By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » defamation self-help (for myself, too)

Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:01:08 +0000

[...] What does a person do when falsely accused of defamation? I’m not sure, since yesterday’s charge by “victim-of-the-law” June Maxam of the North Country Gazette was the first time it has happened to me, despite 30 years as a lawyer and over three as an opinionated and sometimes grumpy weblogger. I don’t think I’m going to set up a Defense Fund like Ms. Maxam’s. However, as a shlepper, there is one thing I can do that might help myself and our readers: collect links to a few good online resources on defamation. So, here we go. — You can find very helpful FAQs on Defamation (especially in the internet context) at both the Electronic Freedom Foundation and The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. As EFF says in its Bloggers’ FAQ on Online Defamation Law, “Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone’s reputation, and published “with fault,” meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.” The FAQ also points out that truth is an absolute defense, and “For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog’s audience.” — The AOL Legal Department has put together a page on Online defamation Decisions and litigation. — Prof. Euguene Volokh posted a piece just today that explains: “In a defamation case, at least when the speech is on a matter of public concern, “the plaintiff [must] bear the burden of showing falsity, as well as [the defendant’s] fault, before recovering damages.” This is true whether the plaintiff is a public figure or a private figure. See Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 776 (1986). The common-law rule was that the defendant must prove truth, but Hepps changed that for First Amendment reasons.” Ironically, my accuser, legal pundit June Maxam stated last month in a North Country Gazette editorial that “In a libel and defamation suit, truth is the best defense.” With that principle in mind, Mike at TechDirt.com asked today ”Can You Sue For Defamation If Someone Points Out Publicly That You Are Wrong?” (Oct. 26, 2006) Unfortunately, unless blocked from courts due to a pattern of vexatious lawsuits, just about anybody can sue for just about anything. Although sanctions can be levied for frivolous lawsuits (as we recently discussed here), responding to baseless charges is never enjoyable, can be very time-consuming and stressful, and very expensive. Nonetheless, spending a little time understanding the law and its protection for truthful speech, can help a shlepper with a clear conscience sleep even better. p.s. Although she is the one who has repeatedly hurled threats at me, I’ve also been accused of harassment by Ms. Maxam. Just looking at its definition in the Law.com dictionary, however, was enough research for me tonight. I’m going to be sleeping like a baby. [...]

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » coordinated pro se tax-haters clogging up courts

Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:23:00 +0000

[...] david giacalone – October 13, 2006 @ 10:21 am · Viewpoint, News Items An article in today’s Legal Times discusses a spate of coordinated, mostly-pro-se “tax revolt” cases — 108 of them – that have been filed in federal district courts across the country since last Fall. Law.com, “Tax Revolt: Plaintiffs File Coordinated Cases Against IRS,” Oct. 13, 2006) Reporter Emma Schwartz writes that “The effort hasn’t seen much success; so far, 40 have been dismissed because of the plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. But the cases managed to pique curiosity in judges’ chambers.” It appears that Schwartz has unearthed the mystery man behind the suits, “Chicago-based anti-tax activist George Pragovich”. Although most of the litigants have refused to say who is behind their judicial tax revolt, the wife of plaintiff Paul Broward is quoted saying that Pragovich is “one of the major coordinators of what we’re doing. I just fill out the forms and send them in.” I’m sure that some observers are going to point to these cases as another good reason to require lawyes for all litigants in federal court — using the legal fee as a deterrent to baseless or harassing suits, with lawyers as toll-taking gatekeepers. I believe that dealing with such pro se suits is an appropriate ”cost” of ensuring the fundamental right of Americans to represent themselves in court. As stated in our prior post on frivolous pro se litigants, the proprer approach is for courts to use their powers to quickly dispatch cases that do not belong before them — either because they are frivolous or premature. Our Government knows how to accommodate First Amendment-type rights into the operation of its agencies. We can’t let those who abuse such rights become an excuse to limit appropriate behavior by the vast majority of Americans. [...]

Comments on: frivolous pro se litigants: who’s to blame?

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » defamation self-help (for myself, too)

By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » coordinated pro se tax-haters clogging up courts