Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt
from the first-test-of-the-SPEECH-Act? dept
Here at Techdirt, unfortunately, we get an average of about one legal threat per month. The threats are almost always frivolous -- and often made in anger without the individual realizing why the threats are frivolous. While some sites take the position that they will publish any and all legal threats, we have always tried to give the threatening party the benefit of the doubt, and to recognize that they made their demands in a moment of excess anger and misunderstanding. As such, we generally explain our position as to why any legal action would be a mistake -- and in nearly every case, we never hear back from the person who threatened us.However, we have recently received a legal threat that we feel deserves attention and airing for a variety of reasons.
- Unlike most threats, this one came directly from lawyers representing the individual, rather than from the individual directly.
- The threats are quite incredible, demanding that we shut down the entire site of Techdirt, due to a comment (or, potentially, comments) that the client did not like.
- The lawyer fails to identify, other than a single snippet and a date, what post or specific comments are objectionable and why (beyond a suggestion of anti-semitism, which while despicable, is not illegal). I guess, since they are demanding we shut down the entire site or be sued, such details are not considered pertinent.
- As we detail on this site on a somewhat regular basis, sites like ours are protected by Section 230 of the CDA from libel charges against statements made by users of the site. So any legal action against us is entirely pointless.
- Most importantly, this threat is coming from the UK, and the lawyers insist that they will take it to court in the UK. This makes it rather timely and newsworthy for an entirely different reason. Just a few weeks ago we wrote about the new SPEECH Act that was passed into law to protect against libel tourism. As the Congressional record shows, the law was specifically designed to protect US businesses from libel judgments that violate Section 230 -- and the bill's backers explicitly call out libel judgments made in the UK. In other words, the SPEECH Act explicitly protects us from exactly the sort of threat that these lawyers and their client are making against us:
The purpose of this provision is to ensure that libel tourists do not attempt to chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service, rather than the actual author of the offending statement.
In such circumstances, the service provider would likely take down the allegedly offending material rather than face a lawsuit. Providing immunity removes this unhealthy incentive to take down material under improper pressure. - Separate from the Section 230 defenses, we are also protected due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, which, again, is supported by the recently passed SPEECH Act. It is entirely possible that the lawyers were unaware of the SPEECH Act, but it does seem like a law firm making legal threats in a foreign country should be expected to have researched the legal barriers to making such a claim before using billable hours to make threats they cannot back up.
- Finally, it's important to note that a part of the SPEECH Act allows sites protected under this law to seek attorneys' fees should they be targeted in such a lawsuit. Rest assured that we would explore the option to the fullest, if need be.
As such, given the newsworthy nature of an example of where the brand new law (thankfully) protects us, as well as the fact that we do not feel it is decent or right for anyone to demand we shut down our entire site or be sued halfway around the world, because he does not appreciate a comment someone made about him, we are publishing the letter that was sent to us. Thanks in part to the new law, we have no obligation to respond to Mr. Morris, his friend or the lawyers at Addlestone Keane, who (one would hope) will better advise their clients not to pursue such fruitless legal threats in the future. Should Mr. Morris and his solicitors decide that they wish to proceed with such a pointless and wasteful lawsuit against us, which will only serve to cost Mr. Morris significant legal sums with no hope of recovery, we will continue to report on it, safe in the knowledge that it has no bearing on us. The only potential issue I could foresee would be that any UK judgment against us could prevent me from traveling to the UK in the future, which would be unfortunate, as I have quite enjoyed past visits to the UK. But perhaps such ridiculous outcomes will help the UK realize that it's really about time to update its incredibly outdated libel laws and begin respecting free speech rights.
Instead of worrying about how people might view such marginal, buried, angry comments on an ancient blog post, it might make more sense to first consider how people might view an excessive legal threat that has no weight against a site based in another country.
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
Filed Under: free speech, jeffrey morris, legal threat, section 230, speech act, uk
Companies: addlestone keane
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Mr Morris
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mr Morris
Morris the cat????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hope he enjoys this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
I had no idea who your client was before you threatened to take down an entire website. I do now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect
Mr. Morris; you might want to sue your legal team, they are obviously uneducated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streisand Effect
Who would he hire to sue his own legal team? That same team? That'd be priceless....
But seriously, that whole thread was an abortion. Two things stood out to me:
1. There are a shit ton of mindless dolts who think that posting Christian scripture randomly to blog posts is apparently doing God's work spreading the word. They are wrong. God hates them. He told me so while we were watching The Shield together. He also hates marshmellows and people who use the word, "Dude". Damn God is picky....
2. The anti-semetic remarks in that thread were some of the most benign I've ever seen referred to as anti-semetic. I hate bigotry as much as the next person, but you don't attack it by finding the mot weak examples and attacking them. Hell, go after Nazi websites if you think you can get away with this. Some guy saying you take care of your Jewish workers before the other? What boss hasn't been accused of favoritism before?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
Nice try, but a fail. I said I hated mindless dolts who randomly post Christian scripture to blogs. I do NOT hate Christians as a rule (here's a hint, I'm Christian by tradition....), therefore, not bigoted.
