

  • Slashdot effect.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:15PM (#9894746)
    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*
  • I nominate this litigious asshole to be a Lawyer in Space... With no space suit.

  • Step 2 discovered! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ghoser777 ( 113623 ) <fahrenba@ma c . com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:17PM (#9894764) Homepage
    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? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:17PM (#9894770)
    > 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.

    • 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...

      Please. Don't insult the Goatse Guy.

      Comparing him to Stephen Galton, who, by the way, is a DUMB SHYSTER, may very well be actionable defamation.

  • You missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nasor ( 690345 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:18PM (#9894772)
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

      by nwbvt ( 768631 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:40PM (#9896137)
      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.

      • Note that Yahoo will force you to once again go through the TOS screen if they change it, so he can't claim the TOS were changed from an earlier time when he may have consented to a different TOS.

        Yahoo has been in court literally hundreds of times for all sorts of issues, and the TOS is probably airtight with regards to this case. The only major concession I think the firm has made was to the Yahoo Cake Co of Texas - Yahoo agreed not to enter the cake business, ever.

  • give me a break (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    what kind of example is this for kids. i mean you get called names, aren't you supposed to say "stick and stones can break my bones but words won't hurt me"??? And so you get called a few names, it's not a big deal. Stop being so sensitive and take it in stride. Just because you're a lawyer doesn't mean you can sue the crap out of anyone
  • If this lawyer sings up for an account on Slashdot, he's gonna have a field day.
  • What if slashdot got sued (via class action lawsuit) for all the trolls?

  • That shysters will sue anyone about anything.

  • No control over content (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zaranne ( 733967 ) <zaranne17@@@gmail...com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:20PM (#9894796) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      What better way to prove to your potential customers that you REALLY know law, so ther

  • Frivilous Lawsuits and Abuse of the Law.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HighOrbit ( 631451 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:21PM (#9894815)
    ....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.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by apc ( 193970 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:14PM (#9896007)

      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..."

  • A lawyer posted on Yahoo to protect his reputation, was attacked by a bunch of faceless Anonymous Cowards, and is angry because he can't determine their identity because Yahoo's "moderation system" won't filter them out?

    Sounds like your typical Slashdot user.

    I think among the Slashdot crowd it's of course common knowledge that Yahoo deletes comments all the time, just like Slashdot does [slashdot.org]. Slashdot has endured legal challenges from the DMCA and weathered them nicely, but this is an entirely different branch
    • I run a BLOG related to an editorial site [blogspot.com]. I have had to delete several anonymous troll posts and I have to delete posts that attacked my character and credibility on a personal level.

      The site isn't about me, and my credibility has nothing to do with the facts of the stories I present. They are MY editorials, I'm not purporting to be a journalist. I am merely writing. Do I want to shape an opinion? If you want to look at it that way. Ok.

      Here's my beef : I make it clear what my affiliations and biases are
    • The link you provided about censorship states this:

      I don't think so. Nothing is deleted: if you want to read the raw, uncut Slashdot, simply set your threshold to -1 and go crazy! This system is simply a method for us to try to work together to categorize the thousands of comments that are posted each day in such a way that we can benefit from the wisdom contained in the discussions. It's in there! It just takes some work to find it.

      It doesn't say anything about banning people from posting. Really, wha

    • Re:Let's get this straight. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Izago909 ( 637084 ) <tauisgod@g m a i l . com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:10PM (#9895239)
      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.

  • Stephen Galton a pseudonym (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bingo Foo ( 179380 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:23PM (#9894833)
    His real name is Steven Bosell. [philhendrieshow.com]

  • Been there, done that (Score:5, Interesting)

    by prostoalex ( 308614 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:25PM (#9894852) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • ... the internet.

    Its become clear to anyone who has been on for a few years that the internet has a negative tendancy.

    This is a result of, or indication of, the level of maturity or immaturity of its general users.

    There are alot of things that fuel this, from those going online to release their work day frustrations by dumping it on others, who probably live in some other country which makes law suits even more difficult.

    And there are those who like to play games and can hide behind teh online mask they

  • I wonder how long it will take... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:27PM (#9894884)
    Till the name "Stephen Galton" is Google bombed with the word "shyster"?

