Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
from the the-first-amendment-has-to-mean-something dept
As you may have heard, last week we were sued for $15 million by Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. We have written, at great length, about his claims and our opinion — backed up by detailed and thorough evidence — that email existed long before Ayyadurai created any software. We believe the legal claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we intend to fight them and to win.
There is a larger point here. Defamation claims like this can force independent media companies to capitulate and shut down due to mounting legal costs. Ayyadurai's attorney, Charles Harder, has already shown that this model can lead to exactly that result. His efforts helped put a much larger and much more well-resourced company than Techdirt completely out of business.
So, in our view, this is not a fight about who invented email. This is a fight about whether or not our legal system will silence independent publications for publishing opinions that public figures do not like.
And here's the thing: this fight could very well be the end of Techdirt, even if we are completely on the right side of the law.
Whether or not you agree with us on our opinions about various things, I hope that you can recognize the importance of what's at stake here. Our First Amendment is designed to enable a free and open press — a press that can investigate and dig, a press that can challenge and expose. And if prominent individuals can make use of a crippling legal process to silence that effort, or even to create chilling effects among others, we become a weaker nation and a weaker people because of it.
We are a truly small and independent media company. We do not have many resources. We intend to fight this baseless lawsuit because of the principles at stake, but we have no illusions about the costs. It will take a toll on us, even if we win. It will be a distraction, no matter what happens. It already has been — which may well have been part of Ayyadurai's intent.
I am beyond thankful to the many of you who have reached out and offered to help in all sorts of ways. It is heartening to know so many people care about Techdirt. At some point soon, we may set up a dedicated legal defense fund. But, in the meantime, any support you can provide us will help — whether it's just alerting people to this situation and the danger of trying to stifle a free press through meritless lawsuits, or it's supporting Techdirt directly (or, if you have a company, advertising with us). As always, you can support us directly as a Friend of Techdirt, or check out some of the other perks you can get in our Insider program. You can also support us via Patreon.
If freedom of expression and the press is to actually mean something, it needs to be protected, not stomped on with baseless lawsuits that silence independent voices and opinions.
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: defamation, first amendment, free press, free speech, techdirt
Companies: floor64, techdirt
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Well now...
From his wiki page:
'Randazza filed an Anti-SLAPP motion in the under the California Anti-SLAPP law, despite the case being in Florida. The motion was granted, since one of the plaintiffs was from California. It was successful, and the federal court awarded Novella a victory in the case. "As a prevailing defendant, Novella is entitled to recover his attorney's fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1). He may seek to recover his fees and costs by separate motion."
So it is possible to make use of a state's anti-SLAPP law even if the case if filed in another state, so long as one of the parties is from the state with the law, which TD/Mike is.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the little shit needs to be kneecapped...
you know, metaphorically speaking...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ReTechdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Using the courts as a "tool" in any fight is terrible. Courts should be used to *resolve* disputes on an equitable basis, not as a weapon that helps you win just because you have more money.
Anti-SLAPP, loser-pays approaches are sorely needed, especially when it comes to free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where's a good set of links to these claims
Let 'em fight me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gents: This is a business. Business has risks. Defend yourself -- don't ask for "donations."
Money-grubbing lawyers ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm going to go ahead and assume that you have:
Thanks for the armchair opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loser must pay
amount of vexatious lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Loser must pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Loser must pay
Perhaps they can get a change of venue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Loser must pay
Mike also lives in California, and it has really strong anti-SLAPP laws.
Is turnabout fair play?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Loser must pay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have a specific donation page to fund your defense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you have a specific donation page to fund your defense?
They don't have one yet, but it may be coming soon. From the next to last paragraph:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have a specific donation page for funding?
I Know. Go on and ridicule, but I say Get on Kickstarter. It's not as silly or useless as, perhaps, you Mike, might think. TD is not the only rodeo. There are hundreds of sites that people visit with the same reporting. Once They hear about a fight for First Amendment Rights, and a Life and Death struggle involving TechDirt, they'll be on board.
AND, get the trial etc. re-located to your state! Loser Pays! SLAPP the lunatic down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not via legal action. Lying is not illegal per se, and he's not defaming anyone or anything like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe Ray Tomlinson's estate would disagree with you. Mr (not)"theinventorofemail" was really nasty to Ray and the companies who announced his death. He certainly defamed Mr. Tomlinson in stating that he wasn't the "Father of Email" and arguing Mr. Tomlinson wasn't instrumental in the development of the electronic mail system we all use, instead of some pet project a 14 year old came up with that nobody (beyond a small medical college) has ever used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt it, but even if they did that wouldn't mean I'm wrong. Notice I said lying is not illegal per se. It is certainly possible for it to be illegal if it's also defamatory, but just lying, without any defamation, is not illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Freedom of Speech
Show his picture! Most of his sallow fat-faced sort look more animal than man anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope you know what lax means.
Regardless, you sound like a bit of a Cee You Next Tuesday.
There does not appear to be anything lax about this publications relationship with the groups that you feel they should throw themselves at the feet of, and beg for their strength and protection.
By the way who are you Peter Thiel, or some dick from Comcast or Verizon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's only my opinion but given the rumors about a certain buttugly hasbeen wrestler, wouldn't surprise me if they were buttin' uglies and thats why he chose THAT case to bankroll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because EFF is much more mainstream with their methods than Techdirt, it doesn't make them any less legitimate in their plight. I support both wholeheartedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/eff-proud-stand-beside-techdirt-its-first-amendment-f ight-its-life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Although I'm not American, we're in this together. All bad things that have proven to slip through in the US later make it to the EU..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
& Vice Versa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: & Vice Versa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Inertia Didn't Win
Hope TD wins. Freedom of speech is obviously not a principle that is taken seriously these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Step one - unblock ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one - unblock ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one - unblock ads
It's not much, but every bit helps, right?
Good luck fighting this, TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one - unblock ads
I'll support you by unblocking the ads for the site
Yep. Me too.
Longer page loading times in exchange for more eyeballs on the ads and (hopefully) more ad revenue for Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one - unblock ads
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one - unblock ads
I'd rather donate directly but yeah it's an idea!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Step one - unblock ads
I mean, why would I? They're non-intrusive, no site-obscurers or popups/popunders so I have no reason to block them. Looking at a banner or two won't hurt me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
Besides, this is always the wrong attitude to have. If you see one of your enemies fall, you shouldn't gloat, but be sad that things came to what they did, because it is always a shame to see a life go to waste.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
Insulting someone is not grounds for a lawsuit. Defamation is about materially untrue statements being made as fact in such a way that it injures someone's reputation. Mike has never said anything that is untrue about Ayyadurai. The man did not invent email, and this is established historical fact. The lawsuit is baseless and the fact that you are championing it as just deserts shows how little respect you have for the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Sorry, folks, but the 1st Amendment doesn't excuse people just because you like what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
You called him a fool. He's gonna sue!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Sorry, folks, but the 1st Amendment doesn't excuse people just because you like what they say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
And your proof of this is... what, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
A flat 'You lied' is rather different than 'You lied and here's the proof demonstrating that'. Even if Mike was wrong he still based his claim upon what evidence was available to him, and if saying something that you think is correct based upon the facts you have is grounds for being sued by someone who thinks otherwise then there is a whole bunch of people that need to shut their mouths I'd say.
But I'm getting on a tangent, what exactly was Mike 'reckless about checking' in pointing out that the claims made were without factual basis?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
I don't think it will work, but that in itself can cause a domino effect of trials, retrials, etc. that smacks of SCO. Mike doesn't have IBM's limitless pool of top notch lawyers to lean on; he's not going to be able to wait this legal attack out -- he's going to need judges and defense lawyers who see this for what it is and figure out some way to short circuit the proceedings to arrive at the eventual outcome sooner rather than later.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Leaving aside that it's questionable whether or not "you lied" is a strong enough criticism to qualify as defamation, Masnick provided ample sources and supporting information for his protected opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Google search for reckless disregard for truth, first result: http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
Uneducated or no, he's not actually wrong about reckless disregard for truth being a criterion for defamation.
