California lawyer sues Yahoo over message-board posts

[bhartzer]

California lawyer sues Yahoo over message-board posts

LOS ANGELES, Aug 5 (Reuters) - A California lawyer who has waged an ongoing battle with Yahoo Inc. over personal attacks made against him on Yahoo message boards has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the company.

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news...&w=RTR&coview=

Why a class action lawsuit? I thought that people could write anything they want on message boards and the forum operator would not be responsible for what someone else wrote?

[ronniethedodger]

There are two things here. One, the posts are the property of the original poster. They hold the copyright to such posts and are liable for them, not the forum operators. This is often spelled out somewhere in the TOS and that the operators cannot be held responsible.

The suit (as I read it) is pretty lame.

Originally Posted by Per the Reuters Article

Other users also took personal shots at Galton, and he filed suit in April of this year against them. At the same time, he sought their personal information via a subpoena from Yahoo. The company, the suit said, responded with incomplete or inaccurate information.

For one thing ... this is no different than a flame war on any other board that I have seen. Often the guy taking the brunt of the stick starts to cry foul and cries (wah, wah, type of crying) that he wants the posts deleted.

Next the guy starts to blame the forum operator for not "moderating" like a professional, and what he would have done. I have heard this all before.

The fact that Yahoo DID provide this guy with information (it may be required) is all that Yahoo could do. It does not matter if it is incomplete or inaccurate --- that is what these people signed up as or allowed Yahoo to know.

Should Yahoo provide more info, like IP addresses? Probably, but I have not seen the posts -- nor do I know the other side of the story. Was Yahoo asked for IPs? dunno ... no mention in that brief blurb.

The suit proposes as a class any California resident who has been targeted by abusive messages on a Yahoo board, who tried to get such messages stopped or learn the identity of the message poster, and who had such requests denied within the last four years. It seeks restitution, a permanent injunction and other forms of relief.

Looking particularly for "denials" here. This guy is fishing in the wind in my opinion.

From my observances of these flame attacks, it is usually the guy who is crying foul that stirs the pot to boiling in the first place. He always comes in under the guise of defense of his (or someone else's) good name and does nothing more than start something short of a riot. Normally, these people do it intentionally because they have nothing better to do with their time or a little bit anal retentive to begin with.

Most of the time it is some obscure fragment or sentence out of hundreds that nobody would even notice, nor would they even care. Sometimes the person is not even mentioned by name, but here comes Peter Crier to take offense to it -- and let's the cat out of the bag that it was him who the poster was referring to.

Had they left it alone in the first place -- then it would have been buried in less than a couple of hours (if I know message boards at Yahoo, it would have been minutes).

But again ... without seeing the posts in question or the history, I cannot pass any judgement on this one except to say that I do not think he has a leg to stand on.

[redcircle]

I think this big shot lawyer will see many-a-DDoS attacks, hacking, spam bombs etc from the internet community. Not me personally but there are many privicy advocates will not let him do this kind of thing un-punished.

[OneMoreBite]

It's mostly amusing, except for the fact that he's wasting the court's time. He's obviously not very net savvy if he expected otherwise, just up and posting in a user group, without first learning the ropes. He sounds like a crybaby (I'll probably be named in the lawsuit too now cause I "called him a name." LOL

Most lawyers have a bit tougher hide.

Kathryn

[pedstersplanet]

I know this is different, well, maybe not.... But I have been (still do) called names, abused, etc in a well known chatroom (that is slander), and I mean bad (wont say what).... and when I sent the offending company a screenshot (well, 20 I might add) and evidence, they just fobbed me off and told me to change my handle.... Lucky I can ignore the abuse....

But I bet if you said that Bill Gates was seen in a red-light area, you'd be sued just like that!

Oh, to be famous!

[84square]

Let's see if I have this straight...
A Lawyer + California = Frivolous Lawsuit.

I'm not surprised. Only in America, folks.

[GlowHost.com]

Actually slander is spoken and can be gestured, where libel is what you find on the web in most cases.

This case will be interesting to see how it unfolds particularly with all the case law that has help ISP's like myself not liable (unless we directly contribute the texts) for anything published on our interactive computers.

I think the case law has been established here and if Yahoo were to loose we would see this one appealed all the way to the supreme court.

