I believe that there are many legacy journalists, like Seattle Times Crown Prince Ryan Blethen, who are just itching for some demi-prominent blogger like me to be hauled into court on a lengthy and expensive libel suit. It would serve us right, I suppose Blethen must think, and it would serve as a warning to other bloggers to hold their tongues lest, win or lose, they too suffer the same devastating financial consequences. At least, I believe that this is the sentiment that guides the younger Blethen when he warns bloggers against the potential legal consequences of speaking our minds.
There is nothing wrong with pushing the limits of the First Amendment, but there is a line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done. Bloggers are writing past this line and finding themselves in trouble.
The common refrain from bloggers is that they have a right to say what they want, especially if it is their opinion. Whatever that opinion is, it needs to be grounded in fact. If it is not then the writer runs the risk of being sued for libel, which is a false statement that damages a person’s reputation.
Of course, I assume that Blethen also understands that unlike he and the writers in his employ, bloggers like me have no corporate parent to shield us from the legal costs of a libel suit, and that even successfully defending ourselves against such a charge, even a legally weak one, could cost us our savings, our house and our children’s college tuition.
And Blethen apparently believes that, not only could we bloggers be subject to such an asymmetrical use of legal force, but that we should be subjected to it, if only to compel us to “check [our]selves, and use a modicum of restraint.” For why else would he issue such a haughty exhortation?
If bloggers don’t learn to check themselves, and use a modicum of restraint, then not only will people get hurt but free speech could be irreparably damaged.
Yeah, well, thanks for the sage advice Ryan, but I don’t need the editor of one of the most poorly written op-ed pages I’ve ever had the displeasure to read, opining to me that “words matter,” and in light of your ed board’s penchant for harnessing lies of omission in the service of advocacy, I certainly don’t want any lectures from you about opinion needing “to be grounded in fact.” But what really galls me here is the notion that the editorial page editor (and son of the publisher) of a major American daily appears to be arguing in favor of forcefully using our libel laws to rein in free speech. This is a status quoist argument of the worst kind, and its only possible consequence would be to encourage and embolden those contemplating the use of legal intimidation to chill dissent and cut short the public debate.
Not that they need much encouragement.
It was during the very early days of HA, before the gubernatorial recount, at a time when my daily readership rarely climbed into triple digits, that I received my first threat of legal action, a behind the scenes heads up from a “friendly” intermediary who cautioned that I would be wise to heed the litigious nature of one of my frequent subjects, and instead focus my efforts somewhere else. Our local media for the most part chickened out and buried the story, but I followed through in the only way that I know how—full throated—while my subject eventually contented itself with suing media outlets in its native Canada. (Canadian defamation law is much more favorable to the plaintiff.)
In the years hence I have been threatened with legal retaliation again and again—sometimes in my comment threads, sometimes via email, and sometimes to my face—from joyous trolls celebrating the thought that I had finally and recklessly “crossed the line,” from anonymous scolds masquerading as attorneys, and from scolding attorneys betting that I would be too stupid or too cowardly to stand up for my rights, or like them, too rationally self-interested to risk my financial security for the sake of a mere ideal. And never once have I come close to backing down.
Oh, I take these threats seriously, and when I receive a specific complaint about a specific post, I scour it for demonstrably erroneous statements of fact. But my opinions… the dots I connect and the conclusions I draw… the beliefs I profess… even the invective I hurl… I defend my right to free expression in the same way that I defend the right of my vile, hateful trolls to refute, insult and threaten me in my very own comment threads. And that is what Blethen, heir to a dead tree publishing throne, obviously doesn’t understand about this new medium. HA isn’t a “publication,” and my words aren’t “spun off the press” in some inviolable, datelined tome. A blog is an ever evolving dialectic, a give and take, a living conversation between writers and readers, and readers with each other, and between one blogging community with the blogosphere as a whole. HA may be my own personal realm, but the world is my fact checker.
Under the old paradigm, where the scarcity of the airwaves and the huge financial barriers to market entry left the bulk of the media in the hands of a powerful and wealthy few, the libel laws were often the best or only defense against the indiscriminate, negligent, and malicious misuse of the power of the press. But in this new medium, this distributed, democratic and decentralized paradigm of the Internet, the best defense against bad journalism is more journalism, the best remedy for falsehood is the truth, and aggrieved parties should only look to the courts as a desperate and last resort.
Disagree with my conclusions? Don’t sue me… participate! Engage in the comment threads, demand a guest post, enlist the help of my rivals to publicly kick my ass, that is, if you really have the goods to do some real ass kicking. Refute my arguments, prove me wrong, hell… destroy my credibility! But in a media landscape increasingly dominated by freelancers, contractors and lone wolves outside the protection of deep-pocketed corporate overlords, the mere threat of costly legal action to resolve disputes threatens the viability of the medium itself, potentially shielding those able to afford attorneys from legitimate criticism by those of us who cannot.
So when Ryan Blethen, a child of the media establishment, warns us upstart bloggers to “understand the consequences of free speech,” I can’t help but suspiciously view his admonitions within the broader context of the struggling newspaper industry, and the perhaps unrelated but increasingly hotter legal climate in which my blogger friends and I have recently found ourselves. For in addition to the usual background noise of threats and half-threats, actual (ugh) lawyers have suddenly started crawling out of the woodwork.
It was only last year that Michael at BlatherWatch received a series of escalating threats from (since disbarred) attorney Bradley Marshall to pull a two-year-old post or else, an ultimatum Marshall only backed down from after a heartening show of force from Michael’s friends in the local blogosphere. And it was merely a couple months ago that local attorney and vocal Death With Dignity opponent Margaret Dore presented me with a deeply furrowed brow and 143 pages of rambling legalese demanding I pull Lee’s thorough fisking of her weakly argued guest column in the Seattle Times. (It occurs to me that Blethen’s sudden bloviation on defamatory blogging may have partially come at Dore’s insistent urging; I dunno, but I believe that would be consistent with both of their characters.)
But perhaps a classic example of the kinda everyday harassment to which we bloggers routinely subject ourselves is playing itself out right now in a comment thread on a post by my friend Carla at Blue Oregon, in which a horde of anonymous, code-word spouting finger-waggers are attempting to pressure her to back off from the sort of value-added, conceptual journalism that has become her hallmark, and that has become so crucial in recent years in keeping our local media and political establishment honest. The irony apparently lost on Carla’s critics, and which stands out as so pertinent to me in the context of Blethen’s blogger-beware pontification, is that the “not-so-idle speculation” for which Carla is being attacked and threatened was a direct response to equally speculative reporting in the pages of the Oregonian:
The appointment, announced Wednesday, raised some eyebrows among Salem insiders because Galizio made a dramatic about-face and provided the crucial vote to bar a resort from being developed near the Metolius River — an outcome Kulongoski desired.