But it doesn't apply here. Mike's posts about Ayyadurai are well-researched and have citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Yes, this is true, but in this case, the point isn't to file a lawsuit for defamation, it's to outspend a critic to make them shut down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Not my problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Ah, Trope Three: "Not all speech is protected."
https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-th e-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
As well, when people abuse the legal system to punish people that say things that they don't like, the punishment is...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
Links, or it didn't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
To put it another way, your schadenfreude is balanced by mild amusement at your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
Amen. This has been long overdue. There's reasonable disagreement, and then there's Mike's ridiculous and childish personal attacks.
Mike's awesome business model is really coming together:
1. Cloaking his childish insults in the First Amendment? Check.
2. Begging for more money? Check.
3. Planning on selling more t-shirts to make ends meet? Check.
4. Taking no responsibility for any of the awful things he's done? Check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
What part of "Links, or it didn't happen" did you not understand?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
It contains quotations from numerous techdirt blogs, with specific titles and dates provided. Very thorough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Define 'winning'. Winning on the facts, no, that is not going to happen. Winning through driving the other side into the ground through protracted legal fighting and the associated costs, such that they have no choice but to fold, that is a very real possibility, and almost certainly the true goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Not "may". "will".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
There are certainly some personal attacks in there; he repeatedly calls Ayyadurai a liar, and makes it clear that he believes he's a scam artist (even if he doesn't use those exact words). That's pretty personal.
Childish? Yeah, sure, I'll grant that. The article where he kept repeating the phrase "Shiva Ayyadurai did not invent email" wasn't exactly the paragon of maturity.
Ridiculous? Well, that's a matter of opinion. I think his articles were perfectly reasonable. People are welcome to disagree.
But, fun fact: saying things that are personal attacks, childish, ridiculous, or even all three is not actually illegal.
Criticism is not defamation, even if it's mean or immature.
Regardless of his tone, Masnick stated (1) protected opinions that were based on (2) cited supporting evidence. This is a SLAPP suit, plain and simple; Ayyadurai and Harder don't have a case, they're just using the legal system to cause financial harm to someone who called them names. That's completely fucking despicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Stating "facts" should not be perceived as attacks, and if they are then something obviously isn't right...
TD should just write an article citing "extremely credible sources" that DT invented email and ask PEOTUS for comment...that should put an end to it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Don't look at me; I never said that. I said it was a personal attack; I never said it wasn't the truth.
That was my entire point: there is not actually any law against "ridiculous and childish personal attacks". What Mike said wasn't very nice, but that doesn't make it defamation. Everything he said was either a factual statement which he provided evidence for, or an opinion based on facts which he provided evidence for.
No defamation occurred. Calling someone names is not defamation. Hurting someone's feelings is not defamation. Hurting someone's reputation is not defamation.
Defamation requires one of:
It's quite clear that Mike did none of those things. The factual statements he made are true, and have the citations to prove it; the opinions he expressed are based on those same cited facts.
Whether or not he engaged in "ridiculous and childish personal attacks" is irrelevant. There's no law against hurting Shiva Ayyadurai's feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
I would more call them observations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
And he just conveniently fails to address that the link he provided does not contain any childish and personal attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
I quickly read through the complaint. I still don't understand what you are referring to as "childish personal attacks" myself, but whatever.
I did find this bit amusing though:
So Techdirt's articles created a "wave of efforts by others to discredit Dr. Ayyadurai". Of course, none of that was caused by Ayyadurai's own actions, right? Techdirt's influence on the greater internet is simply amazing!
And this part: "attacks on Wikipedia that remove reference to his contribution" is really good too. Techdirt has somehow brainwashed all the independent editors at Wikipedia, instead of them simply fact-checking entries like they always do. Funny stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
On the other hand, I did a Google search on "History of Email." One of the "featured snippets" - quick related questions and answers that Google put between the search results - is "Who is called the creator of email?" This lists Ayyadurai as the answer.
I followed the "Search for: Who is called the creator of email?", followed by the "Feedback" link, and flagged it as incorrect. With the following comment:
I recommend that others do the same. Not to discredit Dr. Ayyadurai, but to correct the record and ensure accurate information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
I think that quote would be more accurate if it read:
"These statements also resulted in a wave of efforts by others to correct the disinformation spread by Dr. Ayyadurai and correctly state his place in the history of electronic communications, edits on wikipedia that more accurately reflect the history..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Otherwise, you have no understanding of Freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Last I checked, ridiculous and childish personal attacks weren't illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
... or even qualitative. One person's ridicule is another person's incredulity. One person's childish is another person's innocence. One person's attacks are another person's stating the truth.
When we get to stating things that have been proven to be untrue with the intent of harming another person, then we've got to the territory of illegal. Mike was stating facts and opinions based on those facts, and wasn't trying to harm anyone; rather, he was standing up for those who were being harmed by the refuted claims of those bringing this suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Wow, good one. That arrogant prick was sentenced to 28 years of getting-his-ass-pounded in federal prison.
Apparently The Law (and Justice) does work, sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
How about we try being relieved at someone going to prison without celebrating people being raped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
And once again, I was right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
Who will you turn to when a precedence is set and someone takes offence to what your saying, will what you say be protected by Free Speech when someone doesn't like you or what you say in general?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
You're assuming that isn't Shiva or his lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
That is not against the law. You may disagree with it, but that does not make what he does illegal (or punishable by a lawsuit).
"You could have chosen to present your arguments and let the reader decide."
If you do not like the "direction" in which this blog "leans" or the tone in which it is written, you are free to go read a blog that you think is more "objective" or "friendly". The site's editorial slant and tone are not illegal.
"But you chose, over and over, to call people names. THAT is what this case is about."
This lawsuit is about punishing Techdirt for lawful (and truthful) speech - about leveraging the judiciary against a media outlet for printing speech that is not defamatory.
The main gist of the lawsuit is that Techdirt defamed Ayyadurai by claiming he did not invent email. Techdirt has presented a coherent, factual, and easy-to-follow case as to why that claim is true. If you want to whine about how Techdirt presented that case, go ahead. But that whining does not change the underlying facts presented by Techdirt in its claim. If you can present a factual argument that counters Techdirt's claim, you may want to contact Mr. Ayyadurai yourself; he will probably need your help.
"If you can't afford the cost of your actions, then you probably need a better business model."
Techdirt is not being sued for defamation because they actually defamed someone. It is being sued for defamation because an asshole with a lot of resources at his disposal decided he wanted to silence critics with via lawsuits. Do you really believe Techdirt should pay the ultimate cost - bankruptcy and shutdown - for presenting factual, non-defamatory information?
Or do you just not give a damn about the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
"I just don't give a damn about the first amendment."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
So what? If people do things that make them worthy of being insulted (and TD has documented thousands of examples) then they deserve to be insulted. Of course, thin-skinned authoritarians like you perceive any accurate description you don't agree with as an insult, because how dare anyone publicly call you out!
"You could have chosen to present your arguments and let the reader decide."
Er, how is that not what happens? I read, I decide.
"But you chose, over and over, to call people names. THAT is what this case is about."
Not sure if you realise how ignorant that sounds, but this is a defamation case, which by definition is not about name-calling but about stating falsehoods. Feel free to refute any points Mike's actually made in this story that would legally quality as defamation. I note you've done nothing close to that yet. Just lots of blah, blah.
"I'm delighted that one of them finally decided to fight back."
You're delighted that the legal system is being abused in an attempt to stifle someone's constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech? Wow, that's a pretty sick attitude. You know there's no legal merit here, so you know this is a pure SLAPP case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What goes around, comes around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
squash his little head with his big ego
Who am I kidding no-one could be that stupid to misunderstand we aren't talking about his software program and instead are talking about E-mail for this long.
Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: squash his little head with his big ego
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can just imagine that laugh of hers when she did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Floor64, Inc.
370 Convention Way
Redwood City, CA 94063
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Demons Run When A Good Man Goes To War
Fight the good fight!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please, please, please let it be so. This couldn't have happened a more deserving fellow, Mike. Sow, reap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you believe a media outlet should be destroyed if it publishes factually correct information to counter a false claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Popehat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Popehat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Popehat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Popehat
And I don't read his twitter feed, because I don't do twitter or any other "social" media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Popehat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Popehat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Sean L. on Jan 11th, 2017 @ 12:33pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I think anyone who exercises the right to free speech should be silenced! Wait, why are you trying to silence me?"
