The Chilling Effects Of A SLAPP Suit: My Story
from the no-fun-at-all dept
Last week, I presented at the always excellent Personal Democracy Forum event in NY, talking publicly for the first time about the lawsuit that's been filed against us. Specifically, what I chose to talk about is the real chilling effects that such a lawsuit can have -- and has already had on us. We've written about SLAPP defamation suits for many, many years. But it's (unfortunately) different (and much, much worse) to experience it yourself. You can see the video here, which got more emotional than I had expected it to be.
If you agree that these chilling effects are a dangerous attack on free speech, please consider supporting our ongoing reporting via any of the following methods: ISupportJournalism.com, Patreon.com, our own Insider Shop, or perhaps you want to buy some t-shirts, hoodies, mugs or stickers. However you support us: thank you. Related to this, I also want to thank both the staff and attendees at PDF, who were amazing, kind, thoughtful and helpful to me over the course of the event.
Separately, Ars Technica just published a long deep dive article on the claims that the plaintiff in the case against us, Shiva Ayyadurai, has made. It's a worthwhile read.
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: anti-slapp, charles harder, chilling effects, defamation, email, free speech, shiva ayyadurai, slapp, techdirt
Companies: floor64, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
This may be "tech" and may be "dirt", but is neither important nor interesting.
Techdirt is the most wacky site I've run across, for sheer lack of proportion. Useful to me for diversion from the real world.
I do hope this unique irrelevance isn't handed over in the looming settlement with Ayyadurai. From what I hear, Masnick may escape for a million five and keep the site.
[ First attempt on another thread blocked by "Moderation"! Again, I wouldn't complain about that except that Techdirt does not state it reserves the right, isn't honest because doesn't state that its message is biased, but sneaks its censoring out of sight. ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Warning, warning!
Intruder alert, aliens attempting to breach the perimeter.
Captain to the bridge.
Shields buckling.
More power to the shields.
It's not working, shields down to 23%
Reverse shield polarity, the alien is out of phase with normal space.
The power grid is off-line.
Switch to emergency power.
Emergency power won't do any good, it's not the power generator that is off line, the power grid is off-line and cannot transport power.
More power to the power grid.
All circuits overloaded.
Resistance is futile, I am immune to logic or reason. I have an agenda and you WILL comply.
Use a hologram to recreate the power grid and send more power to the shields.
Structural integrity at 10%
I don't recognize your euphemism 'integrity'. Prepare to die.
The shields have collapsed, alien intruder infiltrating.
Set the auto-destruct for 5 minutes, authorization Z 3492 Delta. That'll fix em.
No, no, no, not the auto-destruct...well, OK, what if I promise to meekly return to my intended course and find a less resilient species to intimidate?
Cancel auto-destruct.
Resume course, warp 9, and keep an eye out for more alien intruders. They tend to swarm posts like this.
Captain's log...supplemental...Even though this species is out of phase with normal space, their tendency to fire spitballs when logic, reason, and verifiable facts are more effective weapons indicates that the threat is minimal. Best strategy, ignore the irrelevant tactics. 'He who has faith need have no knowledge.[1]'
[1] Eiji Yoshikawa from Musashi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow....the troll is strong in this one. Guess Techdirt escaping damages because of the law just doesn't figure in to your reality.
What's the weather like in your reality?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Learn the First Amendment...
A) Are a conspiracy theory nut-job who somehow finds credibility in Ayyadurai's insane claim.
B) Have a hard-on for attacking Masnick because Troll
C) Ayyadurai himself ranting on here as an Anonymous Coward
Ayyadurai's self aggrandizement and attempt to rewrite history is a deplorable tactic. The thought that he has to resort to these kinds of free-speech-stifiling activities only reaffirms that his argument holds no water.
I don't care about Ayyadurai's feelings, his skin is thinner than the Gollum-Dictator in Turkey... this is a mess he made himself. Masnick, on the other hand, is just doing his job as a journalist and is being punished for speaking truth. Yeah, he said mean things about this scam artist, but they are wholly deserved.