Or are you actually trying to defend these scripture posters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
; P
(and don't anybody question my belief in Santa or it'll be time for some jihad up in here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
If you are a Christian, why do you care if they do it or not? You should understand that you cannot save anyone and you also cannot send anyone to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
So it's annoying and of no use to anyone at all. I was trying for a funny way to point out my distaste. Why bother taking false offense at it?
"If you are a Christian, why do you care if they do it or not?"
Er, BECAUSE I'm Christian I don't like them putting those of us that are reasonable in our faith (which, in my experience, is the vast majority of Christians and other religious groups) in a negative light by being spammy pole-smokers. I'm not trying to save anyone and I generally don't offer my views on faith w/o the subject already being open or unless I'm asked.
Not sure exactly what the problem is here....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
It's not far wrong to say that you can make any point you want, no matter how wrong it is, by grabbing an isolated quote out of the Bible.
That's also true of any faith's holy works, by the way. Or any philosopher worth quoting.
As you say, with most of them it falls on deaf ears when pointed out to the offenders but it's others I'd like to educate that what is being said, and justified, is simply and purely wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
At some point your words should stand on their own. The bible, in any framework, is a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
I vote for #2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
Hey-Yo!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
The reality: "Few take it out of context, because there are entire chapters that are downright silly banter babbletalk. You always have the New Testament to fall back on!"
Or did you think you were enlightening us with something novel in the way the bible teaches us? Hell, I see preachers CONSTANTLY cite a line or two out of their own book and then lecture from that single line on how to act from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
I think that was a forum spammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
Not the sharpest tack in the shed of forum trolls either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
One of my favorite prayers is 'Lord save me from the faithful'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
No kidding. I had to read the passage twice, and that was after wading through some Xtian spammer post that looked like he's using TechDirt buffer space to store an online bible. It looks like an attempt at some kind of goofy smear job because the offending remarks are actually praising Morris for treating his Jewish workers better than his (presumably) gentile ones, or something...
I started laughing though when I read the part where the lawyers are saying something about (I paraphrase) "as soon as we get a judgment then the almighty legal forces of the United States will be set upon you so you had best tremble with fear..."
Haw! That's comedy gold right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect
However, they are worried about anyone searching his name. That is why they want the comment removed, so that his name is no longer linked to this article. Perhaps he has gone legit now, perhaps he is having trouble conning other people.
This is obvious, is it not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streisand Effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK libel laws or no...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shining a flashlight on something you want hidden...
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shining a flashlight on something you want hidden...
See Also: http://www.thestreisandeffect.com/
LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(20 minutes and 50 acronyms later)
... but it ends up being some dumbass brit with his panties in a bunch. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hehe
Striesand effect? :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers are what clueless rich people resort to
I received a letter like this once. My own lawyer bounced it back with a "see you in court." Then the sending lawyer said to my lawyer "look, between you and me, please just send me a response in order to satisfy the person who is threatening you." That's when I realized what a charade it all was...
Of course it never went to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fake?
I contacted the law firm and confirmed that it was real before writing this post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fake?
Addlestone Keane
Carlton Tower
34 St Pauls Street
Leeds
LS1 2QB
Tel: 0113 244 6700
Fax: 0113 244 6680
Email: markkeane@aklaw.co.uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unfortunately, you have to wade through about eighteen posts talking about some guy named Jesus. Not sure who that is, but a friend tells me that he too was Jewish.
AAAAHHHH! It's a conspiracy! The Elders of Zion are unleashing their protocols on us!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lol ... I have this image in my head of a 6 year old clone of adolph being taught to use software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
:(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When I was in high school we had a German foreign exchange student. We were discussing WW2 when out of no where she starts yelling about Hitler being Austrian. She got so worked up that the teacher had to take her out of the classroom and the only thing I could think was "if she can be that crazy in a history lesson no wonder the Germans were crazy enough to ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All I saw was someone claiming this Morris dude is prejudiced and is biased towards jewish people. Not exactly anti-semetic since it's just about this Morris guy being a dick, not generalizing or anything. And also a bunch of copy and pasted spam messages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody can read that quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons rather than Machiavelli
Then again, who knows? The 'libel' could have been deliberately planted as a future option for plug-pulling (without raising suspicion it was on behalf of an unrelated party).
Either way, anachronistic privileges such as copyright and patent must be abolished, and laws designed for the wealthy and famous such as libel and trademark need major reform. There is no right to a reputation, only not to be deceived or defrauded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean you're not selling it on eBay?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheesh grow a pair already will ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um...
Unless as was previously suggested, somebody is trying to hijack the space/bandwidth to store an online bible. Seems like kind of a stupid way to go about it though, jacking old blog posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Um...
Consider it a crude attempt at 'reverse SEO'.
1) Post some libel in order to take it down.