See that? The Oregonian impugned the reputation of a government official based merely on raised eyebrows and unsupported speculation, but that’s okay, because as Blethen points out, professional journalists are “trained” to know the “difference between fact and opinion.” But when Carla, who has arguably covered the Metolius controversy and the political maneuvering around it more thoughtfully and thoroughly than any other journalist in the state, reaches deep into her reservoir of knowledge, lays down the facts as she knows them, and then dares to suggest that it is her “belief” that this damaging story was fed to the press by lobbyist Hasina Squires… she’s suddenly accused of crossing Blethen’s “line where free speech can go too far and real damage is done.”
Posted by: Just Saying | Aug 22, 2009 9:56:43 PM
Carla – One specific thing you seem to not have a grasp on with regard to what actually separates investigative journalism from slander: You’ve run with a story making a specific accusation against a person without any confirmed facts.
Posted by: Richard | Aug 22, 2009 11:05:22 PM
Carla Rove is judge, jury and smear merchant.
Posted by: Sal Peralta | Aug 23, 2009 9:25:35 AM
I have no idea whether Carla’s accusation is defamatory in any actionable sense. But insofar as Oregon’s defamation standards are concerned, there is really no reason to suppose that there is a different standard for bloggers than there is for journalists. I think that the main reason why some bloggers have avoided legal action for defamation in the past is not that there is any special protection for bloggers relative to journalists, but that the pockets of most bloggers and their publishers are usually not deep enough to make it worthwhile to sue them.What matters is whether a defamatory statement was published, did the statement cause damages, and was the statement defamatory per se. This was couched as a matter of opinion, which is usually protected unless the opinion implies the existence of some undisclosed “facts”.All things considered, I’d be surprised if Ms Squires doesn’t ask for a retraction.
Posted by: Just Saying | Aug 23, 2009 10:20:39 AM
Why do you think having just the basis for just a suspicion, no matter how factual that basis might, protects you if you cross the line into making a specific accusation against someone if you don’t actually have specific facts identifying the person you accuse? … The fact remains that you have made an accusation that impugned a person in a public forum…
Posted by: Just Saying | Aug 24, 2009 8:09:03 AM
It’s up to the system to decide if Carla has defamed the person she accused of a nefarious act if it were to come to that. … And, by the way, although it could be a whole lot easier to defend in a defamation action if they could prove the accusation were true, it still could be defamation if the jury decided it was defamation based on other considerations. Tricky business, and it’s part of where the whole movie cliche of having ‘two confirming sources’ before going with a story comes from.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 25, 2009 2:11:34 PM
[I]f Hasina had her lawyer write to Carla and to BlueOregon demanding a retraction, I’d strongly urge you to consult a lawyer before ripping off a hot-headed response, especially in the form of a BlueOregon post.
Posted by: Jack Roberts | Aug 24, 2009 10:40:06 AM
Oh, and Carla, the legal standard for defamation for a “public figure” (which probably does not include Hasina) is saying or writing something that you know is false or with reckless disregard for its truthfullness.[…] There is a reason that newspapers keep defamation lawyers on retainer.
And so on and so on… but I end with and emphasize that last comment because it gets to the heart of the issue as I see it, for there are indeed reasons why newspapers keep defamation lawyers on retainer, not the least of which being that it acts as a deterrent against the sort of frivolous lawsuits Carla’s commenters would like to scare her into thinking she has opened herself up to. This thread, particularly the comments of Jack Roberts and the anonymous “Just Saying,” is nothing if not an act of intimidation intended to bully Carla into thinking twice before she ever publicly criticizes the likes of Squires and other establishment stalwarts again, and in this service the commenters employ the sort of shameless and selective legalistic bullshit that lawyers often use to buffalo laypeople into submission.
[As an amusing aside, actionable defamation requires evidence of harm, but accusing a lobbyist of successfully planting stories in the press is like accusing a clown of making people laugh, and would actually enhance her professional reputation, not hurt it. Hell, I wouldn’t want to hire a lobbyist who couldn’t influence the media—it’s part of the job description—so what’s Squire’s gonna argue in court? That Carla has damaged her ability to surreptitiously plant stories in the press by accusing her of surreptitiously planting stories in the press? For all their helpful advice, that’s a subtlety of defamation law which Roberts and Saying conveniently ignore.]
This thread isn’t about journalistic ethics; if it was, the commenters would be just as outraged at the Oregonian’s speculation as they were about Carla’s. And it certainly isn’t about defending a lobbyist’s honor; even if the Oregonian piece wasn’t retribution for crossing Squires, it’s sure as hell in the interest of her future clients for legislators to think so.
No, this thread is about bullying bloggers, pure and simple. And that’s one of the reasons why I find Blethen’s column, with its non sequitur anecdotes of online transgressions, and its patronizing advice to all us untrained journalists, so goddamn irritating, because bloggers are more vulnerable to defamation suits than the corporate press, and everybody knows it. And people with money and/or law degrees don’t need any further encouragement to use this vulnerability to their unfair advantage.
Now, to be perfectly honest, demi-prominent bloggers like Carla and me, with our relatively high profile and strong connections to the national Netroots, aren’t nearly as vulnerable as some others might be. No doubt if a Margaret Dore or a Hasina Squires were to actually file suit, we would likely find more than adequate pro bono First Amendment defense, while the plaintiffs would quickly find themselves the subject of national ridicule at the hands of our outraged colleagues. And as fellow blogger Dave Neiwert (Orcinus, Crooks and Liars) routinely responds when he’s threatened with a defamation suit of his own: “My attorney and I look forward to discovery.”
But the blogger-beware meme put forth in Blethen’s column and in Carla’s comment thread and in any number of threads like it, advocating that libel laws that evolved to fit the contours of the old media can and should be used to cow and control the practitioners of the new, is a very real threat to the viability of the blogosphere as a meaningful and credible medium for disseminating dissent and facilitating public debate.
The letter of the law be damned, as a non-attorney I’m arguing that our defamation statutes should not apply to bloggers in the same way that they apply to the corporate media because given the nature of the medium, the limited financial resources of the defendant, and the many new avenues of recourse available to the plaintiff to address perceived wrongs outside the purview of the courts, to do so would upset the careful balance our legal system has heretofore carved out between the rights of the aggrieved and the fundamental constitutional right to free expression.