Not being able to call a liar, a fraud, or a scam artist by their names, is what got us into this mess... if TD loses this court case... watch out journalists... the Political-Correctness police will be coming for you... which is literally what this article is about... stifling free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
And where do you hear that?
Either someone connected to the case has violated legal confidentiality, or you're lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UMDNJ already had email
I'm not sure what this new email program was, but I never heard of it and never used it. I had my rutgers[.edu] address, which if I recall was only one '!' away from decvax.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UMDNJ already had email
That's only because of Shiva's second invention. You see, after he invented e-mail, he invented time travel and went back in time to bless you with e-mail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: UMDNJ already had email
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
But before you make any "unjustifiably insulting" claim, read up on Ayyadurai's own statements. The Ars Technica article linked above is a good place to start. Anyone who documents the history of email, Ayyadurai labels liars and racists. He calls Vint Cerf - a co-inventor of the TCP/IP protocol - a liar and says that he knows nothing. When Ray Tomlinson - who worked with networked email in the 1960s - died last year, Ayyadurai declared "Tomlinson dies a liar"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
You...do realize that you just posted as an AC, yes?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
He should have posted under his real name, like you and I do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
The joke is ok but the logic isn't broken properly. ;)
signed,
merely in my humble but protected opinion,
Only Slightly Hinged Pseudonymous Wotsit
pirate, defamation artist, and party line democrat by some accounts, because reasons
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I know. I broke the First Rule of YouTube. I am going to sit in the corner now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I could only donate in a small way, but hope that helps you keep going. Remember, your readers are proud of you all!
P.S. I just invented email, it was last week, and it is so great, that people seem to think they had it all for years!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Learn the First Amendment...
For Mike to make a big push about his free speech rights (including the rights to denigrate someone) seems pretty off considering how he runs the site here.
Mike, if you want to do free speech, start at home. Stop being spiteful towards people who don't agree with you. Open your mind and accept that not everyone sees the world your way. Otherwise, this place turns into a Trump cabinet meeting, where all the toadies suck up and that's all you get.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I saw that too. Janice Duffy, Patrick Zarrelli & Richard Bennet all crawled out of the woodwork to comment there.
I found the Ray Gordon guy to be the funniest though:
I wonder where Mr. Gordon would post all those comments if Section 230 didn't exist?
The best Gordon line is this one though:
He makes it sound like fighting a $15 million lawsuit is as easy as walking into Micky D's and ordering a burger. Not to mention that Techdirt is currently waiting on the court's decision concerning the motions to dismiss that have already been filed and argued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
well ayyadurai is outright LYING and profiting off the suffering of others
hes a piece a shit
and no matter what he does ot mike and this site
it doesnt change how much a goof he is
carrying on mike
chronoss
chair of a ....hacker assocaition
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
I thought that term referred to the first amendment. Apparently you think it is some law that websites must adhere to - funny that.
I think you are confused. Mike has a first amendment right to not have the government allow censoring via civil law suits. Search on the term SLAPP for more details. You on the other hand do not have a first amendment right to post what ever the hell you want upon any website you so choose as that is not under the jurisdiction of the government. Got it?
Not sure wth the rest of your post is about so I'll just ignore it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
That would require them to be relevant in the first goddamn place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: On this WHINING, headline should be "Emotional Toll Of DEFAMATION". But not a hint that Ayyadurai has feelings too: to Ma snick, it's all about HIM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
To avoid wasting too much time on you, I'll stick with the tl;dr version:
1) Spam filters aren't censorship.
2) As for having your comments reported, take it away xkcd.
(As an aside thanks for the laugh. Having you of all people chide Mike for being 'spiteful towards people who don't agree with you' is easily the funniest thing I've read today.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
I would add this as a supplement (and just to be clear, contrary to the title of the post I'm not referring you to it because you're wrong about the First Amendment, I'm just trying to preempt this argument before somebody else brings it up):
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the -first-amendment/
SLAPP suits do raise First Amendment concerns even though they're not congressional action, because they use the instruments of the state to punish people for exercising free speech.