2) Threaten litigation.
3) Try asking nicely.
4) Post some copyright infringing material
5) Report a DMCA violation to the ISP for instant takedown
6) Post something from WikiLeaks that the CIA wishes to stamp out
7) What next?
These tactics are from the Al Capone school of diplomacy: "You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...
Britain was off doin whatever brits like to do over there in Europe (trying to stop Napolean I think), so they basically said "yeah your on your own with that whole U.S. invasion thing", and we were like "wtf, you guys suck, if we manage to fend off the U.S., we are gunny be looking make our own country"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...
One of the few things the anglos and French of that time agreed on is that neither wanted to join the United States.
The girl in question went on to establish a fantastically successful chocolate company. Laura Secord. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Um...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you joking?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Libel Laws.
The libels laws here in the UK suck ass preventing any form of factual criticism of entities and corporations such as this for fear of unfounded reprisals and lawsuits. Even completely unemotional and factual presentation of information could potentially force one into court where you have to prove your innocence. A woeful situation for anyone wanting to speak out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law concerns legal judgments. Any legal judgment on this would occur after the law was passed. Thus, we are protected. Of course, even without the law, there would be a problem enforcing this due to lack of jurisdiction, but the new law just makes it that much clearer.
FYI, we also had two well regarded lawyers in this particular field review this response before posting it, and both were emphatic that we are clearly protected, and this is exactly what the new law protects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Addlestone Keane
http://www.lawcareers.net/Solicitors/Detail.aspx?r=5277
"Niche commercial practice advising PLCs, substantial private clients and companies across a broad range including sport, merger and acquisition, and employment." Presumably includes incompetence in international law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand Effect
These shysters are the same, whatever country they come from.
Maybe everybody here should reprint the "offensive" part elsewhere, that would be quite amusing, and give them the Streisand Effect that they richly deserve!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Im sure that new law will not be retroactive..
BTW: do you know how stupid that new law sounds to anyone who is not American. What are you saying ? if you are in America you can say what you like about anyone else, or anything else because of your "free speech" thing ?
WOW, talk about ego's !!
The US is internationally on the nose anyway, I suppose this could not make things much worse..
Also the US being able to say what they like to other countries or people, is a US LAW.
If your web page is available in the UK, you are acting under UK law, so you might only get blocked to the UK.
But it would be fun, and interesting to see it tested in court. Under UK law !!
You refused to take down this post, and you wonder why he took it further !!. What is there to wonder about, what other choices did he have.
As for racist comments, you should be able to remove offending material, and take a little responsibility for your posts. And you would be surprised at what some people will believe, or mabey not, as you say some 'off the wall' stuff yourself, that is often 'believed' by your followers.
Those who do not wish to think and enquire for themselves.
And allthough you say you will not remover posts when asked, you will certainly remove posts that you dont like yourself. Double standards ?
(or will this post also be removed because you dont agree?).
But using the Constitution as your took to be an international bully and mouth, is not a good look for the US. Considering their (your) track record over the past 10 or so years.
So its ok to use the constatution for your own gains, but when it comes to Muslum community centre near the 911 site, you quickly want to forget that prized constatution to get your own way..
US law is not internation law, and the US are not the police governing system for the planet.
So why expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws, if you will not abide by their laws.
And if you are in the WEB in the UK are ARE IN THE UK, and subject to UK law.
(they might extradite you for a freebee trip the london!!,, but not to see the Queen..).. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Yep.
Or; explain to me how enacting some kind of "sticks and stones" law makes everyone safer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Do you think anyone who operates a pornographic site should be prosecuted in Iran, since such material likely breaks the law there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Same thing in the UK: if it can be proven that the libel was transmitted to the UK, then the UK claims jurisdiction. In related news, the Daily Show geoblocks UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Do you even know how the Internet works? He's (presumably) hosting this page on a webserver in the US. Why should he have to conform to dumb laws in other countries? If other countries don't like what they see on the web then they should stop accessing outside servers (like China -- not that I endorse that option at all, it's just the only one that makes sense).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Get a grip darryl, it sounds like too much caffeine leaked through your tin foil hat this morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Moreover, t's mostly the British colonies that use Common Law. Continental Europe uses Civil Law, which is much more explicit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
There are many things that this Canuck finds uncomfortable about things like US Foreign policy, over reaction to any number of things, it's belief that it's blessed about all states and so on. That doesn't blind me to the fact that the United States Constitution is a seminal document in the development of freedom and liberty not only in the USA but in Canada, England, Scotland and globally on a par with Magna Charta and the battle that established that the legislature (Commons) not the government controlled the purse strings of a nation.
I hear your nurse coming in to put your straight jacket on now so we'll get some rest from your lunacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
He may be an asshole and yes, americans invented the iwebs but what I am curious about is how you're planning to 'take' internet back? Sure, you can shut it down but that will only shut it down for the US and leave the other 96% of the world mostly unaffected. And ofc there are a few vital functions that the iwebs need that are located in the US and it'll take a few days for the backups to get online during witch time the world might experience some slowdowns but that's about it :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
You go ahead and keep being proud of your society that takes away your freedoms. I'll take my U.S. Constitution any day over the Tyranny that you so happily accept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
"or will this post also be removed because you dont agree?)."