  • Does this mean ...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:30PM (#9894919) Homepage Journal
    .... we have to remove all the lawyer jokes from teh internet?
  • who gave us the world's first spam?

    well then, we have divine justice/ karma, or that "first spam post! w00t!" newsgroup lawyer from the early 1990s should have his butt sued too ;-P

    regardless, i really can't get worked up too much about this lawyer's horrible, horrible victimhood, since if the real world effect of newsgroup negativity is as potent as this lawyer might insist, then anyone who has ever been flamed or trolled on slashdot probably has grounds for legal action and or psychiatric counseling too

    right

    hey, found the wikipedia reference to the world's first spam [wikipedia.org]

  • Real Info (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Valiss ( 463641 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @06:37PM (#9894980) Homepage
    Do people actually give their REAL info when signing up for an account?
  • Wanker!

    (Please don't sue /.)

  • Illustrates a huge problem with our legal system (Score:5, Insightful)

    by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:06PM (#9895205)
    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.

  • Well it was fun while it lasted (Score:3, Insightful)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdougNO@SPAMgeekazon.com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:15PM (#9895290) Homepage
    Unmoderated message boards might be like airlines were in the 1950s. Pay your fare, get on, no hassle. Totally vulnerable to all sorts of mayhem that nobody happened to think of doing.

    The mayhem we are vulnerable to on today's message boards isn't libel, it's litigation brought by people who can't excuse other people for acting and talking like humans. The result is that people are going to have to be hyper-careful about expressing anything negative, like employers being asked about former employees.

    If this gentleman wins his suit(s), imagine how many people George Bush could sue for comparing him with Hitler. Or Courtney Love for calling her a skank? Everybody has the right to their own opinion, as long as they shut up about it.

  • I hope this douchebag never reads usenet!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geminidomino ( 614729 ) * on Thursday August 05, 2004 @07:55PM (#9895553) Journal
    His fscking HEAD would explode!!!

  • Why people don't like lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:13PM (#9895999) Homepage Journal
    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 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chatmag ( 646500 ) <editor@chatmag.com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @10:27PM (#9896420) Homepage Journal
    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! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @05:33AM (#9897722) Homepage
    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.

  • I'm gonna sue Slashdot... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ayjay29 ( 144994 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @08:40AM (#9898433)
    Slashdot claims it has a moderation system to prevent people abusing the discussions.

    Not only are abusive posts about me not removed, they are consistently moderated up to "+5 Funny".

  • A time honored tradition (Score:3, Interesting)

    by frost22 ( 115958 ) on Friday August 06, 2004 @04:26PM (#9903613) Homepage
    When people don't find satisfying answers, they turn to the classics. And while the Britsh as well as their colonists unvariably end up with Shakespeare, Germans tend to dig out Goethe or Schiller.

    And of course, Goethe's Faus is as fruitful as ever:
    Of course, I am smarter than all the shysters,
    The doctors, and teachers, and scribes, and Christers;
    No scruple nor doubt could make me ill,
    I am not afraid of the Devil or hell-
    But therefore I also lack all delight,
    Do not fancy that I know anything right,
    Do not fancy that I could teach or assert
    What would better mankind or what might convert.
    I also have neither money nor treasures,
    Nor worldly honors or earthly pleasures;
    No dog would endure such a curst existence!
    Proof! World literature uses "syster" sysnonymous for lawyer ! Case dismissed ! Film at 11....
  • Yeah right, Yahoo is so unsecure that people can use an alias to register an account with them. They can sign up for a Yahoo Mail address using bogus info and automatically get an Yahoo Account to use on message boards.

    I wonder what names Yahoo will give that Lawyer?

    Let's see, we have like 38 Bill Gates, 31 Steve Jobs, 26 William T. Kirks, 24 Bruce Waynes, etc. None of them are their real names. Or maybe you can track them by IP address? Yet what if they were using a library, or grade school, or high school, or college system? Get the IPs from Yahoo, track it to their ISP, and then subpeona the ISPs to see who holds the accounts. Stand in line next to the RIAA and MPAA who want the names of IP numbers behind file sharing accounts. Good luck!

    On the other hand, if the Yahoo Member paid for anything on Yahoo, Yahoo then has their billing address, credit card, etc.

    Watch what you say about the lawyer on Slashdot, he may subpeona Slashdot to get the details behind your accounts. See ya in court!

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Close