Flagging some jagoff's comment on a website, of course, does not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have never seen someone move the goalposts as much as Shiva did in that Ars Technica article. Yikes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
"Flagged by the <i>community</i>." As in, the people visiting this site. Remember, the right to free speech isn't the right to listen to your assholishness.
And trust me, no matter how Ayyadurai conducts himself now, he will forever be an asshole, in my eyes. The reasons boil down to the people he's aligned himself with, and the fact that he is fully intending to silence any criticisms of his accounts.
Now, don't get me wrong - what Ayyadurai did in the late 70s and early 80s was actually pretty impressive work, all things considered. But <i>it was not at the cutting-edge of the field.</i> That is my contention with his accounts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
For you to believe you can force a privately-owned platform into hosting your speech seems ignorant of at least a century’s worth of First Amendment jurisprudence, considering your apparent infatuation with the idea of free speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
I have not seen any evidence that Shiva’s program, impressive though it may be in the context of what he accomplished at the time, influenced anyone who actually worked on the standards and protocols that became the email system as we know it. The same goes for evidence that anyone outside of his school or his narrow sphere of influence ever saw his program.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
His entire claim is based on a shifting of the goalposts: specifically, that email means what he says it means instead of what everybody else says it means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Say, weren't you in effect stifling Ayyadurai's speech? He has a right to claim whatever. No one has to believe, but he can claim.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is going to be fun.
What has Techdirt (or Mr. Masnick in particular) done to silence Mr. Ayyadurai’s speech in any way? Because that Ars Technica article seems to prove that no one has stifled his speech.
Does it matter? Ayyadurai has made a claim of defamation; he has to prove that claim by proving Techdirt issued knowingly false statements with reckless disregard for the reputation of Mr. Ayyadurai.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Claims are easy, backing them up though...
He can claim whatever he wants, just like other people are free to point out where his claims aren't backed by evidence, but when he switches from claims of something to demanding people accept his version as truth, and attempts to shut down those that refuse to accept his claims as the 'truth' he doesn't just step over the line he takes a running start and pole-vaults over it.
Pointing out that the claims someone made aren't backed up by evidence is not, in any way, 'stifling' their speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
Criticism does not stifle speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
You are correct that Ayyadurai has the right to "claim whatever". But just as surely as he has the right to make his claims, Masnick has the right to criticize those claims, and to do so vociferously and even rudely.
Masnick hasn't done anything to infringe on Ayyadurai's speech. He has not used the machinery of the state to attempt to silence him.
Ayyadurai, by contrast, has used, and is using, the machinery of the state to attempt to silence Masnick. That's what this lawsuit is: he's claiming that Masnick has defamed him, and that his defamatory speech should be suppressed.
That claim is untrue. Masnick made no defamatory statements. "Defamation" doesn't just mean name-calling; it requires making false factual statements, or statements of opinion that imply false facts. Masnick did neither of those things. He stated opinions, and he provided thorough, ample citations of sources to back up those opinions. No false facts were stated; no false facts were implied; no defamation occurred.
If you read Harder's filings, you will see that they don't dispute any factual claims Masnick made. They take issue with words like "liar" and "fraud", but those aren't factual statements, they're opinion. ("Fraud" is not used in the legal sense of "committed fraud"; it's used in the colloquial, conversational sense where it means, essentially, the same thing as "liar". There is copious court precedent establishing that calling a person a fraud is protected opinion.)
Criticism is legal. Name-calling is legal. Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) are illegal, at least in the state of California, where Masnick and Techdirt reside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
Sadly the 'and is going to lose in court' isn't necessarily true, not because he has a solid case, but rather thanks to our delightful legal system.
It's entirely possible to lose a case even if the facts are on your side simply because you can no longer afford to fight back thanks to the case dragging on long enough. The other side merely has to make it too expensive to fight back, draining you of all your resources, until eventually you are forced to 'settle' and cave in to the demands presented to you.
(This is how he 'won' his case against Gawker, not in court, but simply because thanks to the Hogan case they ran out of funds to fight back and had to settle the various cases against them, his included.)