The fact that bloggers like Michael, Carla, Dave and I routinely receive vague and not-so-vague threats of costly legal action is testament not to the poor quality of our journalism, but rather to the lack of protection we are guaranteed under established law. None of us are afraid of losing a libel suit, but all of us are rightly concerned with the potential cost of fighting one. The irony is not lost on me that in breaking the feudal grip of the corporate media masters, our new generation of independent journalists has lost the feudal protection of our former lords as well, putting our personal financial security at risk with every critical word we write.
And to what end? Carla’s critics are right that couching a statement with “I believe” is not a defense in itself against a legal finding of defamation, but look how petty they are in pushing their case. “It’s my belief that Hasina Squires fed the Galizio story to the Oregonian,” Carla writes after laying out the facts that led her to come to this conclusion, and for this they would cheer on a civil prosecution that could ultimately bankrupt Carla and her family? Is this really the proper balance the framers of our defamation laws sought to strike?
I don’t think so, but if that is the law, then I adamantly believe that the defamation laws should be changed to reflect the shifting balance of power between plaintiff and defendant in the decentralized media that is coming to dominate the Internet. Blethen is right that there is a line that is too frequently crossed when it comes to bloggers and defamation, but he’s wrong about who is crossing it, and in what direction.
Maybe the stalwarts at the Oregonian are afraid of being identified as the not so innocent receivers of the planted story.
Makes them look bad.
I had a professor years ago who was in the midst of writing a biography of the founder of the Oregonian. He confessed to his graduate students that he was having trouble finishing the book because the more research that he did on his subject, the more he realized what a, “…truly despicable individual that man had been.” I don’t know if he ever finished the book, but it might not be a bad idea to do a little background research on your enemy.
The acorn….
Ever since Young Mr. Blethen got promoted from intern to Editor of the Editorial Page, it’s read like something ripped from a high school newspaper. Maybe on a good day, a community college.
The only reason I continued a subscription after the sad demise of the PI is to have some paper in front of my while I eat my cereal in the morning.
Old habits die hard.
“Devastating financial consequences”? What devastating financial consequences? No attorney with any business sense would file a lawsuit against a guy who owns nothing, doesn’t have a job, and makes his living by begging for beer money on a local political blog. What can they do to you, Goldy? File a lien against your table reservation at Montlake Ale House? Lawsuits are a worry only for people who have something. When you’re judgment proof you can slander the bastards to your heart’s content, and nobody can do anything about it!
Actually, the Blethens are in the same position as Goldy, if you believe Frank’s whining about their financial statements.
Goldy;
Bradley Marshall was disbarred? The PI said he was suspended for 18 months beginning about May of 2007:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local.....yer11.html
The WSBA just lists him as still being suspended beginning in May of 2007, but doesn’t give details. Perhaps he has to do something else to be returned to active status, and hasn’t done that yet?
Hmmm, the comment thread under Ryan’s editorial is “closed.” Guess he doesn’t want to know what his newspaper’s readers think of what he wrote. Or maybe that’s just his way of underlining his opinion of free speech in case we didn’t get the point of his editorial, namely, only those born into media-owning families have an opinion worth reading.
” … but that’s okay, because as Blethen points out, professional journalists are ‘trained’ to know the ‘difference between fact and opinion.'”
Being both a trained professional journalist and a practicing lawyer, I find the accuracy of newspaper stories a joke. At least courts are honest enough to admit they’ll settle for a 50% probability of getting the facts right. And they work a lot harder at it than any journalist does.
Hmmm, well I hope “Just Saying” isn’t a lawyer, because if he is, you don’t want to hire him. A lobbyist commenting on a public issue isn’t a “public figure”? Good luck in court with that one! Legal standards and/or jury decisions based on movie cliches? Good grief. Also, good luck with trying to prove that a blogger who expressed a “belief” in something “knew” it to be false. “Just Saying,” whoever he is, knows just enough about libel law to know less than someone who knows nothing at all.
Roger,
I have some questions about this thread. Can you contact me by phone or email?
Back on waht I want to talk about, you mistake Goldy’s intent .. at least I think so. Some SOB who wants to squelch fre speach is not going to care whether Goldy has or does not have deep pockets … indeed the not have situation is more limitting to free speech.
OTOH, am I wrong that to win such a case Blethen’s mythical accuser would need to show some financial damage to themselves by Goldy’s post?
Or does this matter? If the objects is simply to force the poorer party into the hands of an attorney, that is pretty damn intimidating itself.
Again I have an issue I would like to ask about if you have the time.
That’s one long freakin’ post. Sorry, but I’ve got a lot going on and didn’t have time to really appreciate. Give those fuckers hell, and never stop.
Did I mention mark the redneck? Give him hell too.
rhp6033 @5,
My understanding was that he was since disbarred, but I can’t find a reference online. Perhaps our resident sleuth Richard Pope can clear this up.
Outstanding post, Goldy. There is a perverse absurdity in an editorial page editor cautioning anyone else about pushing the boundaries of the First Amendment. You’d think that such an editor would encourage anyone and everyone to push those boundaries, and push them as far as possible. Blethen, apparently, doesn’t recognize the role of the press in a democracy.
And, this point makes a ton of sense: “as a non-attorney I’m arguing that our defamation statutes should not apply to bloggers in the same way that they apply to the corporate media because given the nature of the medium, the limited financial resources of the defendant, and the many new avenues of recourse available to the plaintiff to address perceived wrongs outside the purview of the courts . . .” Hell, I’d argue that the name of your blog gives you an absolute defense against a defamation claim.
Goldy–
The standards to win a libel suit are mighty high. You would have to be extraordinarily reckless to lose. However, someone with money could legal fee you pretty hard…and you would likely have no recourse to recoup your legal fees. Interesting that Daddy Love is encouraging YOU to give ’em hell. If you ever did get sued, DL would certainly not be there with his checkbook.
Blethen is a PINHEAD!
We agree on that.
And his Editorial is proof-positive!
“the sort of shameless and selective legalistic bullshit that lawyers often use to buffalo laypeople into submission”
I have a lot of fun with this, because from time to time, I cross paths with one of those bullying letters that lawyers love to send out. Usually my friends and relatives bring them to me. Of course, I’m pretty good at writing them myself, which isn’t hard, because they’re all boilerplate. The fun part happens when the lawyer realizes I’m a lawyer too, and I know he’s bluffing. Invariably, two things then happen: (a) He becomes more polite, and (b) he backs off.
