Discussion in 'news' started by Mars, 10 Jun 2011.
On Mars of course!!
Didn't see this as I was in the middle of replying to other posts.
Check this out.
A recently filed case illustrates the application of a libel claim in a blogging case in NY, Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media, 2007cv07334, Filed August 16, 2007, in New York Southern District Court. Seed Media pays PZ Myers to blog at ScienceBlogs.com, and there he reviewed a book by Dr. Stuart Pivar, called "LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization" which purports to reconfigure Darwinian Evolution.
Myers claimed Pivar is a "classic crackpot" on his http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula website. In response, the lawsuit complaint states, "Myer's defamatory remarks were made with actual malice; Myers called Plaintiff "a classic crackpot" fully knowing that statement to be false as a statement of fact and in reckless disregard of the truth about Plaintiff because Myer's knew full well, the time of publishing his defamatory statement that no scientist holding the international reputation of any of Hazen, Sasselov, Goodwin or Tyson would endorse or review the work of a crackpot."
The complaint claims Myers caused "considerable mental and emotional distress," tortious interference with the plaintiff's business relationships as a "scientist and scientific editor," and "loss of book sales and diminished returns on ten years of funded scientific research in special damages" exceeding $5 million.
The suits asks for: declaratory relief to remove defamatory statements from the web and an injunction to block further libel; $5 million in special damages for "tortious interference with business relations"; and $10 million in damages for defamation, emotional distress, and loss of reputation.
This lawsuit well illustrates the libelous cause, effect and damages of a proper tort case based upon defamation.
So the author of this book Stuart Pivar, sues the site owner Seed Media, for what PZ Myers wrote on his blog provided by Seed Media.
Not too sure where Nina would fit in here.
Easier to just delete the shit, rather than risk action. Lawyers would love a vacation to Australia I think to file papers which costs would then be passed along to whoever lost.
Will there be a trophy for participating in this thread?
do you have ANY idea how much this will cost to wage this war?
Don is no Don he is *con*
Lawyer lulz. Somewhere there are rooms full of lawyers ROFL.
Pivar withdrew his lawsuit in 2007.
I mean, yeah, Nina could get sued. You can sue anybody for anything anytime you want, but you can't win unless you have a case.
true, and the international aspect SERIOUSLY drives up the cost of offensive litigation
Ya, that and sometime it is just better to settle than actually go to trial. Any good lawyer will tell you that.
depends on if they are a trial lawyer and how the billing is set up
I did say "good lawyer". That may be an oxymoron but for the most part they tend to want to settle. Its safer.
I had a website a few years ago that sold computer software and hardware. Got dozens and dozens of threatening letters for legal departments at various companies, mostly pointing out that I was not an "authorized reseller". They all hit the roundfile. If I had "settled" with any of them, I would certainly have been chump of the year. I had a good lawyer who told me at the beginning -- "tell them to kiss your ***"
Well yeah. But Pivar and PZ didn't settle. Pivar dropped it because he had no case whatsoever.
Another important point about libel: insults aren't libel. Calling Pivar a "crackpot" (or a jerkface, or an assmunch) is not libel. Libel has to be an "intentional false statement of fact that causes harm" more akin to something like "On March 3rd, such-and-such was seen viewing child pornography at a local coffee shop."
Ya I agree, the letter is a "probe", a bluff. I wouldn't give it much thought. As Mulch said earlier, if you get Court Papers, then that is something different.
Can I ask a question.......how can this be possible IF he told the other party to post whatever ? The bluff got called so now nina is liable?
All hypothetically, Lain made defamatory statements regarding Don. Don asked to have evidence posted. That which was posted Don claimed to be falsified, therefore untrue. Don's lawyer wants Tucows to provide Nina's name so that Don's lawyer can go after Nina for either damages or to release Lains name.
Wow.. Dondon is quite the jementous slubberdegullion!
This is a false analogy because the blogger was a paid employee of the site (and paid for writing the allegedly defamatory post)
Apologies to the appropriate persons ahead of time; but...this legal threat is gay.
Thank you .