The case here has 'SLAPP' written all over it, and while hopefully the judge will find that california's decent anti-SLAPP law applies and dismiss it on those grounds, it serves as yet another fine example of why a strong federal anti-SLAPP law is desperately needed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is going to be fun.
I can easily see this becoming a TV series once his empire crumbles and the average Joe on the street conflates his name with sleazy snake-oil peddlers who ruin their own reputation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
Purely opinion here, but making money off of his clearly fraudulent claims of having invented email might fit such a charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Reported for fake nick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Censoring posts or blocking posters because you do not agree with them is bad moral form for someone who claims to fight for free and open speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Here we have an example of people responding to him _within the hour_ of him posting his typical rubbish.
What horse with no name/Whatever/Just Sayin'/fitta is really pissed about is that nobody considers him insightful. But then you really only have to look at his posts, which amount to little more than "I disagree with you, I troll you, now accept me!"
But what else could you expect from a bitter, grumpy git who hates fair use?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Techdirt’s owners/admins has every right to moderate the comments sections here however they see fit. That moderation does not really amount to the silencing of voices when those same voices can say their piece elsewhere. I would have far more of a problem with that if Techdirt nuked all dissenting speech from the comments; that, I could not defend. But for now, the only comments I see getting hidden are those that look trollish or provocative for provocation’s sake.
Techdirt is under no legal or moral obligation to host anyone else’s uncensored, unedited, unabridged speech. If your voice can be completely silenced by either the flagging system or the spam filter, you are not trying hard enough to make yourself heard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
He needs help
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
Just putting that out there to show that fraud could be used both ways. Not that that was what Mike meant when he used the term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
As I understand it the Gawker settlement resulted in him getting $750,000, so it's possible that he is in fact telling the truth there and that that is the source of the warchest he's using to fund his lawsuit against TD. While it's possible that someone with a burning hatred of TD is bankrolling the suit, similar to what happened with Gawker, given three-quarters of a million spending money like that available I don't really see any need to look further than that without some more solid evidence of a third party doing so.
The Gawker settlement could also be responsible for his confidence in filing the suit against TD, after all he 'won' that one by default, he might figure that he can do the same here as well, and if he can silence TD then that's likely to keep anyone else from questioning The Official Narrative, so in that case it would be an investment towards making sure no-one else has the audacity to do so in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You brought this on yourself
That's in and of itself, fine, it's your blog to do with what you will. But to ask for money on behalf of supporting Journalism, when you so actively slant and censor dissenting opinion in return for money, seems deceptive and wrong headed, blatantly. Time and time again, posters appearing to represent Techdirt have declared that there is nothing wrong with stacking the deck against anyone who disagrees with Techdirt opinion, including outright censorship. The Techdirt Counter Intelligence Team consistently attacks (often in purposefully disgusting ways) and censors any other opinions.
I think Techdirt Counter Intelligence is an apt name for the strategy employed by the team of individuals that coordinate their research, their profanity (often disgusting and sexual), and their censoring activities (hiding posts). This includes Stephen T. Stone, PaulT, ThatOneGuy, Wendy Cockcroft and others. Tens of thousands of posts by a small team of (likely paid) posers with a single agenda - silence Techdirt criticism. Not attractive at all, and almost always, done in a way counter to anyone's intelligence.
Why do you need Techdirt Counter Intelligence on a blog about Free Speech? Why so fierce counter attacks to other opinions? Doesn't this negate the whole "Free Speech" part of your supporting argument?
Mike, you consistently place your company and your strategy at the very edge of what is legal and ethical. You and your blog are neither honest nor straightforward. You have hurt a lot of people, personally and financially, there is no doubt about that. You chose the business model of defamation, you chose to "live on the edge" of morality and legality, and you chose the confrontations that resulted. You purposely put yourself and your friends at risk in return for money.
