Sunday, January 28, 2007
Subject: thought police
Subject: thought police
From: Matt Lang
Date: January 28, 2007 8:06:58 PM PST
To: Bob Doran
Hey Bob did you get threatened by the thought police
like that redwood reality guy?
Matt
--
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
- Martin Luther King Jr.
--
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
- Eleanor Roosevelt
--
The greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.
- Confucius
--
Life's about friendships, the way you love your partner, the way you care for your children. That is what life is about. Not anything about earning a hundred zillion dollars because you toured America more than anyone else. I want life to be about creativity.
- Joe Strummer, The Clash
___________________________________________________________________
the post in question:
Sunday, January 28, 2007
This blogger has received a post ostensibly from People Productions' attorneysThe following message was posted in two threads below.
Please Take Notice: People Productions LLC and persons associated with People Productions LLC will seek any and all available legal remedies against any and all persons and businesses, including the Times Standard, who libel and/or republish libelous statements against them.
Further, notice is given to the this site administrator and its IT servers to preserve all internet tracking information needed to identify the names and addresses, including but not limited to IP information, for all contributors to this comment board.
John M. Vrieze
Bradford C. Floyd
Attorneys at Law Sun Jan 28, 04:29:00 PM
In light of these developments I will not be making any further posts about the Mateel/People Productions conflict until I have consulted an attorney. My suggestion is that all others forgo further comment which could be construed as libelous if found to be false until further notice. I am certain that the information that has been posted on this blog was not made with malice, ie. a deliberate or indifferent disregard for the truth - and much of it has been hyperbole. However, litigation of this nature can be quite expensive and time consuming. In the unlikely event that you have deliberately posted falsehoods, or if you did not but still believe that you might be named in litigation should the matter escalate to that point, I suggest that you consult an attorney.
As for the preservation of IP information, I will refer the attorneys to Blogger and it's parent company Google. I have no capacity in that regard.
As always, this is an open forum. I will only censor statements that have been demonstrated to me to be falsehoods. I cannot speculate on what may or may not be true or false on issues which are only just beginning to come to public light, and I firmly believe it would be a chilling and egregious affront to the First Amendment and the tradition of freedom of expression and open debate to hold any public medium to a standard which requires censorship based upon speculation. The issues discussed herein are of paramount importance to the community, and open discussion and debate are essential to the resolution of the challenges facing the community.
Whether it was the intent of this letter to suppress open expression and discourse, the posting from People Productions' attorneys has accomplished just that - at least for the time being.
posted by Eric V. Kirk at 5:45 PM on Jan 28, 2007
12 Comments
Anonymous said...
This is a matter of public debate and People Productions and their lawyers need to prove false facts, not legally protected opinions. They also must prove malice. Opinions are protected speech. California's anti-SLAPP statute and the Constitutional protections under the Federal and California Constitutions will cause People Productions to think long and hard before suing anyone on this matter. I know a local lawyer with considerable experience in the First Amendment and California's anti-SLAPP statute and he will help you if you want. Just indicate you would like someone to help you on this and I will send you an e-mail with his/her name. You are not alone on this!
Sun Jan 28, 06:53:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Eric, I don't think we need to call in the ACLU yet. I do think it is prudent, with or without a notice from an attorney, to stick to the facts when you post comments in a public forum. If you are expressing opinions for which you possess no corraborating evidence, you should make that clear in your language.
On another note, I can't help but find it humorous that you, an attorney, will be seeking the advice of an attorney before you make any more posts.
-humble in sohum
Sun Jan 28, 06:54:00 PM
Steve Lewis said...
Looks like someone has something serious to hide to me.
Sun Jan 28, 06:57:00 PM
Anonymous said...
So what happened to the free exchange of ideas?
Or are we just looking at some additional billable hours.
I guess the idea is that we will all have to hire attorneys to find out if is ok if we fart in the future.
Good bye Eric....I liked this form of communication. It just failed badly here.
I won't be back
Sun Jan 28, 07:06:00 PM
Anonymous said...
"An idea is a greater monument than any cathedral"
-- Clarence Darrow
Free exchange of ideas is all good! Just don't lie. Please.
Sun Jan 28, 07:22:00 PM
Eric V. Kirk said...
On another note, I can't help but find it humorous that you, an attorney, will be seeking the advice of an attorney before you make any more posts.