I do not see it as the hosting company, ISP, or forum moderators responsibility to conduct a background check on every one of it's users, or "stoppers-by" to the forum.

I think the courts will find the same.

[MarketingMama]

in California ... I lived out there for 8 years and the entire court system is full of claims as lame if not lamer than this.

Wow! if this lawyer actually wins his case ... I hate to see amount of suits that follow. I've got it we can call the Sticks & Stones Law ... don't you think that would be perfect LOL :-)

MM

[cooper]

Let's not forget that he is getting TONS of free publicity (negative or otherwise) that he would have to pay a lot of money for normally and even then he wouldn't be getting this type of exposure.

The almighty dollar strikes again?

[robl]

I sure hope this is thrown out of court and the lawyer fined for bringing a frivolous suit to court. Webmasters of forums should not have to live under the threat of being dragged into court every time a flamewar erupts. Having to defend against cases like this costs time and money that no one should have to pay - over a legal issue that should have been settled a long time ago.

[DarrenC]

Looking into this from the other prospective.

Someone complains about ABC Company on a forum, people start to flame throw ABC Company, that forum thread is picked up in Google and when someone does a search for ABC Company up comes this thread.

Potential customers or clients will come across this thread in the forum, by one disatisfied customer, we don't know the full story, but that customer or client is put off from using ABC Company, thus loosing them money and reputation.

Whose fault is this? The person complaining against the company, or the forum owner who let this thread get picked up by Google?

I know this case is a little different, and to be honest, I cannot see it standing up in law, but forums can seriously damage and ruin a companies reputation and business.

Darren :)

[bartware2]

Well, that could be the search engines fault then too? If we start looking at things like that, I think everyone could get sued.

In my opinion, that's like sueing Google for putting a rival company on PR 10 by mistake when you're only PR 6. Nothing's perfect!

The webmaster (in some cases) can't even stop search engines from crawling certain sites (if they can't make a robots.txt for example). Even if they can, the search would be automatically searched. And, not all search engines listen to robots.txt.

Also, people have the right to say their opinion about things even if it costs people reputation or money, as long as it's true and not offensive or something.

Thats like, you say on a forum "I don't like this program from this company" and you get sued?

And indeed, if they would have read the TOS they would understand the poster is owner and liable person for the post, not the webmaster.

[flashfast]

The fact is you CANNOT say what you want on message boards.

There is censorship - a few months ago if you posted doubt about the Iraq war on the History Channel website forums it was quickly removed - usually within minutes. It may still be the case now.

And seemingly innocent threats - such as grandfatherly David Henson message when he said he would send 'Tom Cruise Missiles' in an attack on Scientology. Found guilty of a terrorist threat, he was sentenced to a year in jail and a heavy fine. He is now seeking political asylum in Canada after escaping from the US (yes, he could have appealed for $25,000 and spent a year in jail waiting).

If I was on a health message board and advised readers (from a scientific report) that due to new self-regulation laws and the removal of any significant government inspection, 70% of beef contains fecal matter, or that beef production methods are a time bomb for more deadly ecoli strains, then I am breaking the law, and can be sued under the new 'veggie laws'. Even though I am repeating scientific research, I can be sued. This is the law that saw Oprah Winfrey taken to court. She won, but at so expensive a cost she won't mention beef anymore.

If I had a gardening message board and was to advise you to plant non-hybrid (organic) Indian Yellow Maize in your garden, I am technically breaking the law by recommending theft of a patented product under the Plants Variety Rights law (where big corporations now own all the patent on all seed), even though the native Americans were growing this variety 1000 years ago. It is against the law to raise seed for one's own crops and to sell seeds, even if your Irish ancestors brought that seed to the US a hundred years ago (yes, it sounds outrageous and has never been enforced, but what if a 'terrorist' attack came via food? Suddenly the government enforces this law that only these companies can now control our food supplies? Not so far fetched methinks).

My point is - you can't say what you want. Freedom of speech is a myth, either on a message board or on a board at the beach.

[OneMoreBite]

Someone complains about ABC Company on a forum, people start to flame throw ABC Company, that forum thread is picked up in Google and when someone does a search for ABC Company up comes this thread.

I think that falls under the "Too bad, so sad" doctrine. Nobody is immune from someone bad mouthing you or your company.