I do feel bad for you as a person, lawsuits are terrible things, especially the first time. Perhaps you could use the experience to consider how to stay a little farther from the "edge" of what is moral and legal, and take a little more care before defaming others. Free Speech is not free of consequences, especially when used in the way you use it, that is, deceptively to promote a hidden (and paid) agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You brought this on yourself
Bawk! #TeamShiva
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You brought this on yourself
You have hurt a lot of people, personally and financially
Who... with the exception of those actually profiled in these articles such as John Steele, Charles Carreon, David Lowery etc., are somehow never mentioned. But apparently this counts as "a lot" just to drum up the "woe is me" narrative despite having absolutely no citations whatsoever.
Small wonder why you attract the lot of antidirt/average_joe. He's the one famous for making chicken noises as his contribution to discussions. For someone who wrote a whole pile of what amounts to little more than "waaaah waaaah", I can't say it's surprising.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I am staying awake longer than I should just for this.
So what?
Protected speech, no obligation to host the speech of others, yadda yadda yadda — get to something new for once.
Disagreeing with the opinions of Techdirt writers and commenters is one thing. Trolling the comments section with rants about Alexander Hamilton, blatant sexism, and whining about “censorship” as if you cannot post elsewhere on the Interent is a whole different ballgame—one where you believe everyone else must follow your rules and to hell with a Techdirt admin’s right to moderate the comments sections.
Glad we agree on that point, at least.
I bet you watch Fox News. Religiously.
You are more than welcome to disagree with opinions presented in both the articles and the comments. But when your comments go beyond mere disagreements and into the realm of trollish absurdism or provocation for the sake of it, the community will respond in kind. If you do not like that, you can go start your own blog. Your voice will not be “silenced” there.
If we actually did work together on this sort of thing, you might have a point. But I have no idea who most of these other commenters are beyond their presence here in these comments sections, and I do not talk with anyone here outside of these comments sections. The sole exception would be Mr. Masnick, and only because I have tweeted at him a mere handful of times over the past few years.
Oh, and I do not co-ordinate my profanity with anyone. Any profane language I use is of my own personal design.
Oh please, I would do this for free any day of the week.
Says the commenter who once ranted for multiple comments about seeing the ghost of Alexander Hamilton in his dreams.
If you were presenting an opinion instead of trying to provoke attacks and make yourself look like a crazy person for the sake of trolling us, you would not receive anywhere near the kind of “fierce” reception you seem to both despise with a vengeance and anticipate with childish glee.
Why would it? You offered your speech, we offer ours, the community determines that your comment deserves to be flagged because it is trollish horseshit, and the cycle begins anew. Your voice is not permanently silenced if your comment gets flagged or held back by the spam filter; you are free to speak your mind about Techdirt elsewhere if you are so incensed about how you are treated here.
Moderating a comments section does not constitute an illegal or unethical act. Neither does calling people names. Same goes for reporting actual facts.
I believe the popular vernacular to use as a response for this sort of claim is “show the receipts”.
LOLwut.
Do not insult the intelligence of everyone here by telling this blatant a lie.
“Maybe next time you’ll think twice before you open your fucking mouth, you son of a bitch.” – Your actual words, probably
Says the commenter who complains that their speech is consistently flagged and countered by the community.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
I have long believed that this particular poster is either Shiva Ayyadurai or someone hired by him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
America does not need your brand of “service”. India could probably use it, though. Or would the caste system prevent you from doing your important work?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Yet here you are, responding to my posts as if I am. If you truly think I am the lowest of the low, why do you keep responding as if I am equal — or possibly even superior — to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
If Masnick has actually damaged any of you to a significant degree surely there must be thousands of examples you could list and cite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Psrt of the problem...
This is the same man who links to his opinions with text like "we have already shown" or "we told you about", two phrases that suggest fact and not opinion.
The level of mockery of Shiva is over the top. Tshirts? Really?
I dont like Shiva and i don't agree with his claims. I also know that it's not up to me to prove then right or wrong. There is no benefit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
If you really want to understand the Techdirt flavor of debate, just type in "shit" in the search box at the top of this page, and take a look at the results. That is the level of debate that is allowed on Techdirt. "Shit" is common not just in replies to articles, but in the article, even the name of the article itself. We wrestled with this issue hundreds of years ago, and determined that using "shit" in a debate has very, very few legitimate reasons.