Techdirt only remove spam posts. There have been countless comments that Masnick doesn't agree with, but he doesn't delete them: instead, he'll more than likely respond.
"You refused to take down this post, and you wonder why he took it further !!. What is there to wonder about, what other choices did he have." Mike has already stated why he didn't take it down, he has no legal obligation to do so.
"And allthough you say you will not remover posts when asked, you will certainly remove posts that you dont like yourself. Double standards ?" Again, Techdirt only remove spam and he doesn't remove posts he doesn't like.
"So its ok to use the constatution for your own gains, but when it comes to Muslum community centre near the 911 site, you quickly want to forget that prized constatution to get your own way.. " Emm, what are you talking about? As far I know, Techdirt haven't done an article on that topic, and I don't think it will, since it has nothing to do with technology, law or any of the other pertinent topics Techdirt like to write about.
"US law is not internation law, and the US are not the police governing system for the planet.
So why expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws, if you will not abide by their laws." Look up ACTA on this site, and read Masnick's many posts on it. It's basically an attempt to extend US copyright law around the world, which Masnick is against. So I don't know why you're complaining about this.
"And if you are in the WEB in the UK are ARE IN THE UK, and subject to UK law." By your logic, if I write the following sentence 'Islam is a shite religion and all who follow it are idiots' and someone in Saudi Arabia reads it online, then I must be subject to Saudi law, and be put to death, for dishonouring Islam. Masnick and Techdirt are based in the US. Techdirt is served from a US server. Sure, Britain can block it, if the site is deemed illegal, (which it hasn't) and again, as Masnick quoted, he is protected by both US and UK laws against cases such as this. So either UK law doesn't apply, and he's protected, or UK law does apply, and he's protected again anyway.
"As for racist comments, you should be able to remove offending material, and take a little responsibility for your posts." Masnick has no responsibility for posts here. Technically, he doesn't even have to remove spam, but does so. Racist comments are the fault of whoever writes them. Oh, and watch this clip of Penn and Teller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg&feature=related
You do not have a right not to be offended. As P & T, say, if material offends you, get away from it. As a non-theist, I'm offended by religions claimning to be the One Truth, and the path to God. But I don't go out and say they can't write about it anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Jeff the Morris Dancer had better develop a thicker skin or a deeper pocket to pay all those legal types unprincipled enough to take his money for a suit they know they can't possibly recover anything from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Firstly the new law applies to lawsuits and not content so it covers this threat of a lawsuit regardless of the age of the post or comment in question. Secondly you apparently do not understand U.S. law regarding free speech. You can say anything at any time about anything with few restrictions. If the things you are saying could be damaging, and the offended party must be able to prove damages, then you may cross the line into libel or slander depending on the medium however if the statements made are true then you have a defense. If what you say is opinion and not represented as fact you also have a defense against lawsuits. There are other situations but they don't apply here. In fact the two situations mentioned don't apply here because Mike did not say the things that have offended Mr. Morris. The things in question were said by posters on this website and Mike is protected from liability for comments made on the site by U.S. law which is one thing that makes this lawsuit laughable. The new law to which Mike refers only aims to keep U.S. citizens from having their rights violated by foreign laws. You are dead wrong on your statement that if your webpage is available in the UK then you are subject to UK law. Jurisdiction depends on where the server is physically located which, in this case, is in the U.S. so British law does not apply to Mike's site. The only enforceable judgement, provided Mike doesn't travel to the UK, is the site being blocked in the UK which I am not sure happens anyway. The UK has absolutely no right to try and apply its laws to citizens of the United States who are operating legally and physically inside of the U.S. and you speak of the arrogance of Americans? For the UK to think they can apply their laws to citizens outside of their country is much more arrogant than US citizens practicing their right to free speech. He could have gone after the actual culpable parties which are the people that made the posts. Mike is not legally responsible for the posts made by others on Techdirt. You may be used to living without freedom or protection of speech but here in the US we take that sort of thing seriously. Attempts could have been made prior to the threat of a lawsuit which Mike clearly states was the first action. Mr. Morris's attorneys decided that attempting to file suit without any way to enforcement a judgement would be a good first step. There were other options. Have you read any of the comments on the years old post to which this threat is related. The "racist" comments are comments accusing Mr. Morris of giving preference to Jewish employees. The only racism in the thread is accusations thereof. And furthermore why should Mike take them down? Isn't it better to address filth like racism, or accusations of racism, in public where refutation can occur or is it preferable to sweep it under the rug? Mike is taking responsibility for his posts he is just not, nor is he required to, take responsibility for other's comments on his posts. And Mike doesn't remove posts he doesn't like he removes spam which is another matter entirely. There are tons of posts which disagree with Mike all over this site and some of them are quite well thought out and well reasoned but they still stand. It's just a guess but I predict your idiotic post will stay just like all the rest all over the site. Constitutional freedoms are why the US has a less than stellar international reputation. In fact some of the reasons can be argued to be