This is what my advice to Carla would be. If she gets what appears to be a threatening letter from an attorney, the first thing she should do is check out whether he’s a lawyer in good standing (i.e., his bar assoc. dues are current, he’s not under suspension, etc.). If not, turn the s.o.b. in to the bar association for unauthorized practice of law; they’ll handle prosecuting him.
If Carla determines the guy is authorized to practice law, her next step is to realize the client didn’t want to spend any more money on this than absolutely necessary, which means the lawyer spent about 10 minutes drafting the letter (typical fee: $150), which means the lawyer didn’t do any research. He just peeled the contents of the letter off the wall, because that’s all the client was willing to pay for at this stage of things, and you get what you pay for.
I mean, really, how many people who want to bully a blogger are going to spend $3,500 on 10 hours of legal research? (Fill in the blank ___ with any number between none and zero.)
Which brings us to the next, and crucial, step: What Carla should do next is send a polite letter back to the lawyer asking him to specify exactly what he’s complaining about and to explain his legal reasoning.
This accomplishes two very important things: (1) It forces the lawyer to do some research so his reply doesn’t make him look like he’s bluffing or blowing hot air, and (2) it forces the client to pay the lawyer for doing the research and drafting the reply.
Of course, at this stage of things, given how hard it is to make a libel charge stick in our legal system, especially in the realm of political commentary, it’ll probably end right there. Even if the client isn’t smart enough to keep the rest of his money in his own pocket, at this point the lawyer probably will advise the client in a roundabout way, in so many carefully chosen words, that he doesn’t have a case and there’s nothing the lawyer can do no matter how much money the client throws at the fan.
The final act of the drama will be a carefully worded letter from the lawyer that offers a deal more or less like this: “As long as you continue to refrain from calling my client a serial child rapist, he agrees to take no further action against you at this time.”
Too bad if they got a judgment against you Goldy, you couldn’t pay. Ahh, to be habitually unemployed….
@11 I don’t find anything to indicate he’s disbarred. The WSBA’s lawyer directory lists him as “suspended.” Granted, the directory may not be up to date. I searched Washington Supreme Court decisions for the last 7 years and the only disciplinary proceeding against this attorney that turned up was the one that resulted in the 18-month suspension. He cannot be disbarred except by order of the Supreme Court, so I think that’s a definitive indication of his status. To get reinstated, at a minimum he’ll have to pay dues and satisfy MCLE requirements.
@12 “Hell, I’d argue that the name of your blog gives you an absolute defense against a defamation claim.”
Nope, that won’t work in court.
@13 “However, someone with money could legal fee you pretty hard…and you would likely have no recourse to recoup your legal fees.”
Yep, but they’ll legal fee themselves pretty hard too, with no recourse to recoup their legal fees. So, someone would have to (a) have plenty of money to spend, and (b) be angry enough to spend it, in order to put Goldy in this danger.
Goldy, you need an editor bad!
Interesting that Ryan Blethen also read Maureen Dowd’s column on how courts are now forcing bloggers to be identified in defamation actions.
I pointed out this development here.
This is as it should be – blogs should receive no more or no less protection than, say, newspapers, TV, radio, magazines, books, or whatever. This will probably extend to comments posted in blog threads as well.
While you can, for a time, cover yourself with the opinion/statement of fact dichotomy, at some point that veil will be pierced and some blogger will have to sell his daughter to pay the damages.
Then our old friend, Mr. Plaintiff, will come after comment posters…Won’t that be delish?
The Piper
Roger @18,
Well, I do own a house, so it’s not like I’m really judgment-proof. But that’s besides the point, as the real goal in defamation suit is to cost me a ton of money in legal fees.
The concern comes down to marginal utility. The BIAW could spend a few hundred thousand dollars and not even notice, but the same expense would bankrupt me and leave me homeless. Make myself enough of a nuisance and perhaps I’m worth the expense of a futile libel suit.
@19 In my opinion, bagpipes in the hands of amateurs like you sound about as appealing as the yowling of a cat being tortured.
That’s pure opinion — now … sue me!
@18…RR…
You don’t think the number of people in each category grows by the day? Uff da! You need to get out more.
The Piper
@20 “Well, I do own a house, so it’s not like I’m really judgment-proof.”
Well don’t go around advertising it, know what I mean? Besides, unless you own the thing free and clear, there may not be any equity after the homestead exemption.
As for the BIAW, it they had any interest in suing you, they would have already done it. My guess is they don’t want to give you free publicity that would make you even more popular than you already are.
@22 “You don’t think the number of people in each category grows by the day?”
No. Legal expenses have a way of making irrational people suddenly become rational. As an ex-lawyer, you should know that.
@21…RR…
For something to be defamatory, it has to be false.
And you simply describe yourself as what we call being English.
The Piper
@24…RR…
Maybe they’d do it for the shear joy of the thing…the lawyer too.
The Piper
Total number of lawsuits filed by angry people who don’t care how much they have to spend to make a point that I’ve encountered during my 35 years as a lawyer: 0
@25 So if I call a Scot an “Englishman,” is that actionable?
@27…RR…
Like I said, you need to get out more.
The Piper
@28…RR…
It would be moot – you’d be dead.
The Piper
@26 Now I know you’re smoking banana peels.* Since when do lawyers file lawsuits for “shear [sic] joy”? All the lawyers I’ve ever met do it for money. And having Rule 11 on the books tends to take the joy out of filing baseless lawsuits, because the lawyer ends up paying the defendant’s legal expenses, which isn’t a very good model for long-term economic survival.
* Don’t like me saying that? Sue me! Since smoking banana peels isn’t illegal, I haven’t alleged — baselessly or otherwise — that you’re doing anything illegal. I’m merely alleging — baselessly or otherwise — that you’re doing something foolish. That’s not libelous.
Piper @ 19: “blogs should receive no more or no less protection than, say, newspapers, TV, radio, magazines, books, or whatever.”
I’m not sure I disagree with you, but there is a difference between a blog and traditional media. Something posted on a blog, particularly one like this one that gets heavy traffic from people of all views, gets immediate scrutiny, if not instant refutation. Threats to reputations, the gravamen of defamation claims, are a bit hard to identify. Legally, we’re talking more about questions of fact than issues of law, but still there is a difference.
@30 You must think I’m ignorant. If I were going to call a Scot an “Englishman,” don’t you think I’d have one of these? http://tinyurl.com/kveqoo
@33…RR…
Fixed fortifications are throwback to ancient times. At some point in time you’d have to come out for food.
The Piper
@32…PL…
At some point, courts will hold that bloggers have a legal responsibility not to injure. And they’ll also be held responsible for injurious content in the comment threads on their blogs, which means they’ll have to moderate them. Kind of like some guy who goes nuts on a TV or radio show – why do you think radio has a seven-second delay?
