Comments on: Send Lawyers, Guns and Money http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/30/send-lawyers-guns-and-money/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Thu, 24 May 2012 19:03:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/30/send-lawyers-guns-and-money/comment-page-1/#comment-7060 Thorley Winston Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:22:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=502#comment-7060 Thanks Ted, well I guess that answers the question of Atrios’ risk of being outed. Does anyone know of any case law in which the owner/operator of a forum/medium was held or considered liable for someone else who used it with the owner/operator’s knowledge to defame another and/or to make terroristic threats while the owner/operator did nothing? It seems to me that if there is such case law and Luskin were to pursue legal action that might the stronger route than claiming that Atrios personally defamed him. I cannot wait to see what Volokh has to say on the matter. Thanks Ted, well I guess that answers the question of Atrios’ risk of being outed. Does anyone know of any case law in which the owner/operator of a forum/medium was held or considered liable for someone else who used it with the owner/operator’s knowledge to defame another and/or to make terroristic threats while the owner/operator did nothing? It seems to me that if there is such case law and Luskin were to pursue legal action that might the stronger route than claiming that Atrios personally defamed him. I cannot wait to see what Volokh has to say on the matter.

]]> By: Ted Barlow http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/30/send-lawyers-guns-and-money/comment-page-1/#comment-7059 Ted Barlow Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:49:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=502#comment-7059 I never used Blogger Pro, but Atrios does. He probably has a credit card on file with them (unless there's some double-secret PayPal method that I'm unaware of.) So I think that a subpoena could expose him. I never used Blogger Pro, but Atrios does. He probably has a credit card on file with them (unless there’s some double-secret PayPal method that I’m unaware of.) So I think that a subpoena could expose him.

]]> By: Thorley Winston http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/30/send-lawyers-guns-and-money/comment-page-1/#comment-7058 Thorley Winston Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:47:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=502#comment-7058 My understanding of using Blogspot.com is that you do not have to provide an actual name to register, just a user name and/or email address. In which case, I do not see how subpoenaing Blogspot.com. would necessarily result in disclosing Atrios’ identity unless he actually registered under his real name. Is my understanding of this correct or do you need to provide an actual name? As far as the merits of the suit, while defamation is generally not in my field, it seems like it could be a difficult thing to prove since “stalker” can have more connotations then just the legal definition (IIRC Volokh had a piece on a similar issue in which a Democratic politician sued unsuccessfully for being referred to as a “traitor” or “treasonous”). It could be difficult to prove the elements of defamation as well as holding Atrios responsible for the comments made on his board (if he is even liable for what others post on a forum he provides). Anyone know of any similar case law? Initially I found the story a little difficult to be believe. Jeffrey Upton’s biography does not indicate that he handles defamation cases and AFAIK neither he nor Luskin have publicly said that they are considering legal action against Atrios (anyone can claim they received an email from anyone else just as anyone can claim to be anyone else via email – the lack of an email address and several other details I’ve noticed in my own legal correspondence made me suspicious of the initial posting of the supposed email). However I did some information including an article on www.thestreet.com (click on my name to read the article) written by Donald Luskin in which he proposed requiring posters on online stock discussion boards to reveal their identities to weed out some of the scam artists. If you scroll down to then of the article, you’ll also see comments by a Jeffrey Upton of Hanify & King as follows: <blockquote> Message board posters may be unaware of the risk that they take when they post a message about a company, and that the qualified anonymity they enjoy may lull them into a false sense of security ... Many computer users probably don't see the difference between expressing their opinions in a bar and expressing them in a chat room or on a bulletin board. In the eyes of the law, there really is no difference. But as a practical matter, because the statements are in a more permanent written form and are published to a much larger audience, the potential for litigation and damages is much, much greater. </blockquote> This would seem to be consistent with the text of the email Atrios posted on his site. My understanding of using Blogspot.com is that you do not have to provide an actual name to register, just a user name and/or email address. In which case, I do not see how subpoenaing Blogspot.com. would necessarily result in disclosing Atrios’ identity unless he actually registered under his real name. Is my understanding of this correct or do you need to provide an actual name? As far as the merits of the suit, while defamation is generally not in my field, it seems like it could be a difficult thing to prove since “stalker” can have more connotations then just the legal definition (IIRC Volokh had a piece on a similar issue in which a Democratic politician sued unsuccessfully for being referred to as a “traitor” or “treasonous”). It could be difficult to prove the elements of defamation as well as holding Atrios responsible for the comments made on his board (if he is even liable for what others post on a forum he provides). Anyone know of any similar case law? Initially I found the story a little difficult to be believe. Jeffrey Upton’s biography does not indicate that he handles defamation cases and AFAIK neither he nor Luskin have publicly said that they are considering legal action against Atrios (anyone can claim they received an email from anyone else just as anyone can claim to be anyone else via email – the lack of an email address and several other details I’ve noticed in my own legal correspondence made me suspicious of the initial posting of the supposed email). However I did some information including an article on http://www.thestreet.com (click on my name to read the article) written by Donald Luskin in which he proposed requiring posters on online stock discussion boards to reveal their identities to weed out some of the scam artists. If you scroll down to then of the article, you’ll also see comments by a Jeffrey Upton of Hanify & King as follows:
Message board posters may be unaware of the risk that they take when they post a message about a company, and that the qualified anonymity they enjoy may lull them into a false sense of security … Many computer users probably don’t see the difference between expressing their opinions in a bar and expressing them in a chat room or on a bulletin board. In the eyes of the law, there really is no difference. But as a practical matter, because the statements are in a more permanent written form and are published to a much larger audience, the potential for litigation and damages is much, much greater.
This would seem to be consistent with the text of the email Atrios posted on his site.

]]> By: JP http://crookedtimber.org/2003/10/30/send-lawyers-guns-and-money/comment-page-1/#comment-7057 JP Thu, 30 Oct 2003 19:44:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=502#comment-7057 <i>This looks little better than a nuisance suit, and the most just outcome is that it turns out to be a costly one for Luskin.</i> Yes, but as people in other comment threads have noted, Luskin's real goal is just to screw with Atrios by forcing him to reveal his identity. I think comparing this to Plame-gate may be a bit overboard because there isn't really any intimidation in it per se, but it's still bad. He just wants to spite Atrios by messing up something he's worked hard at maintaining for a long time. This looks little better than a nuisance suit, and the most just outcome is that it turns out to be a costly one for Luskin. Yes, but as people in other comment threads have noted, Luskin’s real goal is just to screw with Atrios by forcing him to reveal his identity. I think comparing this to Plame-gate may be a bit overboard because there isn’t really any intimidation in it per se, but it’s still bad. He just wants to spite Atrios by messing up something he’s worked hard at maintaining for a long time.

]]>