What's wrong with contacting a lawyer if someone is writing things that are blatantly untrue? Has anyone here actually read the posts?
MMM Receives Legal Threats
51–60 of 92 posts
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#52What's wrong with contacting a lawyer if someone is writing things that are blatantly untrue? Has anyone here actually read the posts?
From the article: "Never mind the fact that Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code holds that website owners cannot be held responsible for comments that their users make."
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#53I highly suggest going the "Something Awful" route, and simply just making fun of the lawyer(s) in question until they stop. People like this should be treated the way they act. Like children.
Unfortunately, treating them dismissively -- while appropriate -- does not help discredit or dissuade them.
Well I don't know about dissuade, but it has surely already done much to discredit them.
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#54I highly suggest going the "Something Awful" route, and simply just making fun of the lawyer(s) in question until they stop. People like this should be treated the way they act. Like children.
Wasn't the "The Oatmeal" that made fun of a lawyer? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oatmeal_and_FunnyJunk_legal...
Allow me to introduce you to Leonard "J." Crabs.
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#55Every time I see another example of frivolous litigation threats like this, I feel like one of the biggest shortcomings of the U.S. justice system is not enough pain inflicted on frivolous litigators.
This goes for patent trolling, too, obviously.
There should be a healthy fear of filing baseless legal challenges. Disbarment? Large fines? What's the effective remedy here, that doesn't go so far it dissuades legitimate cases?
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#56What's wrong with contacting a lawyer if someone is writing things that are blatantly untrue? Has anyone here actually read the posts?
From the article: "Never mind the fact that Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code holds that website owners cannot be held responsible for comments that their users make."
Wouldn't this be somewhat like the DMCA, where the host is only protected if they respond to claims? Or would it take an actual court injunction to order the material to be removed?
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#57What's wrong with contacting a lawyer if someone is writing things that are blatantly untrue? Has anyone here actually read the posts?
They are suing the forum owner/operator for something posted by a forum member. So roughly equivalent to me saying something here, and Paul Graham getting sued for it.
Also, the actual quote was "This scam product has been discussed here before. Stay away. It's a marketing ploy." Which I guess may be legally actionable, but given their behavior seems like it's quite likely true.
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#58What's wrong with contacting a lawyer if someone is writing things that are blatantly untrue? Has anyone here actually read the posts?
Nothing. However S230 creates a safe harbor for publishers, which is common knowledge for anyone practicing IP/cyber law.
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#59As a lawyer who dabbles in IP/cyber law (not admitted in VA, so I can't help out), I really love seeing personal injury/criminal defense attorneys send cease and desist letters to publishers who are clearly protected under federal law.
Re: MMM Receives Legal Threats
#60What's wrong with contacting a lawyer if someone is writing things that are blatantly untrue? Has anyone here actually read the posts?
They are suing the forum owner/operator for something posted by a forum member. So roughly equivalent to me saying something here, and Paul Graham getting sued for it. Also, the actual quote was "This scam product has been discussed here before. Stay away. It's a marketing ploy." Which I guess may be legally actionable, but given their behavior seems like it's quite likely true.
They would be sued for not taking down the post. If you post something here that is libel then someone can sue to force Paul Graham to take it down.
If MMM gets a lawyer he's going to end up defending the content of the post, not his right to operate his site independently.