In other words, anarchy will no longer reign.
Welcome to the development and genius of the Common Law.
The Piper
Piper @35,
Why would you even wish that, let alone imagine it? The Internet is nothing like broadcast, and the government has no interest and no right in regulating its content. To hold me responsible for the content of my comment threads would be akin to holding Qwest or Comcast or Verizon accountable for these comments too.
If your vision were to come true then there would be no comment threads, on any but the largest corporate owned sites, as none of us could afford the inevitable liability from some asshole troll intentionally seeking to get us in a heap of legal trouble. Is that really what you envision for this medium?
There’s something disturbingly fascistic about a media vision that hands the Internet back into the hands of corporate overseers.
Goldy is finding this offensive while scrubbing posts left and right (no pun intended) on his ‘Rip, Ted Kennedy thread’. The lad wouldn’t know the first thing about “be[ing] respectful”, so I find this excessively long and boring whinefest posting to be quite amusing. See archives around Reagans death 6/5/2004. Wiped clean of evidence of liberal hypocrisy of course.
I smell jealousy on the part of a failed former radio host for a spoiled and privileged journalism heir.
“All effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand.”
Adolf Hitler
Piper imagines himself the leader and not one of the victims. The trouble with your thinking, Pipe, is that you believe what you are saying.
“hope and change” ~ Barack Obama
“Yes we can!” ~ Barack Obama
“Si Se puede!” ~ Senor Obama
The guy living at 1600 pennsylvania has perfected “sloganism”, sans substance. Fortunately, the American public is awakening from their slumber and will send him back to the
shitholecity of Chicago again in 2012.We are now in 3+ years of damage control…
@34 I could live on the moss growing in there for a long time. Eventually the guy outside will leave, even if only temporarily, to forage for food or take a dump or whatever. And that’s when I’ll go hopping off into the woods in the background.
@35 As long as anonymous bloggers are sliming other anonymous bloggers, there’s no injury, and without injury it’s not actionable. As an ex-lawyer, you should know that. If online slimers used people’s real names, then yes, that’s a horse of a different color. But you still have to meet all the legal elements of libel, including an actual injury — and have the wherewithal to sue.
@36 A wingnut shilling for gummint regulation of what people can say on the internet? Precious!
@9 “Can you contact me by phone or email?”
Uh, how? I went to your blog and couldn’t find a contact link. I’m certainly not gonna post my phone # or e-mail addy here.
Disturbing indeed. Only it doesn’t end with the “corporate” overseers. If nothing else today, you’ve proven that you’re no different than those you criticize with your “RIP, Ted Kennedy” thread. I guess “censorship” is in the eye of the beholder.
I wonder if Roger Rabbit would post that he’d like to “piss on the grave” of the late Sen. Kennedy as he did 10 days ago re: Journalist Robert Novack?
Doubt it.
yes, & castigate the wingnuts because the death panels they’re angry about don’t really exist in the health care bill(s).
yet every dumbshit blogger thinks they have the right to say any stupid, slanderous thing they want to, as long as they put the words “I believe…” or “I heard…” before it.
Every day in every way you anti-democracy uber-environmental loonies just get closer & closer to the wingnuts & other crazies… & don’t see the connection at all
http://www.washington.edu/uwpr.....ALVIG.html
The Seattle Times, the once great newspaper, reduced to threats against bloogers on one page, while trumpeting an agreement to feed off them.
Fuck Ryan Blethen.
I believe Blethen’s op-ed skills are not worth the time it takes to read them…therefore it has come to be a fact that my weekend subscription to the Times is cancelled.
The only value The Times has now is the Sunday NYTimes crossword puzzle and I can get that from the NYT w/o the worthless crap Blethen has been offering as op-ed.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rs26m.html
Seattle Times partners with neighborhood news sites
The Seattle Times and several of Seattle’s neighborhood news Web sites are joining forces as part of an interactive journalism project.
By Seattle Times staff
@44 Got a problem with Goldy running his PRIVATE PROPERTY as he sees fit? What are you, a fucking communist!
Novak (not “Novack”, you illiterate dope) was a traitor who gave CIA secrets to our enemies. Of course I’d piss on his grave! I’d piss on Jane Fonda’s grave, too, except she doesn’t have one. She’s a traitor, too. But if she’ll come to my burrow, I’ll hump her ankle.
@36…Goldy…
It’s not government regulation – it’s the development of the Common Law to protect the rights of individuals to recover damages for harm caused them.
Your analogies aren’t apt. To contend that an ISP should be liable for what’s published on a Web site is akin to holding the newspaper boy liable for what’s in the paper. I believe there’s already case law on this.
Instead, as a publisher, you are liable for everything that appears in your publication – including what’s written in comment threads. You are like a magazine publisher who is responsible for the content of the free-lance article in your magazine.
Writers, whether bloggers or comment posters, are also liable for what they write.
This isn’t the government telling you what you can and cannot publish – it’s the development of a private right of action by an aggrieved party against a defaming tortfeasor. Just like the development of slip-and-fall law, if there is an injury, the Common Law eventually figures out a way to recover damages for it when liability can be shown.
The only role of government is to provide the forum and rules by which a case is to be adjudicated and act as the referee. Otherwise, the beef is between private citizens.
Of course, you’ll still have First Amendment protection, which is, perhaps, the highest bar in tort law, especially when it comes to public figures. cf NY Times v. Sullivan. But you won’t have the right to shout figurative “Fire!” in a crowded theater. And neither will comment posters.
Actual damage will need to occur, not just hurt feelings or the statement of an opinion. But still, as we’re seeing in New York in the case mentioned by Maureen Dowd, it can happen.
From the time of Henry II until now, the Common Law has developed, adapted, modified itself, when necessary, to cover emerging new situations and technologies. The doctrine of “breaking bulk,” the law of contracts and real property, nuisance law, and more came about through courts being presented new fact situations and applying, through reason and precedent, the law, albeit in a slightly different way.
It’s part of living in a civilized society where the rule of law is paramount.
The Piper
I wonder if Roger Rabbit would post that he’d like to “piss on the grave” of the late Sen. Kennedy as he did 10 days ago re: Journalist Robert Novack?
Doubt it.
If Teddy had treasonously (traitorously?) published the name of the CIA operative that was working on Middle East nuclear proliferation programs, perhaps Roger would piss on his grave, too. But Teddy didn’t. And Novak did.
I join in Roger Rabbit’s sentiment for a piss-fest on the grave of a traitor.
Got any more strawmen we can take a match to?