The trolls will have to find a new forum to spout their corporatist nonsense if TD goes down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a few months early but this certainly provides a solid reason to spring for a watercooler subscription this time around.
The most disgusting part of this, even more so than Shiva using the legal system to bully people who say mean things about him is the fact that even if he loses he still wins, since without a strong federal anti-SLAPP law on the books these kinds of lawsuits are basically no-risk affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quite possible, I believe CA has a fairly strong anti-SLAPP law, and Shiva certainly doesn't want to face that. Bullying someone with the legal system becomes a lot less fun when the other person can fight back and make you pay after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Far too often I see techdirt running articles that are first posted by other sites, quoting the same quotes that those other sites are quoting from.
I simply think that techdirt, if they cave in or lose, might be on its last legs because I don't think they do any research except generate a few quotes from people involved with the subject matter they are posting about.
This is why I have policies set in place on my site that prevent registered members from posting messages without any sources or research.
Unfortunately, techdirt could lose just from the attrition of this lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is pretty common to many tech sites and news in general. The value I see is the commentary and knowledge generalized publications lack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, you get a funny vote for that one.
Your complaint is that TD doesn't do enough 'original' research and simply 'quoting the same quotes that those other sites are quoting from'? The First has nothing against that, so I'm failing to see how TD could or should be penalized for that.
As for presenting it's own content TD is typically really good about providing supporting evidence, so no clue where your first paragraphs is from either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure that you know what you're talking about, here. The First Amendment does not require that you do independent research when commenting on public figures. It merely requires that you do not post facts that you believe are false. And to the extent that people have a right to not be defamed, I would say that's not a constitutional right - it's a right based in the law, which is not the same thing. If tomorrow your state abolished defamation as a tort, that would not violate your constitutional rights.
As far as the lawsuit goes, the plaintiff's argument seems to be that since TechDirt knew Gawker settled the lawsuit, they also knew that the underlying claims were true. That's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What First Amendment are you reading? Wikipedia says the full text is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It doesn't say anything about "facts that you believe are false"; in fact, "free exercise" of speech requires that people be allowed to lie, although SCOTUS generally ignore that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Unless you're Ruth Bader Ginsberg posting as an anon, in which case it's an honor to have you here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting thing here: the reason that there are copyright etc. lawyers is that the constitution was not written and then referred to out of context by each judge who wanted to decide future cases.
Every year, judging becomes more and more complex, as case law based on previous decisions becomes part of the deciding factors. This means that the current legal understanding of the 1st Amendment and associated torts and laws is not just the full text on Wikipedia; it fills multiple volumes, based on all the cases decided since the amendment was first signed, and changes to state laws that take these decisions into consideration.
There must be a compelling reason (I'd say even beyond the weak anti-SLAPP law) why they filed this in MA. It probably has to do with the case law on the subject and how they can believably interpret it, as well as a solid strategy for stringing this out into 10+ years of hearings, filings and trials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: [first amendment requirements]
Malice is either knowing falsehood or reckless disregard. In other words, you can repeat something you heard, even if it is false, so long as you do not believe it to be false or avoid finding out that it is false.
There is a great body of work on this subject and I am summarizing, leaving out many nuances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: [first amendment requirements]
But, as I've noted elsewhere in the comments, that standard clearly does not apply here; Mike's articles all contained detailed arguments and cited sources for their claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The same constitutional rights that protect techdirt's first amendment claim are also the same constitutional rights that can penalize sites like techdirt from running articles without backing up its information.
What the heck are you talking about here? The Constitution doesn't penalize, it enumerates the unalienable rights of the people and defines how the government is to be kept from infringing those rights.
Far too often I see techdirt running articles that are first posted by other sites, quoting the same quotes that those other sites are quoting from.
This is why I have policies set in place on my site that prevent registered members from posting messages without any sources or research.
Umm, yeah. This isn't a news site, it's an opinion blog. Kind of hard to give an opinion on something without giving background first.
Unfortunately, techdirt could lose just from the attrition of this lawsuit.
Well yeah. As Mike stated in the article, this lawsuit might bankrupt them. What is your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Techdirt did in fact back up its information, providing many citations including the RFCs standardizing email long before Ayyadurai's system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RFCs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RFCs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RFCs
Certainly it would be hard for him to reference them without bringing himself into frivolous territory. My copy of RFC733 (format for ARPANET electronic mail) is dated 1977, which is somewhat prior to the plaintiff's publication.
The problem is authentication. The authors have surely moved on from their institutions at the time of publication, and some may no longer be available at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RFCs
However, I notice it has the word "mail" in its first sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RFCs
And even then, if he wants "Mail" in the title, it builds on previous RFCs like 724 and 561 which describe "Mail" in the titles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RFCs
Sorry; I'm not sure what you're saying here. By "actual filing" do you mean Shiva's actual filing? and by "giving him metaphorical reacharounds" you're referring to Shiva? Or did you mean you read Mike's response and are referring to Mike?
I'm pretty sure Mike's legal response will include the RFCs, as they pretty much sink the claims in the original filing, with not much room for argument. But given the lawyer retained here, there has to be some longer-term game being played, and Mike's lawyers will have to figure out what that is and counter THAT as well, or this will become a very long-term and expensive legal battle (even if it's done pro bono, this is going to take a LOT of man hours to counter Thiel's war chest -- at the expense of the lawyers taking the case in a state that may not reimburse the winners).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RFCs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
DAMN YOU TECHDIRT!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and you wrote those four paragraphs of text, and clicked the Submit button, and at no point during that time did the irony that you cited not one single example occur to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Therein lies the rub: Techdirt did back up its argument with factual information. Thoroughly. There is plenty of documentation to back up the site's claims against Mr. Ayyadurai, which was linked to and acknowledged in the article which claims Mr. Ayyadurai did not invent email.
If Techdirt can be penalized for writing factual information in response to a false claim, what does that say about the First Amendment?
"Far too often I see techdirt running articles that are first posted by other sites, quoting the same quotes that those other sites are quoting from."
…so what? That has no bearing on this case.
"I have policies set in place on my site that prevent registered members from posting messages without any sources or research."
Go read the article that demolishes Mr. Ayyadurai's claims that he invented email. If there is any bit of information that is neither sourced nor easily found via Google, you may want to contact Mr. Ayyadurai and help him with his case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and that's a problem because...?
Techdirt has always set itself up as a blog that generates discussion and discourse among subjects that interest Mike and other authors. Despite the whining of various commenters, it has NEVER (as far as I'm aware) set itself up as a primary news source or venue for original investigative journalism. It does occasionally venture into those fields, but that's not its primary remit. The primary focus has always been the community, not whether it's first to write about something or whether the content itself is completely original.
Given that, why is your complaint any kind of a problem at all?
"I simply think that techdirt, if they cave in or lose, might be on its last legs because I don't think they do any research except generate a few quotes from people involved with the subject matter they are posting about."
Except, you know, that the article that they're being sued about have been impeccably argued and researched, with nobody even attempting to contradict the supplied facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mixed Feelings
While I regret the undue financial burden and distraction this will pose to Techdirt and it's staff, I also applaud your decision to fight and look forward to the discovery process which will place Ayyadurai's claims under a legal microscope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
counter suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: counter suit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: counter suit
On a different topic, does Mike have somewhere to stay for free while attending court in MA? Seems like that's one way we could definitely help out if he doesn't already have a quiet and free place to stay with Internet access, and some reasonable transportation to/from the courthouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: counter suit
I'm guessing that if Mike has to travel to MA for this it won't be for a long time, unless it's to meet his local lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well now...
From his wiki page:
'Randazza filed an Anti-SLAPP motion in the under the California Anti-SLAPP law, despite the case being in Florida. The motion was granted, since one of the plaintiffs was from California. It was successful, and the federal court awarded Novella a victory in the case. "As a prevailing defendant, Novella is entitled to recover his attorney's fees and costs under the anti-SLAPP statute. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1). He may seek to recover his fees and costs by separate motion."