Some sites, such as those talking about publically traded stocks for instance, must monitor this more carefully because it is possible to cause a run on a stock based on faulty info, but overall, the basic disgruntled customer or client will not be silenced. At least I'd hope we don't lose that basic civil liberty. Of course you cannot bad mouth oranges in Florida, so there you go.

Kathryn

[ronniethedodger]

I think you are confusing the issue here flashfast. The issue is not about libel or slander. This lawyer is not sueing the individuals who made those statements, he is sueing Yahoo for not making available information in regards to identifying those individuals. That is the case in its entirety.

Yahoo has crafted its TOS to not be held liable for any of the posts in the messaging areas. They are not moderated by Yahoo, but by other users who can start one up on a whim -- all you need is a Yahoo ID which we all know full well what that really means -- anonymity.

The most I can see happening if this suit actually succeeds on any merit is that it may change the rules on enrollments to message boards, groups, forums and other types of venues where your opinions/statements can be freely published without much hinderance. This will be another fight onto itself -- because of the personal information that may be required. This guy (the more I look at it) is opening a very large can of worms right now and does not realize it.

[urknighterrent]

"I have a headache"

"Take an asprin"

Practicing medicine without a license?

Just because it's the law doesn't mean it's not a STUPID law.

"Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws"
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

There's an old expression.

"A gentleman who calls a spade a spade ought to be made to use one."

I disagree. A gentleman who doesn't know a spade from a shovel is a freakin' moron, and should be told so to his face.

Steve Galton: YOUR'E A FREAKIN WEENIE. That's me,
KENNY MARSHALL, 205 Church Street, #11, Burlington, VT Saying that. Not web pro news.

Whatsa matter? My pockets not deep enough for ya?

[Will.Spencer]

Only in California!

I'm Will Spencer and I endorse this message.

[Eric Bland]

I think Ronnie (Dodger) has stated a well thought out perspective on the premise of this case. He has made several good points. This case seems to be a display of one lawyers foolish attempt to gain money from someone with deep-pockets. Anyone having troubles in a chat-board should take Yahoo's advice and get a new nickname (handle) and start over.

[DarrenC]

This guy (the more I look at it) is opening a very large can of worms right now and does not realize it.

Yes, true. Will he see anything in return though.

In the UK we have the data protection act, if a company holds information that you divulge, that company has to ensure that the information is held securely.

IF that company divulges the information without the owner of that informations consent then the business, in this case Yahoo could be fined by the Data Protection Commmissioner for giving this information to a third party, in this case the solicitor, if the owner of the information reports the company.

So, were now going to change the data protection laws, not likely!

Darren

[brownie]

Without getting too much into the whole constitutional arguement, the freedom of speach guaranteed in the US is to allow you to express your political opinions without fear of persecution from the government. There is no protection for freedom of speach about specific people, or freedom to express your opinions on anyone's message board. So of course there is censorship on message boards, it's a private board.

Now without getting myself bashed too hard, let me play devil's advocate:

From what I have learned about libel by talking to an attorney, the message board owner may be considered a party to the libel if they are aware of the problem and know the information to be libelous and do not take action to prevent it.

If the guy notified Yahoo about the problem, informed them that it was libelous and asked them to remove it, I can honestly see a court ruling that they made a decision to be a party in commiting a libelous act against the guy by not preventing further posts, especially a court in California. Remember there is no protection from prosecution from an individual, only from the government.

Plus I'm sure we can all understand how the guy feels. Getting hammered on a well traffic'd board can be very upsetting. I have often wondered how I would handle the same situation if it was my business getting trashed.

[OneMoreBite]

Yes, Ronnie, thanks for bringing us back to the point: Yahoo's TOS, and obvious inability to monitor every forum. This lawyer strikes me as none too bright. Does anyone else here feel the urge to stick out their tongue and say nah-nah-nah-nah-nah?

Other posters here have made the point that you do not have the freedom to say as you please, and yes, there are limits, depending where you are, who you're speaking to, but it sounds as if this fellow just jumped into a forum, and was run out of town and he just couldn't handle it.

It's only going to open a can of worms if he gets somewhere with his suit, and I seriously doubt that will be the case. Most judge's aren't quite ready to write case law when it comes to Internet matters. Now that would be a can of worms!

Off Topic Tip From Oprah Winfrey: Do not disparage beef in Texas. I have read "Mad Cowboy" several times.

Kathryn