http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=11455
Defamation Lawsuit: How PogoWasRight.org Fought Back
June 20, 2010 by Dissent
As a pseudoanonymous blogger and privacy advocate, I’ve occasionally blogged about the use or abuse of legal process to unmask anonymous bloggers or to silence critics (cf, the “Stokklerk” case, the attempts to unmask critics of a development project, the A.Z. v. Doe case, and the HipCheck16 case). Despite some progress made, most notably in the application of the Dendrite standard by some courts, individuals and their lawyers continue to use or exploit the legal process in an attempt to silence critics. The ridiculous legal threats and lawsuit against PogoWasRight.org by Dr. Lillian Glass illustrate why we need greater protections from misguided individuals and their lawyers.
Background
In January 2008, I wrote some blog entries that were very critical of some “media psychologists” for their statements about a celebrity who was experiencing what appeared to be significant mental health problems. I blogged about the celebrity’s right to privacy, what the ethical standards for psychologists say about offering psychological opinions of people you’ve never assessed, why I thought Glass’s conduct was particularly egregious, and the exemption granted by California and the American Psychological Association that allowed Glass and a few others who are not licensed psychologists to call themselves “media psychologists” (most media psychologists are licensed). Both the California State Board of Psychology and the APA would shortly thereafter take some small steps to address media psychologists’ compliance with the ethical standards.
Threat Letters Arrive and PogoWasRight.org Takes the Fight to Them
In June 2009, more than a year after the posts were written, I received an absurd threat letter from Glass’s lawyer in California, Martin E. Jacobs. Wondering idly whether the statute of limitations had become merely advisory, I was surprised to read that not only had I allegedly defamed Glass and shown “malice” by writing “Google cache is not her friend,” but I had supposedly invaded Glass’s privacy because Glass’s therapist allegedly revealed Glass’s “intimate issues” in a comment or comments posted under the blog. After reading the letter through twice, I didn’t find a single claim against me or the blog that I thought had merit. I did go back and edit one blog entry’s title to make it clear that I was referring to verbal stones and not physical stones, but only because I hadn’t anticipated a physical construction of the title and thought clarifying that would be the right thing to do now that it had been brought to my attention, even if I didn’t’ believe that anyone would wait a year and a half to express their concern if they were really worried by it.
But if the purpose of the letter was to intimidate me into removing the blog entries and comments, it failed miserably. As the blog’s privacy policy clearly states:
If you send any legal, quasi-legal, or just downright nutty threats via email, do not expect any privacy of your email. Please note that I do not scare easily. I have kids, and there’s nothing you can threaten me with that will even come remotely close to scaring me as much as the day they both got their driver’s licenses.
I might have been wrong, but Jacobs’s letter had read like it was written by a family lawyer or a lawyer without serious knowledge or experience with online defamation cases and appeared to be no more than the threats of a puffed-up schoolyard bully. The second threat letter was no more effective in intimidating me, even though they indicated that they knew my identity and I would be unmasked when Glass sued me if I didn’t accede to her demands. Rather than intimidating me, the second threat letter convinced me that this was an attempt to chill speech and that the blog would not be bullied.
Restraining my first impulse to just send a suitably snarky reply to Jacobs, I contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who offered their support and assistance. Because of EFF’s help, I was vigorously represented in California by the law firms of Colette Vogele and Gregory Rutchik. Thanks to Jacobs having asserted twice that I would be (not might be) sued, my lawyers were able to file a Jane DOE suit in federal court for declaratory relief and judgment [Complaint and Exhibits A-D (pdf, 31 pp), Exhibits E-J (pdf, 31 pp)].
Litigation on Both Coasts
Now facing probable (if not almost certain) legal defeat in California, Glass switched coasts and served me with a summons with notice in New York for defamation, naming me in the summons and seeking $1 million. The actual complaint never got filed, so it’s anyone’s guess how they would have tried to get around the statute of limitations and other serious obstacles they faced. Glass’s east coast lawyer was Peter D. Raymond of Reed Smith.
Reed Smith is one of the largest law firms in the country. It participates in the Defense Counsel Section of the Media Law Resource Center, which has this requirement for membership:
Since membership in the Defense Counsel Section is limited to “Defense Counsel Only” we feel it is appropriate to request that each proposed member firm [list their media clients (or a representative sampling of same), and] confirm that it does not represent plaintiffs in libel, privacy or related actions, at least in actions against media defendants and/or journalists.
_____ No, neither I nor my firm represent plaintiffs in libel, privacy or related actions.
Despite assurances given, Reed Smith represented Glass against this blog. Do they not consider blogs “media defendants?” I have no idea why they would represent anyone against a blog in a defamation action and file a notice and summons that would unmask a previously pseudoanonymous blogger, but I think their conduct was shameful.
Because the blog was now involved in litigation on the east coast as well as the west coast, the Electronic Frontier Foundation assisted the west coast team in locating local counsel for the New York case, and I found myself with a number of great law firms and organizations who expressed interest in representing me. For the New York case, I was represented by Kurt Wimmer and his colleagues at Covington & Burling. Covington & Burling is also one of the biggest law firms in the country. Like Reed Smith, Covington & Burling participates in the Defense Counsel Section of the Media Law Resource Center. Unlike Reed Smith, Covington & Burling actually defended the media in this case.