So it is possible to make use of a state's anti-SLAPP law even if the case if filed in another state, so long as one of the parties is from the state with the law, which TD/Mike is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well now...
Would an insider please bubble this up? This is a very useful tidbit to have going into court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well now...
Here, two of the defendants are from California (Floor64 and Mike) but the only plaintiff (Ayyadurai) is from Massachusetts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well now...
Randazza, Randazza, Randazza...
*looks into the mirror to see if he appears*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well now...
Someone call me?
By the way, the "Novella Trick" of using the Plaintiff's home state anti-SLAPP statute is only one way of doing it.
You can also use dépeçage to invoke the defendant's home state anti-SLAPP protections.
The courts in the 7th Circuit are very comfortable with that. The 1st has not yet applied it in the exact Novella / reverse Novella manner.
But ... you bet your ass, any defense here should be looking at that pretty French word ... dépeçage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well now...
I can only imagine the Secret Society of First Amendment Badasses has legal pads with sketched out plans for making this case hurt enough that trying to use the law to silence people who disagree with you wouldn't be tried again for a long time (or by someone who wants to keep their bar card).
Nice to see you Mr. Randazza. What I wouldn't give to see a brief deftly shredding the claims & seeing demands for costs. $750,000 seems like a good number...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well now...
With the Gawker lawsuit in hand and at least marginal proof that he did in fact create an early version of mail in his country, this guy might have enough ammo that anti-SLAPP may not be such a slam dunk. That the Techdirt posts are not just factual but seem to be intended to mock the person and discredit them in public... well, you can draw your own conclusions.
It's not as clear cut as the other case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smithsonian
http://americanhistory.si.edu/press/releases/statement-national-museum-american-history-collection- materials-va-shiva-ayyudurai
that should be all a judge needs to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smithsonian
"The AUTODIN network, first operational in 1962, provided a message service between 1,350 terminals, handling 30 million messages per month, with an average message length of approximately 3,000 characters. Autodin was supported by 18 large computerized switches, and was connected to the United States General Services Administration Advanced Record System, which provided similar services to roughly 2,500 terminals.[23] By 1968, AUTODIN linked more than 300 sites in several countries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email#history
He's maybe trying to play on words? He invented a program CALLED "email", not the generic term "Email"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Smithsonian
All that may be true...but that's not email. I mean, I use pine and mail (unix) regularly - he may have very well invented the first "modern" email gui - but that doesn't mean he invented email in a technical (and hopefully legal) sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Smithsonian
Yes. Pine post-dates Elm, which post-dates 1978.
Interestingly enough, I have tarballs of old V6 and V7 unix sources, which contain e-mail back in the late 1970s. Which is no surprise, if you consider that even as an undergrad at that time, I expected e-mail to be provided on pretty much anything calling itself a computer system.
I conclude that the plaintiff may be less than fully forthright in asserting a claim to have invented e-mail in late 1978.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Smithsonian
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Smithsonian
That document was published before Mr. Ayyadurai was ever even working at the school where he created his email program.
Therein lies the problem with Mr. Ayyadurai's claim of fact: He may have written an email program, but he did not contribute to what would become the standards of email, many of which were already in place as part of the ARPANET messaging system well before he wrote his program.
If he were to win this lawsuit in a court of law (instead of by attrition), he would have overcome the best defense against defamation: the actual, factual truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Smithsonian
The problem is that it can cost a lot to get a judge to see things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is concerning..
Of course he does. The actual history of the development of email is long, technical and complex. Ayyadurai's story is easy to digest and (if it were true) inspiring. Much of his success in pushing his fraud comes from his being a convincing showman. I'm seriously concerned with which way the jury could go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is concerning..
That said, jury trials have more variables, and so can be dragged on for much longer, even when the judge is fed up. And this can also result in judges making mistakes, which results in a retrial with jury, opening up MORE opportunities.
When your goal is to cause harm and not to win, this tactic makes sense. But it's highly unlikely it will result in a win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is concerning..
Massachusetts has a tech establishment, but I doubt that anyone with any tech background would make it onto the jury due to the plaintiffs attorney disqualifying them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is concerning..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is concerning..
Instead, what do we get? As my friend tends to put it, "Our juries are made up of people to lazy or stupid to get out of the job of jury duty. Sure, there are some people who want to be there to do their civic duty but they almost always get thrown out because they know something."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is concerning..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is concerning..
"It was not my class of people, there was not a producer, a press agent, a director, an actor."
- Zsa Zsa Gabor, judged by a jury after slapping a police officer for catching her with an expired license and an open bottle of liquor in her car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
East Texas has a few spots open in a few months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With you all the way Mike!
* - please note this is a personal opinion of Shiva given his actions in shaking down a legitimate news organization, not a statement of fact... i do not assert that i know personally whether or not he is a con artist. I don't want your litigious ass-hat of a lawyer to get any ideas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: With you all the way Mike!
But yeah, right on spot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Value of Your Work
Donation coming on Friday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to get rid of Revisionist Historians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to get rid of Revisionist Historians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to get rid of Revisionist Historians
If there were such a thing, then it would have to be brought in a state where the law supports it. Most states have fairly crummy anti-SLAPP laws, with the most common deficiency being that they only apply to things involving the government. See, for some foundation, Eastern Railroad Presidents Ass'n v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc., 365 U.S. 127 (20-Feb-1961). While it does not deal with an anti-SLAPP motion, it does give some foundation for the run-of-the-mill statute.
Unless you can show that the plaintiff is a government figure, your anti-SLAPP aspirations are probably doomed.
His aspirations to have invented e-mail, which I was personally using before his ``invention'', well, that is a fact question which may have to go to trial. Not my case, I am not a lawyer in the state where venue appears to lie, and I cannot usefully discuss the parties' respective litigation strategies.
If I were to have any views at all as to the merits of the case, they would probably lump the plaintiff's claim in with claims for goodness for this "markdown" mark-up intended to replace HTML with something less familiar but at the same time less useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep up the good fight!
Thank you for being consistently sane and vocal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Added on Patreon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google "Who invented email"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google "Who invented email"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not saying I'd like to see techdirt go but that website administrators often set themselves up for lawsuits like this.
With my website and forum communities, I have developed site policies designed for every possible occurrence and allow for content to be removed if either myself or my forum staff decide that the content is inappropriate for my community. I have to say that content is usually caught pretty quickly before it causes any damage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, I'm confused. Are you saying that your comment the other day,
should have been removed? Or did I miss the part where you provided peer-reviewed original research that backed it up? Something that would have satisfied "the community", at any rate.
It doesn't seem to me like it's much different at all from what Techdirt has written about this issue, and they've provided a ton of supplemental links with background information to go along with it.
If you want to take the approach that puts "avoid being sued" above other considerations then that's perfectly fine. But if Techdirt wants to emphasize the argument that "this is perfectly legitimate criticism and even if we do get sued that doesn't make us wrong" that's also fine. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that their approach is vital to all of us, and we should be lucky they take it.
Calling someone a liar when they're lying, especially when you can and do show why you say they're lying, isn't something that we should be trying to shy away from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But his victim-blaming "it's your own fault for not keeping your head down" attitude is bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AYFKM?
Are you seriously suggesting that this is Masnick's fault because his headlines weren't weak and noncommital enough? That if you get frivolously sued by a litigious douchebag, it's your own fault, because you shouldn't have criticized a litigious douchebag for being a litigious douchebag?
The First Amendment does not have an exception for controversial or offensive speech. If it did, there would be no point in even having a First Amendment; nobody needs a law protecting uncontroversial and inoffensive speech.
Masnick didn't break any laws. Somebody with a lot of money is taking advantage of a failure condition in our legal system in an attempt to silence him for legitimate criticism. Quit blaming the victim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you do seem intent on doing is promoting your website and how great is is.
You should go away... don't go away mad, just go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I respectfully disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You realize your credibility plummets after spouting this kind of self-aggrandizing back-patting, right? (I meant that intentional redundant redundancy...) More to the point, claiming you are some kind of expert in forum management doesn't strengthen your weak arguments. It makes them even weaker, because your only claim to a legitimate argument is your own claim of being an authority.