a violation of the very same. We have had some bad leaders and that's not debatable but whatever the idiots in Washington do or look like no foreign government is allowed to trample on the rights of US citizens and we just passed another law to make sure of it. Sorry if that offends you. Ok I am not sorry but it sounded good at the time. I don't see anyone in the US government threatening to pass laws to prevent the mosque from being built. What you see if public outcry which is well within the rights of the people. You can say what you want but I have the right call you on your bullshit. Just like the folks wanting to build a mosque have a right to build it anywhere they own land, depending on zoning which I think is stupid anyway, I have the right to tell them they are being inconsiderate assholes for building it where they are. Neither of us has violated the rights of the other. They offend me by building where they want to build but I would take up arms if the federal government told them they couldn't but until that happens I'll keep calling them assholes and hoping they build somewhere else. You apparently have no grasp of how freedom actually works. You are right. And British law is not international law and the British are not the governing system for the planet which is why the US passed laws protecting its citizens from being subject to oppressive laws from other countries. The British don't get to come and enforce their laws on Americans. If you think they can and can get away with just look at the history of the United States. They did it once and we are still making sure no-one else can do it again. Of course our own leaders are whittling away our rights but that's another story. We don't expect the rest of the world to abide by our laws. We expect them to respect our laws on our soil which is all this hoopla is about. Some British twat has threatened an American with British law to which he is not subject and now we are laughing at the British twat. You are wrong about jurisdiction here. Mike is US citizen and the server is in the US which makes him subject only to US law. The US government wouldn't allow British laws to be enforced in the US for something that is perfectly legal in the US and happened in US jurisdiction and to even think for a second they would allow an extradition based on a case like this is lunacy. I know I am not supposed to feed the trolls but I couldn't help it this time...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Whilst I despise the US's cowardly avoidance of international norms (minefield treaties, international criminal responsibility), this law makes complete sense given the stupid, biased laws and countries out there. It's embarrassing that the UK is one of the causes of this law being necessary, rather than some tinpot dictatorship.
There is also the over-reaction idiocy - why remove the entire site? That's like blocking the entire News of the World because they 'libel' one person.... waiiiiit ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
Your asinine conclusion that TechDirt is subject to UK law because it's accessible via the Web shows you have absolutely no education in any form of law, UK or US or otherwise. I recommend you at least make some feeble attempt at even the most minimal research on the subject of law in both your own country and the US before you open your mouth and make a fool out of yourself. Thus far, all you've managed to prove is that you're basically a European version of Jack Thompson, without the law degree...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
"If your web page is available in the UK, you are acting under UK law,"
No------ There is actually no consent to jurisdiction when citizens of another country reach out into the US to access a US based server, but why spoil a good anti-US rant with legal realities?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
1.) THIS is a US based business. Sure they can block it and may be prevent him from entering the country (UK)... that's it. Our courts would laugh at the very idea of this suit. I think we went to war to not have to deal with British arse holes. It would be well received to snub UK courts in this fashion over a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Then they would fine the bringer for "spurious" law suits. They did that recently to another panty waste here in the US over a similar whiny ass problem.
2.) As far as extradition... you're funny. We have not extradited over an internet libel case EVER. Keep dreaming. He is not a subject of the Queen, nor subject to UK law. HE pays US taxes, and as such has only the expectation to follow US law. As such, suck it up...you're getting jack. I know people that would lay down their life to ensure it too. Our ancestors did, and we sure as fuck will too.
As far as the Mosque, our government fought FOR the Mosque, but our people are not for it. That is not a legal question, but rather a moral one. Legally the Mosque has the right, morally and sensitivities wise...yeah not gonna make friends anytime soon. In fact, I think it's pissing the people off frankly. That doesn't mean we are wrong, in fact the system is WORKING as the government is protecting the rights of the Mosque to build. But I can't guarantee the owners will be happy once they succeed, because well violence is already happening. My personal opinion, they are jerks... and once we have a Memorial to ALL that fell regardless of religion, no religion should be represented.
That's right, US is NOT international law, and neither is the fucking UK. Since it's our home boy, having a site on our soil, it's our fucking law. Deal with it.
As far as the web operation in the UK etc... we have laws against selling prescription drugs, but we bend it for your British sites that sell them to US customers without prescription, so STFU. Should we start extraditing every pharmacy in the UK that doesn't have a script from a US doctor for their US patients? Oh this could get uglier actually. May be we should round up your extremists and GITMO them, since we aren't at war with the UK it isn't a "prisoner of war" issue...and it will get rid of some radical elements in the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..
2. They, as Americans, can say what whatever they like in their country.
3. While it is true that this website is available in the UK, it is still a US website and subject to US law.
4. As for him not taking down the post... thank goodness he doesn't have to answer to the whim of every person he's annoyed over the years.