Kurt Wimmer has been rated one of the best lawyers in America for a number of areas of law including First Amendment law and media law, and was recently honored by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for his efforts to get a journalists’ shield law. Having been fortunate enough to be represented by him, I can see why he is so highly regarded. Thanks to the great support of EFF, I truly had a legal “dream team” on both coasts who worked beautifully together, and Glass wound up dropping all claims on both coasts with prejudice.
But I shouldn’t have had to go through any of that as the case was a non-starter from the get go.
PogoWasRight.org was able to fight back and would have litigated rather than make any concessions to what seemed to be an attempt to chill speech. Could prolonged litigation on both coasts have cost me dearly financially? Undoubtedly, and another blogger might have given in rather than risk financial ruin defending against a ridiculous lawsuit.
While the threats and lawsuit in this case are easily condemned, condemnation is not enough. What protects the next blogger who may have fewer resources than PogoWasRight.org from similar litigation for engaging in protected speech? What additional protections or standard do we need or what penalties do we need for misguided plaintiffs or their lawyers who might use or misuse the legal system this way?
Technology is moving us toward the ideals of 1984 – or perhaps the “Pre-Crimes” of Minority Report.
In NJ, Higher Tech Lowers Crime
Posted by kdawson on Sunday June 20, @06:50PM
"High tech means low crime in a New Jersey city that has used an arsenal of advanced technology to sharply lower one of the highest crime rates in the nation. And now East Orange is poised to become the first city in the country to take high tech crime fighting to a whole new level... surveillance cameras with sensors that can be programmed to identify crimes as they unfold."
[From the article:
The sensors, which work in concert with surveillance cameras, are designed to spot potential crimes by recognizing specific behavior: Someone raising fist at another person, for example, or a car slowing down as it nears a man walking on a deserted street late at night. [I'll never slow for a pedestrian again! Bob] Each new crime recorded is programmed into the database.
Interesting. I take it they currently have no clearly defined right to privacy either. How would you word such a law?
http://www.pogowasright.org/?p=11662
In: New law to protect individual privacy
June 20, 2010 by Dissent
Sahil Makkar and Surabhi Agarwal, with Manish Ranjan, report:
Amid growing concerns over the potential misuse of personal data, the government is moving to enact India’s first law to safeguard privacy, a move aimed at least partly at deflecting worries over the immense amount of data it proposes to collect about its citizens.
The United Progressive Alliance government has set up a panel of senior officials of the rank of secretary to prepare a blueprint laying down the ground rules for privacy and data protection and fixing the criminal liability of offenders.
Once in place, the law will effectively recognize the right to privacy of an individual as a fundamental right. It will contain specific rules that will address any breach of a citizen’s right to privacy and include safeguards against potential violations of the law even by the government.
Read more on LiveMint.
For my Ethical Hackers. Imagine being able to change your license plate numbers whenever you choose!
California Wants To Put E-Ads On License Plates
Posted by kdawson on Monday June 21, @12:39AM
"The San Jose Mercury News reports that the California state legislature wants to put electronic advertising on license plates. The plate would display standard plate information when the car is moving, but would also display ads when the car is stopped for more than 4 seconds (say, at a red light). Not distracting or annoying at all! 'The bill has received no formal opposition. It passed unanimously through the Senate last month and is scheduled to be heard Monday by the Assembly Transportation Committee.'"
Why my students are brilliant! (Why my wife thinks I'm smart?)
Why Being Wrong Makes Humans So Smart
Posted by kdawson on Monday June 21, @08:20AM
Hugh Pickens sends in an excerpt in last week's Boston Globe from Kathryn Schulz's book Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.
"The more scientists understand about cognitive functioning, the more it becomes clear that our capacity to make mistakes is utterly inextricable from what makes the human brain so swift, adaptable, and intelligent. Rather than treating errors like the bedbugs of the intellect — an appalling and embarrassing nuisance we try to pretend out of existence — we need to recognize that human fallibility is part and parcel of human brilliance. Neuroscientists increasingly think that inductive reasoning undergirds virtually all of human cognition. Humans use inductive reasoning to learn language, organize the world into meaningful categories, and grasp the relationship between cause and effect. Thanks to inductive reasoning, we are able to form nearly instantaneous beliefs and take action accordingly. However, Schulz writes, 'The distinctive thing about inductive reasoning is that it generates conclusions that aren't necessarily true. They are, instead, probabilistically true — which means they are possibly false.' Schulz recommends that we respond to the mistakes (or putative mistakes) of those around us with empathy and generosity and demand that our business and political leaders acknowledge and redress their errors rather than ignoring or denying them. 'Once we recognize that we do not err out of laziness, stupidity, or evil intent, we can liberate ourselves from the impossible burden of trying to be permanently right. We can take seriously the proposition that we could be in error, without deeming ourselves idiotic or unworthy.'"
This is for my Intro to IT class
How The World Spends Its Time Online [INFOGRAPHIC]
The web is diverse and users obviously log on for different reasons. From reading news, socializing on social networks, email and search, advertisers are always trying to understand where people usually spend their time on the web.
Using data provided by a recent Nielsen study, the infographic below provides exactly that.
(Ditto) It's always fun to challenge what they “know”
What Valley Companies Should Know about Tencent
Quick quiz: Who are the three largest Internet companies in the world by market capitalization?
If you guessed Google and Amazon you got two right, but I’m betting few of our American readers guessed the third. I certainly wouldn’t have a year ago. It’s not eBay or Yahoo; it’s Tencent.
No comments:
Post a Comment