Your victim-blaming is shameful on two levels. One, the victim in this case didn't even do anything to, in your words, "deserve what [they got]". To suggest that is just you trying to make yourself better in comparison to a strawman you're creating. Second, even if you think they did make a mistake, why does it then follow that they deserve to be sued out of existence.
We don't live in a world where it is a good idea to leave your wallet sitting on a park bench somewhere. If you do, chances are good it will be stolen. It's predictable, and easily preventable, but does the person who does that *deserve* to have the wallet stolen. No. Period.
Your attitude suggests you feel that people *should* be punished for not living up to some threshold of moral or intellectual achievement. That is some dangerous thinking, man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course they won't say who they are, because many of them have a personal axe to grind & are giddy at the idea of bad befalling TechDirt and who gives a fuck if establishes a shitty legal tactic that will be used more. They won't see it as a problem until someone uses the tactic on them, then they will be screaming how unfair it is & trying to understand why people are pointing and laughing saying they were asking for it.
This is a meritless case, brought to financially harm TechDirt. The plaintiff is a conman, who has been running this con for years. Dare to question the story, and you are a racist in the backpocket of the military industrial complex. He has a lawyer who worked on a strategy of finding enough people to complain to bankrupt a media outlet. (We could debate Gawker being media, but thats not the point). Now they move onto TechDirt & the real reason behind the case might be mentioning someone bankrolling this type of lawfare was gay in print again, its all it took the first time.
If you can help, please help. Make a stand today, even if you don't always agree with what TechDirt has to say. If you won't stand up for the rights of those you disagree with, don't be shocked when no one comes to help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would be surprised if many of them didn't turn out to be Ayyadurai, his legal team, or people otherwise employed (marketing, SEO, etc) by Ayyadurai and/or any backers he may have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Let's hope that support turns into money. Lack of money is the only thing that could cause Techdirt to lose this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can't pluralize a noun and then modify it with "lone". It's not lone if there's more than one of them.
That's the whole joke in the Lone Gunmen's name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Happy days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legal defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: legal defense
I first read that as meanlegal, which would bu much more fun ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: legal defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fucking people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fucking people...
From what I can see, the guy's failed at everything else so it's the false claim of inventing email that he's basing his entire legacy on. He regularly points to Google searches as "proof" of his claim (the main results of which are his own astroturf sites), but a popular and often cited source like Techdirt will naturally also come up in those searches. A well-reasoned, well-cited rundown of exactly why he's a fraud will damage the reputation he's tried building.
Mike's refused to follow other sources in censoring or removing pages that expose this liar, so he's been left with no recourse than to try and damage him financially with bogus lawsuits.
"Is his claim so weak that he has to resort to the legal system, rather than posting a rebuttal?"
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fucking people...
Does this create economic opportunity for him, as a consultant or web developer or what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fucking people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fucking people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are the t-shirts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are the t-shirts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where are the t-shirts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where are the t-shirts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are the t-shirts?
To: shiva.ayyadurai@vashiva.com
From: the.internet@email.com
Subject: Email invented in 1972
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email#Origin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
Hey, here's a funny idea. Why don't you TELL US how you want to use our money?
More concretely, why don't you follow this article with links to some "solution projects", probably projects to fight this stupid lawsuit in this case. The proposals should stand on their own merits and persuade is to donate enough money to fund the budget.
After the project has been completed, hopefully in accord with the schedule and budget included in the proposal, then you can tell us how it went, and maybe even ask us to donate to some more projects, too.
Actually, this is a more general model that could be used for OSS development or broader journalistic or even social purposes.
I really do wish you well, but right now I'd rather have the cup of coffee, and your just cause isn't fungible.
Details available upon request, even though I think they have become intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. Most obviously, the old business models of journalism are dead[, Jim].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
The only relevant "solution project" would be to properly document the history of the development of email. This has already been done. Check the citations in the articles he's being sued over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
Obviously you are not a lawyer, so I congratulate you on that. In ANY legal action, there are MANY possible approaches. Why don't you want to help pick the best one, especially if some of YOUR money was going to be involved?
Think of it differently, in terms of the wisdom of crowds. If they present three different defense strategies, just seeing which one gets the most sincere support is useful. You can even regard the willingness to donate as a metric of sincerity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
However, crowd sourced defense was quite successfully performed by PJ and Groklaw, when SCO and David Boies were attacking Linux. Horse of a different color though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
What are your motivations? Perhaps you voted for the Donald, who promises to make it easier to sue websites out of existence? (Speaking more precisely, I have no personal interest in you, but kind of a vague curiosity why civil dialog dies. If you're a paid troll for Trump, that certainly makes sense.)
So how about the idea of practicing the legal strategies by describing them in sufficient detail so Internet geniuses like you can shoot them to pieces?
Wasting keystrokes. No sincerity detected.
Oh well. Just speaking for myself. Not merely saying why I am unlikely to donate to TechDirt's defense, but trying to offer a constructive suggestion to justify donating some of my limited money. If you are also so rich (to go with your brilliance) that you don't care about the money, then congratulations again.
If not, I'm wagering that I'd be amused by your best attempt to be constructive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
And YOU accuse ME of being a Trump supporter? Or are you just upset that Palin didn't run?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
Obviously you don't understand where I agree and disagree with you. Not going to waste the keystrokes on it.
So exactly how much money are you prepared to put where your fat fingers are?
Amusingly enough, I actually put a $100 on Sanders before the NY primary, though I regarded Hillary as good enough. Not good enough to get any of my limited money. Ditto TechDirt as things stand. With valuable "supporters" like you, I'm sure they'll be just fine and dandy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A just cause and a couple of bucks will buy a cup of coffee
Oh, like "Boaty McBoatface"?
No thanks. I'd rather see Techdirt win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SLAPP them away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SLAPP them away.
Massachusetts does have an anti-SLAPP law. But it's very narrow - it only applies to things related to government affairs, more or less. (Although someone else in the comments section linked a case where California anti-SLAPP was used in a federal case because one of the parties was from there.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just went behind the curtain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/popular-tech-blog-sued-by-self-proclaimed-invent or-of-e-mail-hits-back/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kick these fuckers in the ass, Masnick. Go for it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For CRYING out LOUD.
I wonder how Shiva Ayyadurai would react if his bullsh*t claim of inventing the email was covered by jailface.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I invented Fire when I was 13 weeks old.
And I'll sue anyone that says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I invented _______ in ______.
You can write your own in with a marker.
I invented wheels in 1985.
I invented bread in 1992.
I invented photons in 2003.
I invented toasters in 1945.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shiva is lying
This is all you need to shut the stupid lying fraud down in court. The timeline alone does not match and thus he is a lying sack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would have sent you email from my 7094, but
It's time to shut this shameless jerk and his ambulance-chasing lawyers down, once and for all. I would surmise that some substantial percentage of billionaires from the computer industry should be happy to chip in to help get this guy stopped.
I've emailed on every time-sharing system I've used since 1965, when this jerk was 1 year old, and on every networked system since 1971. Since this jerk went to MIT, he willfully ignores CTSS, ITS, Multics, Unix, Tops-10, Tops-20, even a time-shared PDP-8, for god's sake.
Then there's a large number of military messaging systems that were in heavy use -- including in the Vietnam era.
Then there's the pirate copies of Unix that were running on East German copies of PDP-11's, and the pirate copies of IBM software that were running on Russian copies of IBM 360's. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these machines made it to Shiva Ayyadurai's birth country of India, where they might even have processed his own birth certificate or his family's other documents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment doesn't apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment doesn't apply
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-firs t-amendment/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Amendment doesn't apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment doesn't apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Amendment doesn't apply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
inventor of post its
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: inventor of post its
He doesn't have a patent. He has a copyright on a specific piece of software that is a specific implementation of an email system created at least a decade after other implementations of email systems like the AUTODIN network referenced on the wikipedia article about email.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep us posted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike,
You're set... you're now the "Author of Email". Congrats!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike,
.theinventorofemail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Panty Ruffling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just bought a 1 yr membership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight it
Next time my fingers hit the keyboard to write a quick email, I'll be saying FUCK YOU to Shiva Ayyadurai... and saying thank you to those who authored the RFCs that actually created email.