5. If you have shady business practices and a website points them out, try changing your business practices, not suing them so others don't find out about it. (Yay for free speech).
6. You say they use the constitution to their own gains, and point out the plight of the Muslims building a center in NY near the terrorists attacks. What you fail to realize is that it is a minority of people making a stink, and it is gaining as much media attention in the US in favor of building the center. Such is the beauty of the American process -- some people might object to something, but it will be found without merit, and the few religious/old/backwards people that are making a stink will have to shut up and color.
7. As far as thinking people of the US "expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws" once again you clearly misunderstand the law. The law forces no one to abide by theirs, but protects US citizens from the laws of other countries. If you don't like the website avoid it, or if there is a legitimate problem a government can blacklist it.
8. The more I read this the more baffled I get over your reasoning. If make a website that offends an English businessman I will not be sent to England to face charges. Likewise if I make a website that offends a Muslim government (pictures of Mohamed anyone?) I will not have to face such a silly charge.
If you are a troll, then you are a troll of epic proportion and I bid you good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
big lol @ Legal Threat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they're British then cite a British case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Morris, The Loser
Thou Shalt Not Google Thyself
(nor thy neighbor's wife, nor his oxen, nor his neighbor's smart-phone)
Vanity, not curiosity, killed the cat.
I have no idea who Jeffrey Morris is, but all the readings I'm getting point to "Jeffrey Morris is a fucking tosser".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jeffrey Morris, The Loser
But then there were a bunch of links claiming (ironically in this thread) that I was part of a Jewish banker conspiracy aimed at overthrowing sovereign governments and installing a world government plutocracy.
It took me a while to figure out that my name and pronunciation is close to Timothy Geithner....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jeffrey Morris, The Loser
Yeah, sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jeffrey Morris, The Loser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jeffrey Morris, The Loser
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Jeffrey Morris, The Loser
is that when you went to plaid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oooh. Let's Datamine
Do you want *ME* to? It's not complete, but it has 380,000 rows of comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oooh. Let's Datamine
But if you want it online just torrent it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response...
We are very excited that your client wishes to participate in our CwF+RtB program.
Unfortunately we are unable to process the order at this time as you appear to omitted payment.
Please review the details at http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=100000000 and send a cheque for $1M USD. Upon clearance of the funds, we will happily proceed with closing techdirt.com for a year.
Sincerely
MM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No wonder it took six years to find them!
Any bets that within a day or two all I'll have to look for on Google are Jeffery Morris and Techdirt and every one of them will be linked?
Quite beyond the painfully obvious stupidity as noted by Mike it seems libel trolls are about as stupid as the copyright/patent trolls we encounter here. Maybe more so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll give you a hint: (its probably that guy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do I have this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do I have this right?
Ooh ooh, I know... "Jeffrey Morris is a fucking tosser!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do I have this right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good thing they don't have Reputation Defender
Is this the dumbest company you have ever heard of or what? Constant commercials on satellite radio.. my first thoughts were are people dumb enough to fall for this? Then I realized, heck, I'm paying for radio.. so I guess yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets see.
I wonder HOW he found it? He looked up his own name randomly? And found it?
This is as bad as Channel changing, and finding a SHOW you dont like. CHANGE the channel.
I would also suggest an IDEA..
Send a request for a Flight ticket to goto the Judgment. Make it 2 way. Or at least request it from the Judge.
It should not be on YOUR HEAD, to get to England.
Get a free trip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Addlestone Keane
Carlton Tower
34 St Pauls Street
Leeds
LS1 2QB
Tel: 0113 244 6700
Fax: 0113 244 6680
Email: markkeane@aklaw.co.uk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response...
So... You're a furry too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response...
I almost missed this reply as being to me.
Did that phrase originate with the furrys? I just heard a friend say it a couple years back and it sounded funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From a Techdirt lover:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA coming soon
Perhaps it's already been tried and failed? I suppose it's a simple matter to delete the comment.
Of course, there is a strategy that even Mike will agree has a good chance of shutting TechDirt down for at least a year, and that's the CwF+RtB sanction. No-one's had deep enough pockets to go for it yet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suggestions
Ban the users posting long comments.
Lawyer is kind of foolish.
As Techdirt is in the US, the lawsuit should be in the US.
Surprised he didn't say the letter was copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel bad for you poor people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streisand is in full effect!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oooh Let's Datamine!
No man, It's totally going online for people who want to setup T-Shirt selling scraper blogs and want to make it big in the Adsense business.
Cha-Ching!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no its from southparks 'sexual harassment panda' episode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This video pretty much sums it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue of whether a country has jurisdiction over something is up to *that country* to decide. There are principles of international law, but national courts and legislatures decide in the end the extent of their own jurisdiction.