@45 So if Goldy decides he won’t let rightwing haters use his PRIVATE PROPERTY to spit venom at Ted Kennedy on the day of his death that’s anti-democratic?
Suppose you came to my burrow and wanted to post a burning cross in my front yard, but I didn’t let you, does that make me a “crazy”? How is that different from posting your crap on Goldy’s blog?
He lets you do that 364 1/2 days of the year. In one thread, he says “give it a rest,” and you asswipes think you’re being censored?
Can you people get any loonier than you already are? You seem hell-bent on proving you can.
I have a challenge for you. Go to Free Republic or any rightwing blog of your choice and try posting something nice about Kennedy and see what happens.
@50 Hunh. Is this why you posted a link to your business web site on this blog? So people could identify you, so you could sue them?
@50 You’re an Englishman. Don’t like that? Sue me!
Ah, Piper Scott appears, basking, no doubt, in the glories of Scottish Virtue in freeing a convicted terrorist (the Lockerbie bomber) on grounds of compassion, what with being ever so holier than us Yanks, and all. (If you doubt any of this, read any of the past few days’ headlines in Times UK online Sottish edition, The Guardian, etc, and the venomous comment sections expressing Scottish revulsion at the US at every level.)
It’s nice to know that Piper, with all his breathless admiration for his own ancestry is carrying on that tradition here by inflating the place with immeasurable volumes of hot gases from both anterior and posterior vents, waxing eloquent about us morally deficient liberals and our permissive ways.
It’s curious that the emulator of the 2 and 4 legged sheep of the country that feels that a bomber should receive compassion, but fuck the families of the 179 Americans killed over Lockerbie, has the pompous nerviness to come here and hiss at “liberals”
Jesus H Christ, is there no end to Asshole Piper’s hypocrisy????
Fuck You St Clair, and all your pussy countrymen in the bargain.
I see the Englishman is still offering “free legal advice” on his web site: http://www.scottstclair.com/
Which he’s not authorized to do because he’s not licensed to practice law: http://pro.wsba.org/MemberDeta....._ID=752774
Now, I’m not gonna turn him in, nor suggest anyone else do it — I’m not that mean — but I suspect sooner or later it’s gonna catch up with him.
Roger @ 17: “@12 ‘Hell, I’d argue that the name of your blog gives you an absolute defense against a defamation claim.’
Nope, that won’t work in court.”
I hate to disagree with you, Rabbit, but I do try a case now and again. Would the name of Goldy’s blog be an absolute defense to a slander claim? No. Would I as his defense lawyer against such a claim emphasize that name and have it on whiteboards and digital displays throughout the courtroom as much as I was permitted to do so? You’d better believe it. If the alleged defamatory comment is coming from a blog entitled “horsesass.org,” then how much damage to a reputation might we expect to have occurred?
Piper @ 50: “Instead, as a publisher, you are liable for everything that appears in your publication – including what’s written in comment threads. You are like a magazine publisher who is responsible for the content of the free-lance article in your magazine.”
Piper, I have no truck with your discussion of the evolution of the common law–you say, essentially, that where there is a wrong, the common law will find a remedy. The common law is most admirable in that regard (so, do you agree with tort deform proponents, who want to abrogate the common law?). But, I think that the common law will find that internet postings are different than, for instance, something posted in a magazine, something over which an editor has timeless control. I don’t think that a blogger is the same, in reality or at law, as a publisher. There is, truly, a difference between them. Don’t you think?
Roger @ 6..the comments may be turned off, but my telephone still works. I will be calling the Times in the morning.
Roger ..
I do not want to post addresses here either. However, if you look at the info at SJ, it does give an email address in the about me. That is NOT an address I regularly use (so it can fill up with SPAM) but I do look there if I think a message is coming.
Back to the thread, what is rule 11?
Also, your point seems to be that no sensible person would waste the legal fees. Fine, but this assumes every person wi money is sensible. It seems to me tlo be all to easy for an attorney or someone with the funds to hire one to cost the average joe a lot of money.
In my own experiences I have been threatened with that sort of thing a number of times by folks who wanted me to shut up about some issue. In three such cases the threat actually came from a state agency that told me it would use the state’s legal resources to bankrupt me and noted that it, the state, was a lot wealthier than I. The end result is that I hired an attorney and we won, but it cost me quite a lot of money and, to be honest, personal tension that still hurts.
As a result of that experience several others with similar problmes have come to me for advice and I have used my knowledge to help them. The result is that I know this is a fairly common practice.
I have also sat with an attorney I know quite well and listened to her and her husband, a corporate executive, brag about their use of similar tactics.
If the truth is as simple as you suggest, the it seems to me the bar association should offer free advice to anyone who believes they are being unfairly intimidated by an attorney.
@57…PL…
Much of the tort reform argument I believe stems from changes in liability and the introduction of strict liability in a lot of situations that led to skyrocketing damage awards. That, in part, came about from courts tossing traditional notions of negligence in favor of – wink, wink – holding in favor of – wink, wink – plaintiffs without – choke, cough – taking into account – gag, choke – the fact that – cough, wretch – the defendant had – shocked, SHOCKED – insurance.
I don’t dispute that the law, when it comes to the Internet, may develop differently. But what I am convinced of is that, at some point, the free-wheeling wild-west atmosphere that is pervasive today will eventually be tamed. Such is the nature of all frontiers…
The Common Law, reasoning through analogy, will borrow from the law as it is applied to print and broadcast mediums. That’s how it’s done.
And while you would try to minimize Goldy by ridiculing him, I would show him how he portrays himself: on the cutting edge of a new medium where “interesting” names are a stock in trade. Then I would introduce all those serious pieces he’s written and call, as witnesses, every HA Happy Hooligan blogger to testify starting with Dr. Darryl and working my way down. I’d paint him as the second coming of William Randolph Hearst.
That’s what I’d do.
The Piper
Oh, please. Carla fails from the get-go by attacking a single person, without confirmation, when Harry Esteve himself stated “Salem insiders”. Plural. Even if Harry Esteve left out the sentence containing “Salem insiders”, he is only thinking what many people are thinking. Pay for play. Don’t pretend this doesn’t exist. At any rate, all Carla is doing is destroying her ability to be anything BUT a blogger within the Oregon political structure. Online community builder. Ha! Shes jealous and desperate for attention.
SJ @ 60
Rule 11 refers to Civil Rule 11 (under either state or federal law), applicable to civil (oxymoron, I suppose) suits. The rule provides that litigants, and the attorneys representing them, can be assessed sanctions for pursuing frivolous/nonmeritorious claims or defenses. Those sanctions should reflect whatever the party on the other side had to pay to oppose the frivolous claim or defense.