Mike, expose Shiva as the FRAUD he is. Take all of that evidence with you. Don't let this disgusting FAKE bottom feeder get another cent from false claims. And once the court is done humiliating him and proving him to be the LIAR he is, recoup your costs from him.
Good luck Mike. May justice be with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.. Most redic crap I've seen in a while.
IANAL but can someone here tell me off the top of their head where the burden of proof resides as to whether there is any substance to this to begin with? (IE as to whether there is even a claim?) Is it up to the plaintiff to prove he invented email or the defendant to prove he didn't? I'd assume it's the former. (Yes, I know there's google but that's 1/2 hr for me and 10 seconds for someone who does this for a living so I'd appreciate a quick answer :)
I'll be supporting you however is possible, but I'm an outsourced IT worker so IDK at the moment!
This is nuts though.. The libel claim is based on you've knowingly posted lies.. and I don't know.. I don't see any evidence of that - especially when I see a load of crap. I "invented" some e-mail programs!
This is the first thing that's got me pissed off enough to register and if this (redacted) out-guns you I'll be pissed. I really hope someone puts up defense pro-bono.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow.. Most redic crap I've seen in a while.
For Mr. Ayyadurai to win his case, he must prove that Techdirt made knowingly false statements of fact when the site printed articles that rebutted his claims of having invented email, and that the site did so with reckless disregard to whether those statements were true. His main hurdle in such a case will be the best defense against a charge of defamation: the factual truth. The history of the programs and standards that would become email as we know it today is well-documented. A lot of the work on those programs and standards predates Mr. Ayyadurai's work by several years, and his work had no real effect on their development.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wow.. Most redic crap I've seen in a while.
Apparently I've got to get used to how threads/replies work here because my inbox just got hit and there's nothing in the threads :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wow.. Most redic crap I've seen in a while.
The problem is, it's often not a case of winning or losing the legal argument.
The cost of trying to win the argument can be greater than you can afford, so often cases can be decided purely on the amount of funds available to either party. Sorta "whoever blinks first loses" where 'blinks' is "runs out of money".
It could cost several million dollars to defend such a suit.
That is one of the purposes behind various anti-SLAPP statuettes passed in some states, where they recognise that the mere act of defending oneself against a frivolous lawsuit can send you bankrupt before a judgement before a court verdict is even reached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow.. Most redic crap I've seen in a while.
In this case, it comes down to Mr. Ayyadurai's "war chest" versus Techdirt's "war chest", and Ayyadurai appears to have the bigger bankroll to work with. (I have to wonder if possible vampire Peter Thiel is funding this suit.) He can afford to lose more, especially if he believes he can come out of this game with as few losses as possible - or even a net gain.
That is why we need stronger anti-SLAPP laws (in addition to a federal one): To stop a negative-sum game based on a faulty premise - in this case, that Techdirt printed lies about Mr. Ayyadurai when it said he did not invent email - before all the players get in too deep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wow.. Most redic crap I've seen in a while.
There's a third side that always wins: The lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bs lawsuit
If there is anything I can do--and encourage my small circle and their weirdly large concentric circles to do--please reach out to me and let me know. I am not wealthy but every little bit counts.
John Anker
Jcanker@hotmail.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I was an insider for a while, and have several of your shirts.
Good hunting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is already a way to shut up TD if Ayyadurai wants
$100,000,001 SILENCE TECHDIRT
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is already a way to shut up TD if Ayyadurai wants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alas
The lawsuit is baseless in many ways because the guy did not invent email, he invented AN email. It may have been new to him, it may have been new to his country, but it wasn't new in the world. There in lies the problem: he's not wrong when he says he invented email, if you speak generally and without qualifying that point.
Pointing out that he is not the inventor of email (the whole world concept) is totally acceptable and cannot be argued. It is true and can be backed up with plenty of examples well back in time line of computing.
However, making fun of him, calling him names, and making comments about his character and such may cross the line. The guy actually has a pretty reasonable case here. If he has deep enough pockets or a lawyer (lawyers) willing to spend the time papering things over, this could go for years and literally cost millions. Without a doubt, the survival of Techdirt is at stake, at least in some way until EFF decides to provide pro-bono legal help.
It brings a more solid question for discussion, that of sites being responsible for the content they publish, and considering the repercussions of nastygram style blogs that may cross the line somewhere. It's not something that Techdirt has ever wanted to face up to but it is something that needs to be considered. Some of the recent posts by people like Karl are starting to push on nasty insults and insinuations of things that are not easily proven. A big company with deep pockets (or a Peter Thiel) could empty this place out faster than a stink bomb in a high school bathroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alas
None of those things is illegal. Trying to avoid being sued by wealthy snowflakes is no basis for a quality website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alas
You may consider it morally repugnant, but it is not illegal.
Assume I were to call Mike Masnick "a rotten piece of shit". Mr. Masnick is obviously not a pile of decaying fecal matter, so my statement would be one of opinion - in this case, an opinion of his character. As much as Mr. Masnick may dislike my opinion, I am legally allowed to express it without prior restraint or post-expression legal punishment. An opinion is not a defamatory statement in and of itself.
Now assume I were to say, "Mike Masnick is a rotten piece of shit because he raped and murdered a male prostitute in the summer of 2009." (Sidebar: my apologies, Mike; I am just making a point!) While I would still be expressing an opinion about Mr. Masnick's character, I would also be making a factual statement about Mr. Masnick that is false, and I would be making it without caring that the statement is false. That is a defamation, and Mr. Masnick could damn well sue me into oblivion for it.
Techdirt has insulted Mr. Ayyadurai for making factual claims that can be disproven - which Techdirt has also done - and using the legal system to silence his critics. If he feels he does not deserve these insults, he is welcome to feel that way. (Perhaps he could also act like less of an asshole if he wanted to help his public image.) But he is not welcome to sue Techdirt because it made factual statements that are actually true. Any lawsuit that succeeds in doing so will be a gross violation of the First Amendment and a victory for censors and legal bullies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alas
Saying someone is a rotten piece of shit isn't an issue. The question comes when you raise points of fact, calling someone a thief, a liar, or saying they are running a scam when it's not true can (and does) harm their character.
Techdirt has insulted Mr. Ayyadurai for making factual claims that can be disproven
The plaintiff feels otherwise, and in some small way may be right (he created the first mail system he was aware of, possibly the first one in his country, etc). Moreover, he has a pretty solid judgement against Gawker to back up his position. The question of fact is disputable (both sides would have factual basis for their claims), but it would not excuse maligning his character or making statements about the man that may make it harder for him to do business or would change the nature of how people perceive him, especially if those claims are not entirely backed up by the facts.
I don't think it's right. All I am saying is that I think it's going to cost Techdirt a bigger pile of money than they have to prove otherwise, perhaps the ultimate in Pyrrhic victories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Alas
Also, the plaintiff does not have a judgement against Gawker. He and Gawker settled the suit for $750000.00 and it never went to trial. Thiel was funding multiple lawsuits against Gawker at the time and after the Bolea verdict against Gawker they could no longer afford further litigation so they settled any remaining suits as the path of least resistance. The plaintiff does not have any judgments in any court of law confirming his claim as correct. It would be almost unimaginable that any court could ever side in his favor. This is all about a war of attrition to use the cost of defending such a lawsuit to bankrupt the defendant. This is meritless weaponized litigation used for punishment, not justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alas
"The lawsuit is baseless in many ways because the guy did not invent email, he invented AN email. It may have been new to him, it may have been new to his country, but it wasn't new in the world. There in lies the problem: he's not wrong when he says he invented email, if you speak generally and without qualifying that point."
Let me change a word and show you how silly that argument is:
"The lawsuit is baseless in many ways because the guy did not invent the car, he invented a car. It may have been new to him, it may have been new to his country, but it wasn't new in the world. There in lies the problem: he's not wrong when he says he invented a car, if you speak generally and without qualifying that point."