There's an old saying that an attorney who represents himself has an idiot for a client. One always needs somebody to look at the issues from an objective position.
I haven't said anything I know to be false, and a recent court decision pretty much immunizes bloggers from liability for posts written by others. However, that protection does not extend to the posters themselves, and I don't want to get anybody else into trouble. Hence my advice.
This does look like a S.L.A.P.P. to me and I resent it.
Sun Jan 28, 07:37:00 PM
ED Denson said...
This is a grade A drag. No wonder people think lawyers are unworthy members of society (until they need one, at least.) Still, they might have fashioned a letter to you based on what you are actually doing vs a general demand letter. I imagine your attorney will tell you to tell them to stuff it.
Sun Jan 28, 07:45:00 PM
Anonymous said...
I agree, Eric--whether or not the intent was to slapp down free discussion, it surely seems as if it might do that.
Unless, of course, folks want to stick to carefully expressed opinions without malice, and facts...
In my years in newspaper writing I recall my tender hearted editors simply telling me to go full steam ahead whenever a libel suit was threatened by some disgruntled soul or another--but perhaps that was because I would have been the poor lamb placed out to sacrifice, not the editor? Don't know. Not a lawyer (but you are!!)
Still, it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth, as many of the recent moves on the part of PP and friends have.
That's a fact. Clarissa
Sun Jan 28, 07:56:00 PM
Anonymous said...
Clarissa again here..upon thought, maybe it was the audit stuff? I understand the figures and assumptions are subject to a lot of debate..and the T/S article repeated some of those figures kind of flatly, as I recall..might have lead to assumptions of fraud and so on, which surely PP doesn't want, and surely can explain. (are they doing a separate audit, anyone know?)
Sun Jan 28, 08:00:00 PM
Anonymous said...
I had to look it up.
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring.
Contents
Sun Jan 28, 08:02:00 PM
Anonymous said...
All hail the thought police!
Sun Jan 28, 08:03:00 PM
Bob to Matt: The answer is no. If you study this blog, you'll find that there are not many comments. That's probably because I have it set up so that all comments run by me before they are posted. I have not posted comments containing unsubstantiated rumors or unattributed attacks. It's my blog; it's up to me what shows up on it. For me it's not so much about freedom of speech as it is about perpetuating nastiness.
On the other hand, I don't much care for the legal action threatened. The day my first story on the Reggae on the River controversy was published I received a call from an "aggrieved party" (not a lawyer and not Carol Bruno) asking if I considered material in it to be "libel and slander."
I answered very carefully: No.
And I have not heard from any lawyers at all.
Comments:
<< Home
Turns out that the friendly memo was about a comment on the online Times-Standard, attached to an article to which I'd linked. The attorneys were under the assumption that a hyperlink constitutes a "publication" under the law, and that a blogger or forum site administrator can be held liable for comments made by anonymous posters.
The comment was a horrible one, but I believe the wrong approach was taken. As bad as the comment was, I'm not even sure it can be deemed libelous as it seemed more cruel insults that few if anybody would take as factual. The Times-Standard has since removed the post.
I don't have anything against the attorneys. They're professional and ethical. I just don't appreciate the particular tack they took, but they were in a tough situation.
I've become something of an expert in blogger liability over the past 24 hours. With defamation, we're pretty much immune when it comes to anonymous posters. But we may be vulnerable when it comes to intellectual property issues. That makes me a little bit nervous.
Post a Comment
The comment was a horrible one, but I believe the wrong approach was taken. As bad as the comment was, I'm not even sure it can be deemed libelous as it seemed more cruel insults that few if anybody would take as factual. The Times-Standard has since removed the post.
I don't have anything against the attorneys. They're professional and ethical. I just don't appreciate the particular tack they took, but they were in a tough situation.
I've become something of an expert in blogger liability over the past 24 hours. With defamation, we're pretty much immune when it comes to anonymous posters. But we may be vulnerable when it comes to intellectual property issues. That makes me a little bit nervous.
<< Home
Lawyering up, huh? This tale grows twistier and twistier.
Sun Jan 28, 08:58:00 PM
The notice is not intended to suppress open expression and discourse. However, there are limits to open expression and discourse, libel being beyond that limit; and, the notice is given to apprise posters that limits exist and that remedies exist when and if such limits are passed.
Thank you.
John M. Vrieze
Bradford C. Floyd
Attorneys at Law
Sun Jan 28, 08:58:00 PM