Piper @ 61: “And while you would try to minimize Goldy by ridiculing him, I would show him how he portrays himself: on the cutting edge of a new medium where “interesting” names are a stock in trade.”
Ah, that trial would be fun, would it not? What is slander in the new media? Does self-mocking count as a defense (Sound Politics certainly sounds serious, doesn’t it?)?
With regard to your wink, wink suggestions about how the courts treat plaintiffs, uh, my friend, have you represented any plaintiffs in court lately on damages claims here in this blue, blue county of King? And, you know, of course, that the Rules of Evidence prohibit any mention of whether a defendant in a civil action has insurance, correct? The courts are loaded against plaintiffs in civil actions, period. Sure, there are the occasional runaway verdicts. They get media attention. But, what I would consider a runaway jury is the jury instructed that liability is uncontested and it must award damages, but it doesn’t. How much media attention does that draw? Not a peep, never. Law, as they say, is a jealous mistress.
Piper @50,
Squeeze those bagpipes all you want about common law, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally grants me immunity for the comments posted in my thread, and places the liability solely on the authors.
Really, don’t talk down to me.
Rob Drake @62,
You are free to criticize Carla and her post here on HA or over there on BO. That’s why we provide comment threads. But even if your criticism is valid, it doesn’t come close to making her post defamatory, and that is the issue at the heart of this post.
See that? The Oregonian impugned the reputation of a government official based merely on raised eyebrows and unsupported speculation, but that’s okay, because as Blethen points out, professional journalists are “trained” to know the ”difference between fact and opinion.”
Actually, Goldy, you illustrate why this blog has been a waste of electrons since you conceived it. In the Oregonian statement, there is no false statement of fact, which is a key element of defamation: It’s a fact (in the legislative record) that Galizio did change his vote. And before you even try to argue whether it’s a fact that many Oregonians did raise their eyebrows at the 180 wondering what went on, you might want to make sure you check all the media reports, I assure you there were questions asked the day it happened. You haven’t quoted anything that contains speculation on the Oregonian’s part. Your assertion that the Oregonian invited an implicature as extreme as you imply is simply the product of your distorted perception.
Carla on the other hand, did made several statement ofs fact which she said was only her belief. And she offered no proof.
Whether you recognize the clear difference between the two is probative of your intellectual capability and integrity, not reality.
Remember, in courts across the land bloggers are asking to be afforded the First Amendment protections afforded journalists, which includes that the truth is an absolute defense. The protections journalists have now is a line that was drawn based on expectations of a certain pattern and level of behavior and the rights of the people they cover. If bloggers only want to conduct themselves with a different, and clearly lower standard of behavior in this case, than they don’t have any right to expect the benefits of the same line.
Nobody is trying to intimidate anybody in what you cite. They are trying to explain defamation for Carla’s benefit. Big difference from your crazed theories and attempts to read far more into what is written there than is there. But if it’s the victim’s mentality that floats your and Carla’s boat, sadly dependent as it is on misrepresenting what was actually said and reaching nutty conclusions, just like the nutty rightwing does, go for it.
(For the rest of the readers, what basis does Goldy even have to assert that any of the commenters are even defending Squires or the establishment? Read the comments carefully which are confined strictly to the discussion of what defamation is. And remember, Galizio and Kulongoski are as much a part of the Oregon power establishment, just a different faction of it, as Squires is.)
Goldy @50,
Squeeze those bagpipes all you want about common law, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally grants me immunity for the comments posted in my thread, and places the liability solely on the authors.
Really, don’t talk down to me.
In simplest terms, Section 230 protections hinge on how much you interact with the content. You are what is called an “Internet Content Facilitator” (ICF) and don’t necessarily have the same level of immunity as an ISP. But you seem so sure of yourself that a prudent person can only assume you’ve engaged a lawyer to help you with this issue.
Wrong @67,
Um… I never accused the Oregonian of a false statement or defamation. I accused them of impugning Galizio’s reputation based on raised eyebrows and speculation. Big, BIG difference. And unless you have some concrete evidence of a quid pro quo, the allegation remains speculation no matter how many eyebrows were raised.
And, I never asserted that the commenters were directly defending Squires; I asserted that they were attempting to bully Carla. In fact, I specifically stated the opinion that the thread is NOT about defending Squires.
I can only assume that either you didn’t bother to fully read my post before responding (did you read my post? I can’t really tell from your comments), or you’re one of those deceptive little pricks who intentional puts words into other people’s mouths in order to try to make them look stupid.
But I’m a charitable guy, so I’ll go with the former.
Wrong @68,
Yes, as the proprietor of a blog with open comment threads I am an ICF under Section 230, with all the immunity provided therein, and under established case law even my occasional deletion of off-topic and inappropriate comments does not in any way make me an “information content provider” in regards to the comment threads, except for those comments I personally author.
And no, I have not engaged a lawyer to help me with this issue, as I’m smart enough to read the statute, case law and various scholarly commentaries for myself. Quite frankly, I’m really tired of lawyers who speak down to non-lawyers as if we’re children. It’s semantics, not rocket science.
Goldy @ 66
I am not concerned with the question of what is or isn’t defamatory. The fact that people like yourself and Carla are so freaked out about it shows that you know you are not being honest, and in fact, have done wrong. You have to live with that, not me.
As for BO, it’s not significant to affecting any change in the political landscape. Small change. Armchair ‘journalists’ attempting to be provocative, like Carla, don’t help persuade anybody of anything. But we do all see the bitterness and anger in the words that are written. They are not written with sincere hopes of making a persuasive argument, or to enlighten anyone, but simply written in order to try and gain attention. And believe me, she thrives off what she calls trolls, and their comments.
As put in Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
And so it seems, out of the fingertips when online.
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
I have been reading this blog since dang near the beginning. I can’t really remember a time that anyone was censored or cut.
I made a comment in the Ted Kennedy thread and it got “trimmed”. I insulted, or tried to insult a wingnut or three. Upon further reflection, it was not warranted, was not the place or time and Goldy had the good sense to “fix” it.
There are times that we all should use common sense and decency. There is never a time in politics to muzzle or censor the press. Very dangerous to do. Goldy is 100% right on this issue.
RR @ 40: “I could live on the moss growing in there for a long time. Eventually the guy outside will leave, even if only temporarily, to forage for food or take a dump or whatever. And that’s when I’ll go hopping off into the woods in the background.”
Old joke:
A dog is chasing a couple of rabbits, they barely manage to slip into an old log with the dog right behind them. The dog is too big to get into the log, so he just circles the log, barking and growling.