Sounds ridiculous because it is. Invention by definition is creating something that didn't exist before, not a your own version version of an extant system. Naming your program Email is not 'inventing email', which is what he very specifically claims to have done.
"However, making fun of him, calling him names, and making comments about his character and such may cross the line."
Firstly, it actually it crosses no legal line at all. That's all perfectly legal and is absolutely not libel unless it's knowingly and provably false. Secondly, what you refer to as making fun of him, calling him names, and making comments about his character I would describe as quite accurate descriptions of this guy. If someone makes such egregious and easily disproved claims that almost nobody believes (where are all his supporters?), and also public shits on the people that actually invented email, he fully deserves to be ridiculed and called a liar and a fraud, because that's what he is.
"Some of the recent posts by people like Karl are starting to push on nasty insults and insinuations of things that are not easily proven."
Post some examples. I suspect you may be mocked for your choices though...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Alas
"My Name Here" is Whatever's pseudonym after he got caught out running "Just Sayin'" after he abandoned "horse with no name".
The longstanding Prenda fan has come to gloat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Alas
My post will be moderated for a few days, but that's okay, it needs to be said anyway.
This shit again, Whatever? How many sockpuppets are you going to pull out of your ass? And reusing pseudonyms, no less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
see Chery Jacobus v. Trump dismissal ruling
The judge said that context is the key.
She also noted the recent article called, How the Internet is Loosing our Grip on the Truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fighting fund?
I would be very happy to donate myself, & heavily promote it amongst my social-media circles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying losers
Shiva is the Hindu Goddess of destruction. This is apropos, as these lawsuits are an egregious effort to destroy Free Speech. Disagreeing with someone should not be actionable. I myself invented DIRT. Thus, plants grow and earthworms have a home. Shiva's claim smacks of hubris and snake oil. His lawsuit is an abuse of the legal system. (I really did invent dirt, so sue me.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
suggestion
I go my own problems, but I pray you get decent jurors that that still have two neurons and possibly some DOS or something under their belts to bring this horsepoo to an end. IF they call me as juror that insane dude's toast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another place to get this issue out is RITLABS
This lawsuit needs a really hard wack right back into the evil voodoo source. his claim also defame's other email programmers -imo. I can see hundreds of angry dev's. Evolution in Linux, Kmail, on and on and on. let em fight existing GNU vs (TM)
History also has an argument. Just cause someone says something doesn't make it the truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Origins of email
I am sure you would be able to find many individuals in the USA who were actual users of email long before 1982, indeed from the early 1970s.
The French Minitel system which started in 1978 and the UK's Prestel system (from 1979) also included an email system. Indeed Prestel also had interfaces to other systems such as Telex.
All these systems were more than a simple terminal to terminal communication system but depended on a central store which held messages sent until a subscriber signed to collect their email at al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Origins of email
America has laws to protect against what we call Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP. These laws are supposed to protect people from vexatious and baseless lawsuits on First Amendment grounds (e.g., someone getting sued because they printed factual information that embarassed someone else).
The problem is that anti-SLAPP laws are a patchwork throughout the country, with some states having either none or weak ones, and some states having strong ones. (There is also no federal anti-SLAPP law.) Mr. Ayyadurai sued Techdirt in a state with a weak anti-SLAPP law, which was part of the point - if he had sued Techdirt in California, the suit would likely be tossed out under that state's much stronger law.
There is also something else to consider: Mr. Ayyadurai is not in this "game" to vindicate himself in a court of law. Outside of a ridiculous amount of bad luck, Techdirt would have little trouble proving the truth of the factual claims made about Mr. Ayyadurai and his claims of inventing email. By now, he has to know that he could never win a fair court case. So a lawsuit like this one is meant to be a war of attrition - he wants to drain the site's resources until it is forced to shut down, at which point he can claim "victory" over another critic. He does not give a shit about whether a court believes his claim; he cares only if he can hoodwink a court long enough to force his critics into bankruptcy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Origins of email
Some states do, but America, in general, does not because there is no federal SLAPP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's in with Deepak Chopra, another master of ''woo woo"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/08/fran-drescher-marries-shiva-ayyadurai_n_5784020.htm l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: He's in with Deepak Chopra, another master of ''woo woo"
Ayyadurai and Drescher both claimed that they had gotten married, and the event was widely reported as such. Later, when no one could an official record of the marriage, Ayyadurai finally admitted it was not "a formal wedding or marriage"...
It seems that he has recurring problems with the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: He's in with Deepak Chopra, another master of ''woo woo"
No?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let Me Add this
I don't wish this on anyone. You have been dragged into a gun fight without even a knife to work with. Worse yet, because this site tends to get a bit mouthy and insulting towards people, there is plenty of ammo that can be used to keep you turning around for ages. A deposition could turn really, really, really bad in a hurry.
So the real question is "how do you get out from under this?". No amount of money you will raise here will ever put you in the ballpark to fight this guy properly. You might be able to slip out of it through some legal maneuvering, but that would at best be a temporary reprieve as he is sure to come back for more - he can afford to keep biting at your feet. Even with EFF and other groups providing legal assistance or representation, winning or losing would mean this is an "all the way to SCOTUS" deal. While that is all going on, the site would suffer your absence, your posted would suffer a certain level of second guessing and gun shy leanings to avoid other similar lawsuits (others may smell blood), and even more important perhaps is that what little outside work you have may dry up as your attention is diverted to this issue. It could take years and years to get to the end of it all.
So, how do you get out from under it? There are few ways to do so without losing both your dignity and your bully pulpit. Win, lose, or settle out of court, you are wounded. A quiet settlement and dismissal would likely be the best for you, but I don't think that it's likely they will want to settle. This type of lawsuit is similar to the Gawker suits, it's there not just to right the wrong they see, but to punish you severely for it and likely shut you up.
Good luck. I'm not your biggest fan, but it would suck to see you run out of town by this guy and his legal guns. There is the legal version of the red laser dot on your forehead now, think carefully before you make your next move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let Me Add this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let Me Add this
You have to frame the amount against Mike Masnick and Techdirt both having strong down years in income (ad revenues off 90% according to Mike). 500k would appear to be as unlikely as a billion in that context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight the good fight
I contributed to the Insider program again this year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the fight ahead
We also need the Popehat torch to be lit and get every lawyer in defence of this to help make a stand, if this goes the wrong way it will open a floodgate of lawsuits against anyone over anything they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nobody should be punished for speaking the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contributions to Litigation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously... fvck this guy
Unblocked ads for you guys. Please destroy this man so I never have to digitally read his name again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If There Is A Way, You Need To Sue Thiel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pledged on Patreon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.inventorofemail.com/feedback.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you *do* write to protest, please be polite and professional. And maybe make it clear that you're writing on your own initiative and that TechDirt itself never asked or encouraged anyone to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ready to donate ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ready to donate ...
nvented
e-mal"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try reaching out ot Ira Rothken
Maybe he could help pro bono?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shiva Ayyadurai's Lawsuit
-- PC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'just signed up as well as a TD insider. The articles here are interesting, informative and well researched.
Ready to donate -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blog posting on the lawsuit
Thought you might find my take on this lawsuit interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/12/gawker-techdirt-and- the-first-amendment-under-fire
Please let me know if you're looking for pro bono counsel - I have pretty good connections with good lawyers, and might be able to help you find someone.
David Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt gear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule 11 can substitute for a SLAPP motion here
This case is so obviously frivolous that its filing violates Rule 11, which requires the filing attorney to attest a reasonable, good-faith belief that what is filed is TRUE.
That bar will be missed in a very provable way once a response is filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Throughout the entire process (via the Checkout! link, not PayPal or Amazon), there was no currency indicator. That should be up front where you enter the donation amount.
- I didn't get the Insider Badge. But then other than entering the email address on the checkout page, there was nothing to link the donation to my Techdirt account. Not a problem; I'm happy being just a casual visitor.
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go Team TechDirt!
I would love to see MR or KW or any of the other "extremely effective" players in 1st AM defense make a move here, and am patiently waiting for that, as well as the "okay okay, donate to us" page.
