Dean's World
 Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

.:: Dean's World: Why Don't You Sue Me? Sue Me! What Can You Do Me? ::.

October 23, 2003

Why Don't You Sue Me? Sue Me! What Can You Do Me?

Some barking moonbat recently threatened to sue me for something factually accurate that I said here on Dean's World. Given that the truth is an airtight defense, I fear no such lawsuit.

There seems to be something in the air that brings this kind of lunacy out, though, because I recently heard about another weblogger who received such a threat, based on something she said online. I posted about this earlier this morning, but on the advice of her legal counsel, and at her request, I pulled it.

What I can't decide is whether such threats of harassment-by-lawyer are trivial, or a serious threat to freedom of speech in the blogosphere.

By the way, I'm not the only one to worry about such things, as it turns out.

Posted by dean | PermaLink | TrackBack (0)

Discuss This Article!

 

The scam in the link you posted has been going on for years. I get at least 2 calls from them a month. I already recognize the voices. The minute they ask to speak to the person in charge I just say it's me and I'm not interested and hang up. They usually don't bother calling back.

Posted by Val Prieto on October 23, 2003 at 1:53 PM


As I said before, online defamation suits related to blogs would be unlikely to survive pretrial motions, which would get a case punted long before discovery, much less a trial where an actual defense is conducted. Hell, in California you just have to show that your speech was in connection with a public participation in a matter of public interest and get a dismissal that way. (Called anti-SLAPP) Not only that, you win anti-SLAPP, you get your attorney fees.

And for a federal suit, plaintiffs have to sue for at least $75k in damages, compensatory and punitive. That's not as easy as it sounds. The last thing federal courts want is to intervene in a bunch of defamation suits on blogs. The litigation isn't in place yet for blogs, but it will be shortly. And I doubt it will be favorable to plaintiffs.

So let 'em sue and waste their money.

Remember, if the Rottweiler is out there, you're probably safe.

Now, if you're in the same state, that's a different story ... state laws vary.

Posted by IB Bill on October 23, 2003 at 2:40 PM


Threatening a lawsuit and then not following up with a lawsuit is, I believe, barratry.

And barratry is, itself, illegal and actionable.

If you feel like it, you might wish to verify the specifics of the law and write back to your moonbat, mentioning that fact (but not, of course, threatening a lawsuit you have no intention of actually bringing).

Posted by Sigivald on October 23, 2003 at 2:45 PM


Barratry? You got me on that...never heard of it.

My Black's Law Dictionary on my desk here tells me that it's "vexacious incitement to litigation, especially by soliciting potential clients."

Thanks. Word of the day.

Posted by IB Bill on October 23, 2003 at 4:00 PM


"What I can't decide is whether such threats of harassment-by-lawyer are trivial, or a serious threat to freedom of speech in the blogosphere."

I personally think that bringing civil lawsuits over clearly non-actionable speech should be criminal. Lawsuits serve as a weapon, like any other weapon if people use it indiscriminately it damages society. Especially as an attack on central civil liberties. (speech, association, etc.)

I'm of split opinion on threatening lawsuits.. on the one hand you should be able to joke about suing someone without danger. On the other hand a formal cease and desist letter is analogous to "don't go there, or I'll have to start taking your money". And while the first clearly shouldn't be considered a serious threat, the latter equally clearly should, assuming the letter is not warranted by the facts.

(Based on my theory of personal responsibility, it is the person who filed the paper work to bring the suit who should be held accountable, with perhaps a conspicarcy charge leveled against the person who authorized it, and accomplice charges on people who consulted with it.)

In your case I don't think moonbat did anything that warranted anything more than calling him a moonbat, maybe with a little bit thrown in about how if he wants to fight he should bring enough money to pay for your time. (and my time is valuable, if someone sues me I will want to be reinbursed for the time I spend fending them off. I don't think I can be under our system, but I think I should be.)

Posted by Michael on October 23, 2003 at 4:24 PM


I am not an attorney, but, isnt making threats or harrasing them under the guise of filing a lawsuit, considered unethical and unprofessional behavior and violation of standards by the Bar Assn? I think a person who gets threatned ought to take action and not just rollover and play dead, and either countersue, or file a serious complaing with your State's Attorney Greviance commission. If people did this enough, unscrupulous, lawyers would back off cuz they would have to face consequences of their actions

Posted by sid on October 23, 2003 at 7:06 PM


Basically these prats threaten lawsuits to scare the crap out of people who they think will scare easy. Its a tactic for curbing descent. Fortunately, those of us in the political game have our fare share of lawyers mates as well. This is most commonly done by wet behind the ears law students/political hacks. I have been threatened several times and I laughed at both nitwits, in one case to his face.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on October 23, 2003 at 8:50 PM


"So let 'em sue and waste their money."

Not so fast. What happens if the person suing you isn't using a lawyer, but is representing himself? The only person wasting money in that case will be YOU.

Go to http://www.petswarehouse.com/ for information about a suit like this. Keep in mind that it's been running for more than two years, that the defense fund set up for the defendants hasn't been able to pay their legal fees, and that the courts, while they've become aware of the plaintiff's abuses, haven't been willing to toss out the cases (yes, multiple) or sanction the plaintiff.

There's been some good news in this case lately, but not nearly good enough.

Posted by Robert Crawford on October 23, 2003 at 11:50 PM


This reminds me of the post you had yesterday about a bully. Seems like your story was factually true and absolutely airtight.

This guy had a kneejerk reaction. Human nature ,myself included, when something is said that I may not like, well-I don't react in the right way sometimes, and words or actions come bumbling out of my mouth, or corny actions until I face it.

I am a regular reader to Dean's World and I feel good when I read your posts because I can tell you do your research before you post your story. I enjoy you rich variety of subjects and when you just do some creative writing like the funny one of Jo-Lo and Ben Afleck, and the other one of how you liked the fog. Those stories let us see how diverse you are as a writer- the lighter side of you.

Did I read in your blog a year or two ago you had done some acting in your earlier years, I think you said it was, " Jesus Christ Super Star", it would be nice, you have such a dfor you to share that with us if you haven't already. I am not sure if you did, but I heard about you fun in acting. You have a diverse background in the arts and of course politics and others great subjects and that is why so many people come by your site eyeryday.

Well, blow this silly bully that mentioned he wanted to sue you. Oh yea, then ask him if he ever heard of Johnny Cash's song- " A Boy Named Sue ", I bet that is this guys name, and he has a hard time living with it so he's just causing trouble :) Tee He He-I am so mean :)

Posted by Janelle on October 24, 2003 at 3:51 AM


Thanks for the link, Robert.

Posted by IB Bill on October 24, 2003 at 11:42 AM


 



.:: ABOUT DEAN'S WORLD ::.


.:: BEST OF DEAN'S WORLD ::.


.:: RECENT ENTRIES ::.


.:: ARCHIVES ::.


.:: MISC ::.