About whether Techdirt and Michael Masnick have actually stepped over the line from tasteless and risky to illegal, it's quite possible that we will all see that debate play out in court. Things are much more fair in court. Judges tend to not take any shit at all. So, it will be a chance for Michael Masnick to sharpen up his other debate points. I wouldn't count him out, he's experienced, motivated, clever and has good legal counsel. He might win the debate, hard to tell, law is a tricky thing. But at least the court "field of battle" is more fair than this one, with much less shit tolerated.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
If making jokes on company names to air grievances is grounds for the complete obliteration of a website you need to start looking into 4chan and Facebook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
If Creationists and abortion abolitionists demanded Masnick's head on a pike tomorrow, antidirt would be in front of the crowd wearing a chicken suit, a cheerleader's dress and pompoms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
1. The recent example you bring up doesn't cut the mustard. Techdirt didn't make the pun; a user submitted it as a comment.
2. No money changes hands. Have you paid Techdirt to view and post here?
3. Why focus on Techdirt? If the goal is to discourage what you consider "foul-mouthed" there are plenty of websites that permit and encourage nastier commentary. Hell, one of the main points that detractors usually bring up is how Techdirt's Alexa rankings have been falling - so not only is Techdirt not even close to significantly defamatory, its significance is constantly dropping if the detractors' statistics are to be believed. Why focus on a website whose presence and significance is so small to the point that it doesn't matter in the long run?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
2. You don't know and I don't know who pays for Techdirt articles. I would assume it would not be ShipYard, who appears to be so reputable and respectable that they refused to ship perfectly good beer (>$1M) just because it did not meet their "taste" quality control standards. A wild guess - their opposition in court engaged Techdirt for some defamatory publicity. Or maybe Techdirt did the first one for free in the hope of future business. Who knows, Techdirt will never say.
3. The "over the top" T-Shirts about "I invented Email" and such just seem beyond bad taste. This site seems to be committed to making a mockery of a man running for the US Senate, even today. That just doesn't seem right to me. It feels like rhetorical terrorism is acceptable here, from blaming the "corrupt" government (both British and US) to the "perfectly designed to fail" characterization of copyright and patent law. The un-American character of this site seems worth debating, IMHO. So, now and then, I add my opinion as a community service. You have your opinion, I have mine.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A simple reminder
Mockery, insults, and statements such as “we have already shown” and “we told you about” are all protected speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
If you truly believe Techdirt has accepted money in exchange for the publication and promotion of articles such as the one you mentioned, do one thing for us:
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Basically, it's a case of readers like me not wanting to wade through what we consider drivel to get to those comments we do want to read. People have a right to speak, no doubt about it, but they don't have a right to be heard. Don't confuse the two; they're different things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
TD's crime in the cases of each of the people mentioned was "Failure to promote our narrative." Well what if their narrative and the facts don't match? That's the line TD walks. That some of our commenters talk smack about individuals and groups should not be a problem; I've had an AC come after me specifically with a view to destroying my reputation. I didn't blame Mike for it nor did I demand that the comments be removed. I won't. Why? Because, as I've said any number of times, your reputation is dependent on your own conduct, not on what others say about you. Reportage — or smack talk — merely causes people to check you out. While the dodgy comments might feature high up in the search results your own conduct ought to trump it by demonstrating that you're not the person depicted in the smack talk, etc.
I've actually tried telling people that and you can tell who won't listen by the way they behave. They do themselves no favours by lashing out at everyone who disagrees with them instead of reflecting on themselves and their attitude and thinking about how to better portray themselves going forward.
TD does nothing wrong when it reports on the actions and attitudes of others; it's up to them to ensure that their attitudes and actions are within tolerance in the first place. That said, everyone ought to be allowed to live down their past. It's no fun being an online pinata.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
And by implication, I am doing nothing wrong by reporting on your actions and attitudes, right? For example, this is your voice, Wendy, isn't it?