Even operating under the fiction that international law is "real," while international law hasn't kept up with the web, but I'm pretty sure that every county does have "jurisdiction" over a website to the extent that a website is accessible in its country, and it can even issue jail sentences to the operators of websites that are located in foreign countries. This is what Italy *just did* to the Google execs.
But no other country has to pay any attention to that. It's like declaring yourself emperor of your cubicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL... I'll have to find a way to use this in everyday conversation. I have just the person to use it on too.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your response should be...
In response to your notice, we would cite the defendant's response in Arkell v. Pressdram.
Thanks."
http://countlazarus.wordpress.com/2006/11/20/arkell-v-pressdram/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your response should be...
"Please inform us of your litigant's reaction when you tell him our reply: fuck off."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your response should be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not reply with...
"Eat a dick"
?
I think that would be an excellent way to enforce negative punishment on them, as it would frustrate them to the point of thinking twice before filing frivolous lawsuits against US companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not reply with...
"Suck a bag of dicks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opinion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the bright side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SPEECH Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SPEECH Act
(See what I did with the Internet there Jeffrey? Boner.. haha that's you)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eat me
Suck my circumcision scar.
Mel Gibson was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You could also mention...
Hopefully something will come of it soon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But sadly, Occam's razor usually helps dumb people cut themselves so face value it is!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7ytMspgJ5A
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im sure that new law will not be retroactive..
BTW: do you know how stupid that new law sounds to anyone who is not American. What are you saying ? if you are in America you can say what you like about anyone else, or anything else because of your "free speech" thing ?
WOW, talk about ego's !!
I'm pretty sure most of the comments in question were posted by Brits.
But thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2009/09/the-end-of-libel-tourism/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Addlestone Keane
The libel lawyers all hang out in London.
These people aren't worth any time being spent on them as far as I can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Libel Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The world is full of stupid people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical jewish scumbags trying to censor the internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Chuck Norris"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
siting Section 230 of the CDA
signed
NamelessOne
p.s. SUCK MY LEFT NUT DOUCHE BAG LAWYERS , i screwed all yoru wives in the ass
------------
thats my reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could be one of those "short sharp shock" (or "slap up the backside of the head") moments for the UK libel solicitors/industry that they so surely need at the moment.
Though looking at what Mr J Morris allegedly does you might leave yourself open for a whole lot of SPAM, that is unless you have the secure Leak proof and Spam proof [tries not to laugh] email system they were flogging off years ago that even got talked about in the Grokster case
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My response/reply to you (and I'm sure Techdirt's is as well though they are too polite to say so) is the same reply as in Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) UK [unreported]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
L......O...O.L.....
L......O...O.L.....
L......O...O.L.....
LLLLLL..OOO..L LLLLL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this site is just like slapshod slasdot
That so called SPEECH act is a load of baloney designed to allow loud mouthed yanks to say what the hell they want and THINK they can get away with it , Well i got news for ya open your gob wide and step outside the usa see how long you last before you are rotting in some deep dark crap hole i can guarentee it wont be long that goes for all of you right up to the pres super power my aunt fanny micro dick more like that why all the viagra adds are yank based you need them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this site is just like slapshod slasdot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idle threats are so boring
Right, so although you seem to fit in perfectly just get lost if you don't like it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protection from other countries' laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"He's such a smee... He's such a smee... He's such a smee-hee!"
Nice one, smeghead. You've just shown yourself to be a complete git.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The so-called Speech Act does not give me much comfort since it has no track history before the courts. It is ripe for challenge on various consitutional grounds where the likely outcome is anything but certain, not the least of which are principles of Federalism and the associated doctrine of "federal preemption" of state action.
The same can be said of personal and subject matter jurisdiction by UK courts. Clearly such courts have subject matter jurisdiction, but the scope of personal jurisdiction over a foreign party outside is unclear. Jurisdiction of courts in situations such as yours are much more nuanced that merely saying "I live in the US and the action, if filed, would be before a UK court...so I am home free."
Frankly, if I was techdirt at the very least I would be in contact with a UK solicitor to discuss the law and options on how best to respond, if at all. After all, this does involve UK law, and reliance on the opinions of US attorneys who are likely not conversant in UK law is, in my view, a roll or the dice and of no moment before a UK tribunal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That doesn't make Jeffrey Morris of Jeftel any less of a fucking twat for all the world to see for having filed the suit in the first place. That's my honest opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hooray!
If they try in federal court, then those concerns are moot. If they try in state court, then (1) they'd face similar state statutes in an increasing number of states -- like California, New York, Illinois, and Florida, and (2) they'd have to come up with some actual authority, not catchphrases. Can the critics of the SPEECH Act point to any cases interpreting prior federal statutes governing recognition of foreign judgments that support the view that the SPEECH Act is subject to attack?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hooray!
I will take you at your word, in which case I am a bit surprised you seem prepared to accept the Speech Act almost at face value as being a valid and enforceable exercise of federal power under Article 1.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hooray!
