Is Complying With A Cease And Desist An Automatic Admission Of Guilt?
from the doesn't-seem-right dept
These days, any time anyone sees something online about themselves or their company that they don't like, the first thing they often do is have their lawyers send off a cease-and-desist nastygram. If you're in the online content business, it's hard not to get one sooner or later. They can look pretty scary the first few times you get one. However, cease-and-desists mean pretty much nothing. They're just a lawyer trying to scare you with the threat of a lawsuit. They include all sorts of scary language, and often have demands and timeframes that are impossible to meet (we once got one that was sent to the wrong address and referenced an email they had supposedly sent to an email address that doesn't exist -- by the time we got it, the date to meet their demands was already a month in the past). It's often a silly tactic. In our case, most cease-and-desist letters are over completely bogus issues, or, at worst, over information where there may have been a factual error. Instead of having expensive lawyers rush out a nastygram, a simple email or comment with a "hey, you got that wrong, here's the real facts" would have worked much better. However, lawyers do what lawyers do, and so the cease and desists go out.On the receiving end, many lawyers suggest to C&D recipients that they just take down the content immediately, whether or not the complaint has any merit. It's a way of limiting damages. However, a new court case shows that some courts are bizarrely interpreting such an action to be the equivalent of a contract that you won't put the content back up. It's almost as if they see taking down the content as an admission of guilt. In this case, that's been filed by the folks at Public Citizen, the victim of a botched Lasik surgery put up a website criticizing the doctors who performed it. They threatened to sue, and he removed a lot of the content. He later put some new content up, after determining what content he believed was legal. The doctors claim that his removal of the content was effectively a contract that he would not criticize the doctors online any further -- and he somehow broke that contract in putting up new info. A Philadelphia court agreed, and granted an injunction stopping the guy from criticizing the doctors, citing the removal of the content along with some emails between the parties. As Public Citizen notes in filing the appeal, this seems to be a violation of First Amendment rights, as the guy never expressly agreed to give up his right to free speech when he simply removed the content following a legal threat.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Business as usual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is in the emails?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contract?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Email as contract
"Dear Scary Lawyers
In the spirit of being helpful, I shall temporarily remove the content from my site. When I determine your case is completely invalid, however, I shall put it up again.
Cheers"
Still, something like this should be assumed. We're not children playing if-you-don't-tell-me-it-means-you-don't-know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lawyers will destroy us all
Without the ability to post true and honest statements on the internet that will remove our free speach, that will restrict the comments like "dont use castcom cable they are too expensive and they keep raising their prices" and putting up a website with prices and rates of increase without increase in their cost or quality of service.
But seriously if they keep up tactics like this no one will want to warn others anymore about bad services and thats what makes the internet a useful tool, ask others hey I was planing on doing something can anyone tell me if its a good idea or not. Its a tool that connects us to people that have had the same experiences, gone thru the same financial risks etc. and if lawerskum want to stop negative statements why dont they just make buisness operate in a good buisness maner and stop screwing people then there will be no need to defend negative publicity!!!!!!!
Im out, have fun and safe posting everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that is why they don't want consumers to be able to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Compliance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's Help the Guy Out
However, I am not similarly enjoined from writing about it here (or anywhere else for that matter).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's Help the Guy Out
And this case is yet another reason why I would NEVER, ever have a jury trail if I were innocent of anything. Most people who end up on juries seem to be people to incompetent to get themselves out of serving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's Help the Guy Out
I served a month on a Grand Jury. It was pretty awful conditions being on a Jury. Juries are made up of: lots of older retired women, a couple male union workers, several younger women who are on break from college or just graduated, sometimes teachers & nurses, and maybe one unemployed person.
Also although our jury room was very multi-cultural when we were all called up. By the time everyone was done with their excuses to the judge to get out of jury duty, the juries both ended up mostly white, mostly female with only a few multi-cultural people on them.
From what I've seen juries know nothing about the law(of course) but they are intelligent, stable overall. I also saw that there were a few otherwise level-headed jury members who did let emotion rule when it came to their voting...ignoring hard facts or lack of facts in a few cases that seemed to push their emotional buttons.
Serving on a jury is like being in lock down and giving up your right to dignity and respect. I guess that's why I don't really blame those who try to get out of it. Oh and for the priviledge of being on a jury you get to pay your own parking, buy lunches at expensive places downtown (they don't provide fridges for you to even bring your own lunch), you sit for hours in an uncomfortable chair in a windowless room, you don't make any money, they show you a drepressing breakroom that you almost never get to use anyway, and you get way behind on all the work that you have to do at your real job. Meanwhile you see the judge just once and he tells you that you are providing a community service but the whole treatment you get from the jury-handling staff is one of treating you like a child or criminal yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just remember...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
contract
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its pussy-footing around your rights if you're innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was NO contract and/or agreement
Stein & Silverman, PC
230 S. Broad St.
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attn: Leon Silverman
August 1, 2003
Mr. Silverman,
With regards to the certified letter dated July 30, 2003 pertaining to my website LasikSucks4u, I have conformed to your requests insofar as to remove any stated libelous reference to the xxxxxx’ and their practice only. I will not remove the website in its entirety, and will be updating this site or others with facts of my care, treatment, history, all of the legal issues pertaining to my case and all necessary documentation substantiating those facts within the legal guidelines as allowed by law and the First Amendment which grants me freedom of speech.
Although the courts ruled no causation as to the damages done to me in my case against the xxxxxx’, they do not state the truths. Regardless of your representation of the xxxxxx’ and their business, they still did this to me, and no one will stop me from telling the truth. I did not want nor agree to any confidentiality pertaining to my case, and will expose and report the xxxxxx’ as to the damages they’ve inflicted on me, as well as the wrongdoings they’ve done regarding their investigational laser. If you were to have read the whole website, not just what pertained to the xxxxxx’, maybe you would actually understand it. Incidentally, some pages to the website which was posted were not the actual pages I intended to post to this site. I have just learned how to design these things (barely) and have run into a few problems, accidentally posting the wrong ones. I do not have the necessary experience with java, and believe it or not, I have visual problems.
I find it disgusting you people represent the xxxxxx’ knowing full well their history. They ruined my life as well as others. That is the truth! Does the money really mean that much? Apparently my health and welfare does not.
As far as legal representation by Mr. Steven Friedman, any further contact you may require can be done with me directly.
Sincerely,
Dominic J Morgan
I believe the judge's decision was wrong, as does Public Citizen and the ACLU.
Dom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is complying an automatic admission of guilt?
http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/opinions/A32020_06.pdf
As previously mentioned, I sent a letter of intent to Nevyas' attorney. I followed through with it, and after almost 17 months of having my 1st Amendment rights denied, will still abide by my letter. The truth will prevail!
Thanks to all who have given moral support through my website http://www.lasiksucks4u.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]