I did try to get some background info for you... I called Dell Technical Support and asked who invented email and the guy on the other end said "Shiva Ayyadurai, idiot"... in a Mumbai accent... and hung up on me. /s
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tech support
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real history of email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So while I would agree with you this lawsuit is wholly woithout merit and the complainant is an idiot, I can't say I have much sympathy for you at all. From a coment above, a good summary "Worse yet, because this site tends to get a bit mouthy and insulting towards people, there is plenty of ammo that can be used to keep you turning around for ages."
As you may have guessed, I am from the alt-right, and we have to endure thousands of fake news/outright lie/insult attacks on us every day, coming from people like you, who will torture any "fact" until it suits your agenda, get us banned from social medias, dox us, seek to end our careers etc - just for having a viewpoint that differs from yours. So while this lawsuit is not the right method, I mentally file it under "Karma: what goes around comes around", in view of all the idiotic assertions about people on the right made here, in posts and comments, over the last few years. Is that too harsh, probably, but like most of the people I know on the right, we are totally fed up to the sky with the antics of the left. See "SJWs Always Lie" for more.
I've joined the alt-tech movement, and our goal is to destroy all of the current digital left-coast elite and every one of their vile leftoid propaganda organs posing as businesses. Which plans are well into the implementation stage, I am pleased to report. The left has had a good run for the last 50 years, but it's over now, the pendulum is swinging back to the right, so I hoped you enjoyed your time in the sun while it lasted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I am from the alt-right"
This was obvious when you used the word 'leftoid'. The rest of your comment is pretty much garbage after that.
"The left has had a good run for the last 50 years"
There is no left in the US. The closest you got from left was Obama that was just right wing, not nazi right wing.
"the pendulum is swinging back to the right, so I hoped you enjoyed your time in the sun while it lasted."
Last time this happened we had World War II. Just thought I should mention it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Was. It no longer exists in its original form. I understand there are those among us who would like to bring it back, though. With a different name, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
tl:dr - same thing could easily happen today, and probably already has (cough cough, Trump)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This should definitely win funniest comment of the week!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't believe you should be silenced. But I wish you would shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think you should go to Emergency 'No-Name'
I think you should go to Emergency 'No-Name'... you invertebrate chest-pounding tard!
Tillerson; Sessions; DeVos; Price; Mnuchin; Ross; Mattis; Carson; Kelly; Zinke; Perry; Priebus; Haley; McMahon; Pruitt; Flynn; Pompeo... most of these nutters won't get past the exams - that' means not graduating you dill-pickle fuck.
No-Name, have you ever looked in the mirror and said to yourself, "Man, I am really fucked up..." 'cuz couz, you are really fucked up. Do you seriously believe that everything that has been fact checked ten thousand times over is Propaganda/Fake News/Outright Lies???
I have spoke with Alt-Right members, and I was wondering what your alt-right defenders are saying. Do your Alt-Right buddies talk about No Wall? Immigration proposals that will never take effect? Fuck Obama Care? Talk about a time when Women just stayed in the Kitchen and spoke when spoken to? Grabbed Beers when told to grab Beers? Talk on War like there is no consequences? Pretty much everything President Elect Trump has promised to the Alt-Right is never, NEVER going to happen. What do you think will happen when thirty-million people... Citizens find themselves suddenly with out Health Care?? How about that Pussy Grabbin' game? You know, reduce Women's Rights to the level that the Greeks were using?
The President Elect is, to be honest, a Sociopathic Sexual Predatory Misogynist who is a tool of the Russian President.
Trump will get next to nothing accomplished in his First Hundred Days (bank on it), and all those promises made and broken to your Alt-Right friends have really pissed them off, and they're prolly talkin' 'bout a Second Amendment Resolution for the that lying, insane prick as well.
They even talk about that ^ solution on Radio, and television, and I'm pretty sure they mean business, 'cuz they're obviously not afraid to say it... dwell on that one.
And, again to be honest, You're sounding as close to nuts as they get.
I gotta see a Man about a Horse :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight the Good Fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
using available tools
Something else might be to shield ownership behind a maze of off-shore corporations, such that determining who to sue would be very costly and time consuming (if not impossible)for a would-be plaintiff.
These ideas do not apply to the current case, but might shield others from similar attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using available tools
Any decent lawyer would just sue both entities or their common owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: using available tools
My first thought was along the lines of 'That seems incredibly sleazy and dishonest, a way to dodge being able to be held accountable', and then I thought about it some more, re-read your example, thought about this lawsuit, and moved on to '... and yet, when the system is this broken, I suppose I can't say I can blame those that have to respond to a gamed system by trying to game it in their favor to avoid ridiculous results'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tip to others: Get insurance for this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save the christians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pledge for support
Please keep us updated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where are your lawyer buddies?
Sounds like someone needs better friends.
Anyone ever think these "free speech" lawyers are really just arms deals are who are profiting immensely from the inevitable litigation that results when they encourage websites and individuals to hide behind Section 230? If they didn't think so before, they should now, because these lawyers are awfully silent, telling Techdirt "you're on your own."
When someone chooses to be a pawn they shouldn't be surprised when the "King" (or say another religious or political leader) throws them under the bus by leaving them hanging out to dry.
Being so full of yourself that you refuse to consider the other's point of view sounds like the real culprit here. At least now you know who your true friends are, and aren't. So sorry the lesson was so expensive for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are your lawyer buddies?
"Hide behind". Also interesting. I guess one should tiptoe everywhere in order to avoid upsetting abusive bullies.
"Being so full of yourself". I don't even know where that comes in, but it seems you just like saying things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where are your lawyer buddies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are your lawyer buddies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where are your lawyer buddies?
Being so full of yourself that you refuse to consider the other's point of view sounds like the real culprit here.
And what's the other's point of view in this case? A demonstrably false claim of ownership to inventing email, and a willingness to drag others into ruination by means of litigious attrition.
Most rational individuals would consider that fucking insane, not just one independent blog. Your claim of a "real culprit" is a sham.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where are your lawyer buddies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How's it going!
anything I can do... Let me know!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any updates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you put yourself in VA Shiva's Shoes?
You cannot write something without proper due-diligence and defame a guy.
You did not invent Email in 1978.
If you had done it, and faced this situation, you would have long sulked.
Regards
Anthonisamy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if we disagree with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pledge to help me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Amendment Help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could use a little help
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EMAIL invention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anthing new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
origins of email
I was a Multics analyst back in 1977. The copyright dates on the Multics email software are probably publicly available at the Multics repository at MIT. Since the other members of the group worked on PDP 10's and 20's and other worked on IBM Mainframes, they all needed email. IIRC my rmail address back in 1977 was RShetron@RADC-Multics.gov.
This guy is doing nothing but abusing the legal system and any innocent person he can find who can't afford to defend themselves against frivolous lawsuits.
You can also check the publication dates on the RFC's describing internet email going back well before 1982. He can claim to have written software conforming to the internet email RFC's, but that is not inventing email. In fact, if his software was internet compatible, how did he invent something described in the RFC's?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.floor64.com/contact.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craigslist Denies Me Freedom of Speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really hope you can get this tossed and file a counter suit against the guy
I used to use read you more during 2005-2015, right now i'm unemployed, with so many painkillers and just under a 2000 dollars of private insurance a month + some 700 something from the government from a work related injury, one that comes with repeated movement inherent to the job and being forced to work because I was out of sick days. So, I take morphine tablets and some cannabinoid pharmaceutical called Cesamet to counter the morphine nausea. Otherwise if i was working right now I'd throw a thousand at you TD. You've been telling it like it is since so long and your manifesto articles to the right are still as relevant as ever.
Only on question, did you make the propornot "blacklist" that contained a ton of real untainted journalism sites, but because they don't agree with the CNN narrative of geopolitics, they're spreading bullshit by default. Robert Parry of consortiumnews said he was actually pleased to be on the list of websites that is considered something the government would rather the braindead citizens never read.
Sure there was some crap in there, yournewswire, beforeitsnews, but anyone with some sense is able to seperate real from fake. I know Bob Parry, since the 80's, he worked with Gary "2-bullets-behind-the-head-suicided" Webb, won pulitzers etc. We need investigative journalists in every field, not dittoheads.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]