I am familiar with, and sympathetic to, arguments that such laws exceed Congressional power under Article I. But as a practitioner, rather than a theoretician, I know that those arguments have approaching zero relevance to actual law practice in actual courts, and will be of no use whatsoever to our Bumptious Brits if they wander over here to challenge the SPEECH Act.
The argument that the SPEECH Act exceeds Congressional power, however appealing as a matter of philosophy, was lost as a matter of practice more than a half-century ago.
It would be fascinating to see a Tea Party/British Libel Lawyer axis emerge, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hooray!
At this point, I've spoken to numerous experts in First Amendment Law, international law, and defamation law... and you are the *only* person who seems to think the SPEECH Act is not valid. I can't find anyone else who has a problem with it.
So who do we believe? The well respected experts in the field who have actually done stuff, or an anonymous commenter?
Tough one...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hooray!
If AC is correct, that the SPEECH Act exceeds Congress' power, then there must be cases that stand for that proposition that AC (or someone who agrees with him) can cite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hooray!
Being a non-US citizen I actually applaud the US lawmakers for creating the SPEECH Act and acknowledging that there are jurisdictional problems with international venues and laws when dealing with the insanity that is the internet in regards to other laws. Especially when this Speech Act affects another common Law jurisdiction (UK).
I myself come across this insanity nearly every week though luckily not in a civil role like Defamation, instead to do with CyberCrime etc. One day we might have a real and binding International Criminal Code, though I think Satan will be wearing Ice Skates first *sigh*
In regards to this C&D legal nasty, I suspect someone like David Green aka Jack of Kent [http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/] would be highly interested if this went any further within the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One aspect of the statute that piques my interest is a congressional mandate that "ties the hands" of state courts.
Another is the "just like the First Amendment" and "well, not 'just like' but good enough" provisions in the statute.
There are some others that come to mind, but these are the two that initially caught my attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My page down key melted
streisand = 42
speech act = 29
christian = 14
jewish = 11
free speech 10
hitler = 3
THE WINNER is streisand !! Jane Fonda would be so proud of her.
Note: Nothing in this comment should be considered peer reviewed. All text can be found in the post if one wishes to verify counts.
-f
P.S. No, I was not trying to change the subject. Just looking at key points in the subject matter. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most these lawyers could do is get your domain removed from all UK DNS servers, and make it so your staff can no long visit the UK.
Big whoop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Morris
It's a tiring process going through the legal system to try and get money from an ex employer, and when they are as devious as Morris with his little team of legal boffins it only gets worse. All this talk of libel- surely it's only libel if the comments aren't true? Morris is a business gangster who uses regular people as his own personal bank account. I've kept my silence for as long as I've felt I can but I think its disgraceful that he gets away with setting up any number of shell companies (IMJack PLC is the 'parent' company of IMJack Secure Communications) so that when push comes to shove, no one even knows who it is they should be claiming the money from. Worse still, it's quite clear that Secure Communications is going to be wound up which means seeking payment from the National Redundancy Office. But if they find out Morris has set up YET ANOTHER company in the same building and using the same 'private' information obtained by the IMJack workers, the redundancy office will most likely say the grievance lies with his new company.
It's about time something bigger was done to expose conmen like Morris, the economy is ridiculously skewed as it is without morally bankrupt fools taking liberties with people who just want to earn a living.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Life In New Mexico!
Whilst researching the above threads I found the following;
Jeffrey Morris/Bees in Action
Edugeek Limited has published comments defamatory of Mr Jeffrey Morris and his business Bees In Action on this website. Edugeek Ltd has also posted a link to the Techdirt website which contains substantial material defamatory of Mr Morris, members of his family and his businesses.
Edugeek Ltd accepts that as a responsible business providing a valuable service to the education sector, it was entirely wrong to post the comments and the link to Techdirt and has removed all the offending material from its website which it undertakes not to publish further. Edugeek Ltd apologies unreservedly to Mr Morris and his family for all distress, damage and embarrassment they have been caused as a result of its actions which it deeply regrets.
Please note this apology is not to be discussed further on Edugeek, hence this thread is locked. Any new threads created about this issue will be removed.
It would appear that this Morris cat has got cause for redress, and I support him!
Lots of love,
The Bandit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of substance
Edugeek chose the path of least resistance here. Take it from those that know (and that admittedly still remain anonymous) that this guy is a real piece of work. It's scary what he and his lackies have gotten away with. I wouldnt have believed that a business owner and employer of hundreds of staff could get away with physically refusing to pay workers and then having the cheek to issue payslips.
In addition to this, he's refused to pay every single supplier he's had at their first, second, third and fourth attempts with them having to threaten court action as the final measure in getting this guy to pay. He's as dodgy as they come. His day-to-day treatment of staff was worse and this guy governed by fear and the mockery of his work-force.
There's some unfair shouting and name calling but thats it. He's scammed fellow entrepreneurs, suppliers, staff, friends..you name it. No morals whatsoever this chap.
Lots of love,
An old old employee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK/US law
Good on you for sticking it to them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]