"It's pretty damn convenient that at a time when we're pushing back against mass surveillance, a terrorist is permitted (yes, I said "permitted") to attack the public in the hope that we'll pretty much beg them to increase their activities."
I would label that rhetorical terrorism in and of itself. Back up your statement with facts, Wendy. I submit that your narrative and the facts don't match, just as you pointed out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope. You just come off as a lower-than-low jerkbag for continually going after a single poster with sexist rhetoric and unfounded allegations. Just because Wendy is clearly higher on the social ladder than you does not excuse your actions toward her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Sure you have your opinion; doesn't mean to say it's right though. Take this gem:
"This site seems to be committed to making a mockery of a man running for the US Senate, even today."
No. This site does NOT seem to be committed to this. Techdirt's output on Ayyadurai is probably 0.01% of it's output. That's NOT being committed. Also, what the hell difference does it make that he's running for the US Senate? Are you trying to suggest that would-be US Senators deserve special snowflake privileges? For stating that he invented eMail when he clearly didn't this arrogant tosser deserves to be mocked.
Anyone who could potentially vote for him needs to know where he stands on fake news. We're all getting a little bit tired of all these lies, alternate facts, and bullshit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Creationists just employ the same shrill deluded lack-of-facts that we see here from Shiva's Trumpkins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Psrt of the problem...
Not only did the President just mostly ignore this (except when he provided some proof that shut the liar up for a while) but he ended up with the liar admitting the lies weren't true.
Now of course, the (serial) liar is up to his neck in FBI investigations.
Which party is Shiva emulating and joining?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not exactly what I would consider causing a chilling effect.
Just saying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
No it isn't. There is no moral contradiction between saying "You should be allowed to say that without fear of legal reprisal" and saying "You're not allowed to say that in my house." Just because I support the Supreme Court's ruling in Snyder v Phelps doesn't mean that I'm going to invite the Westboro Baptist Church into my living room.
If you have a difference of opinion and want to debate it rationally, there are a lot of people here who will be happy to do so. If, however, you just repeat the same talking points and catchphrases for months on end and continually detract from discussions rather than adding to them, people will start flagging you instead of feeding you.
I support My_Name_Here's right to say stupid shit and not get arrested for it. I have recommended, more than once, that he start his own blog, where he will never have to worry about getting his posts flagged.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Psrt of the problem...
So?
Unless you can point to an example of Masnick either stating false facts or implying false facts about Ayyadurai, the defamation suit is bogus.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, for starters, if he has to consult a lawyer before each and every one of those things, that's pretty expensive and inconvenient.
Second, every minute he spends on the suit is a minute he's not spending on something else, like writing articles for the site.
Third, it's not just about chilling Masnick's speech; Ayyadurai's purpose here is to make everybody too scared to criticize him, for fear of legal action.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The chilling effect has more to do with other people than with Mike Masnick. If he were to lose this lawsuit, it would send a message to anyone else who writes about Shiva Ayyadurai: “Agree with and present only his claims and his version of history, no matter how much actual facts and records contradict him, or else you will be the next Mike Masnick.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
That's hilarious! Did you have "Hail to the Chief" playing in the background when you wrote that comment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That is the problem with our system. Mike shouldn't have to hire lawyers, he should be able to walk into a court and lay out his case and a judge (or jury) should decide justice. Why should it cost money?
Our justice system is fucked, it doesn't search for justice, it doesn't seek justice, it seeks to continue the system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
I'm not a lawyer, and I know a lot less about the laws surrounding fraud than I do about the ones surrounding free speech. So it's hard for me to say. But I think you make a good point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, we've kinda got that, in that there are public defenders for criminal cases, but civil suits are a different matter.
And even if he could get a public defender, there are still other issues, like jurisdiction (Ayyadurai sued in his home state of Massachusetts; Masnick and Floor64 are based in California) and the various problems with public defenders (generally, they're overworked and understaffed and simply unable to provide quality defense in many, many cases).