First rabbit: “Do you thing we should make a run for it?
Second rabbit: “Naw. Let’s just wait here a few hours, and outnumber him.”
@62 proud leftitst
Rule 11 seems rather minimal protection, esp if the defendant is less abloe to pay for attorneys than the accuser.
This seems to me to be an area where the republicans may have it right .. though I doubt they would go after anything that decreases the power of the wealthy.
All Legal Know Somethings
I thought under US law a slander case can only be won if the accuser can show both (financial) harm and the intent to do so.
No?
My problem with this is that it does not account for the huge amount of harm attorneys themselves can cause just by taking action.
Why could there not be a criminal penalty for any officer of the cour6t who misuses her authority?
Ryan Blethen is final proof that evolution works, but in reverse.
The worst thing about Rabbit is that he just keeps making more rabbits.
Hey….it almost appears up yonder that Piper’s hoping for imposition on the blogosphere of something resembling…..a fairness doctrine!
There’s one item you mentioned, Piper, which nobody else has seen fit to address. That “seven second delay” you make mention of has absolutely nothing to do with slander or “damaging speech”. It’s specifically related to the FCC’s authority to prohibit “indecency” in over-the-air television and radio broadcasting. Remember all the uproar after a certain “wardrobe” malfunction a few Super Bowls ago? Broadcasters can and do get socked with heavy fines for exposing juvenile eyes and ears to bare breasts or cuss words…but there’s no constraint whatever on the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Dan “Savage” spouting sedition 24×7.
Rob Drake @71,
Read the damn post. It’s 3000 words explaining why this matters, and why the indiscriminate use of defamation law threatens the vibrancy of our new, decentralized media.
Or, you know, you can just fondle yourself, playing your game about projection or something.
SJ @ 74, 75
You’re correct that CR 11 provides little by way of deterrent to a litigant who is judgment proof. But, because CR 11 sanctions can be imposed on the litigant’s counsel, it surely should cause counsel to think twice about pursuing a meritless claim.
You also seem to lobby for a “loser pays” model for civil litigation–in any civil case, the loser must pay the fees and costs of the winner. While this model has some inherent attraction, ultimately it would be the powerless and poor who would lose. It’s one thing to pursue a claim as a plaintiff and get nothing out of it. It would be a major deterrent, however, to think that losing would trigger a hefty tab for the fees and costs that counsel for some insurance company or major corporation generated. Further, claims of a novel nature would be too risky to pursue. A balance must be struck between permitting access to the courts for everyone and deterring meritless claims. I think CR 11 strikes the balance quite well.
Actually, i am not attached to loser pays.
I assume your are an attorney? What I have noted is that attorneys treat the law as a sort of sport, all things go as long as the rules are followed.
Of course this is fine when both teams are from the same league and when the athletes keep their brawn to the playing field.
Eg a trained boxer who playfully spars with an unknowing bozo is NOT on equal terms. A cop who uses his taser or threatens to do so when not on duty or in a place where she is acting as an officer, would be wrong even of she had bought the Taser from Costco.
What I would like to see is:
1. expansion of small claims court to deal with matters such as attorney’s misusing their authoritarian status.
2. expansion of small claims courts to handle mrore consumer issues. As an example, our coffee maker was recalled from the market for many months. During that time we were unable to use the coffee we had already bought.
I think that the threat of small claims would be a lot more effective in making Phillips more responsive to situations like this.
3. Legal Intimidation Laws. Just as an MD can get into trouble for using his degree in an inappropriate manner, I think lawyers should be subject to something similar and not limited to the bar.
As an example, at attorney who sends out a threatening letter, esp one that implies financial bullying, should be subject to criminal prosecution.
I also think laws like this might protect citizens vs. misuse of public posiyions, including our own AG office.
___________________________________
81
I guess I’m not sure what you consider a “threatening” letter. If an attorney sends a letter to a person to try to squeeze money out of that person while knowing that the person owes no money, that is improper. A complaint to the bar would be appropriate; if the circumstances are sufficiently egregious, the letter could constitute extortion, I suppose. But, the reality is that when an attorney sends out a “threatening” letter, it is generally because a client, who seems credible, has provided a plausible tale to the attorney that indicates that the recipient owes money. Sending out such a letter is certainly preferable to running out and filing suit–the recipient has an opportunity to explain why the client might be wrong. The alternative, of course, is a return to dueling.
@82
The sort of letter I mean reads like this:
Dear Mr Able,
My client, Guy Rich , has requested that I contact you in regard to your complaints about the flat screen television you bought from him.
While we realize you are unhappy, Mr. Rich, has made every effort to respond to you needs. Yet you persist on telling others that Rich’s Appliance Ripoff Emporium, provided you with bad service.
If you persist in making these comments, we will explore filing a suit for slander.
SY
I.M. Expensive, JD
or how about …
Dear Mr. Invester,
You are fortunate to have made investments with the firm I represent Estates Unltd. Ms. Lotsa Gones, our manager has shared with me your complaints the EU has not provided you with information you feel you need.
On reviewing the contract you signed, it is clear that EU is fulfilling our obligations to you. We suggest that you do not understand the contract and therefore seek legal counsel from an attorney as overpriced as I am so that we can build up bills you likley can not afford to pay.
I wopuld be happy to explain the law to your attorney.
I hope this has been helpful.
SY
Dunn Thisbefore,
Chief Staff Attorney
Estates Unlimited Division
Megacorporation of Dubai
a division of ARAMCO.
SJ @ 83
Ah, yes, those kinds of letters. Such letters frequently come from attorneys not licensed to practice in the state in which they are received. Purporting to practice law in a state in which one is not licensed is a problem, a problem which can lead to criminal consequences. If the threat comes from an out-of-state attorney, odds are that it is an idle threat. If sufficiently pissed, go to your local law enforcement agency and complain an unlicensed attorney is purporting to practice law here–the reaction will be much like that which happens when you complain of your car having been stolen in the city of Seattle. Nothing will happen. If such a letter comes from an in-state (licensed) attorney, the odds are still that nothing will happen. If sufficiently pissed, complain to the Washington State Bar Association. If you think that such a complaint doesn’t matter, you would be wrong.
@84
I think youi are far to comfortable with hiw easy it is to deal with this for most folks. I also, from my limited personal experiences, know this is not at all limited to unlicensed attorneys. Rather is it normal practice .. not only by attorneys in dependent practice but by attorneys on staff of corporations and government.
I suspect that an initiative to criminalize such behavior would be very popular. But to pass it would take $$$.