There are a lot of things that need to be fixed here. A federal anti-SLAPP law would go a long way toward correcting the problem. SCOTUS has also recently narrowed the jurisdiction rules for patent suits, and maybe that will have some long-term application to other kinds of venue-shopping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
I've got a suggestion: print that statement out, and then read it into a mirror. Then you will have, for the first time ever, made an insightful and self-aware observation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
A pathological liar is someone who lies compulsively, even when he has nothing to gain by lying.
Ayyadurai lies strategically and for his own benefit. That's not pathological, it's just dishonest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Yeah, good point; I'm obsessed with Shiva Ayyadurai. I always show up in every thread about him and make sure I get the first post. I bring him up, constantly, in threads that have nothing to do with him, or with the lawsuit. When Techdirt doesn't talk about the suit for a few days, I start writing comments in other threads asking why nobody is talking about it. I've even written Shiva Ayyadurai/Melania Trump fan fiction.
No, wait, I haven't done any of those things. But man, wouldn't it be fucking embarrassing if I had?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sad thing is...
You just admitted that you are no smarter than a five-year-old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Community voting to censor a post is a different story. It's a tool that is entirely abused here. Different problem, different story. Don't confuse the two.
When it comes to my posts, you don't get a choice up front - Techdirt has already decided to make my posts harder for you to read.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
Standing ond on the head of a legal pin (which a bunch of angel's asses) is nice, but entirely missing the point.
The moral contradiction is huge. Techdirt regularly and routinely rails against sites while disable comments or who show only a limited number of comments. When a newspaper removes comments (or decides to use social media for such interactions) you know that there will be Techdirt article claiming they are not respecting their readers and so forth.
So to address your two points, simply:
1. If you want to claim free speech all the time every where, start at home. Be the shining example of free speech, not one of censorship and sneaky blocking of people. It shows a mean spirit that is not in keeping with your overall message.
2. It's not about flagging. My posts never get put up to be flagged, they get "moderated" immediately. You don't get a choice in the matter, my posts do no appear until someone from Techdirt has deemed them worthy. That could be minutes, hours, days, or never - and you don't get to flag anything for that to happen. Someone else has chosen for you (ie, censorship).
"If you have a difference of opinion and want to debate it rationally, there are a lot of people here who will be happy to do so."
There are some. There are others who only job it is to defend the good ship Techdirt at all costs. They fake post, they attack, the adhom, and they deride the person and rarely discuss the ideas except in the abstract "only an idiot would think" way. I love a good debate, when people are debating ideas and not personalities. That's a huge difference.
Ideas that are too different from the norm here get savagely attacked, on a very personal level. The debate quickly sinks into the muck, and that's too bad for the people with open minds willing to consider other viewpoints and ideas. You lose as a result.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
There is a chance in all of that paperwork of course that a mistake is made, a statement is made, or an error creeps in which either negates the effort or turns the case against him. Considering the stakes (millions of dollars, the blog) a good lawyer is way cheaper. That Mike is getting legal help apparently for nothing or next to nothing is key.
The justice system is very formal and very much about touching all the right bases. An amateur might pull it off, but not often.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Psrt of the problem...
The website should be I Support Opinion Blogs. That would be way more honest and accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Yeah... because being concerned about the court case you're in and doing something about it is being "obsessed". And only if you're the defendant, apparently. But not the plaintiff screaming at Ars Technica about how Vint Cerf doesn't know anything, for some reason that doesn't count.
Still waiting on that list of thousands of inventors and companies "getting hurt" by a website that My_Name_Here considers insignificant. Has he written any love letters to you lately?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: UMDNJ already had email
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
And yes, I've read everything I've written. I have a whole file cabinet, actually, with each of my posts and each and every response, all categorized, summarized, analyzed and reported in charts, graphs and legal conclusions. Thanks for asking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
If not, then everybody is a Creationist. They just have different views on when, what and how.
The fact that people want to use the term as a pejorative against those that believe there is an Eternal Creator that created the universe is really neither here nor there.
It's like an atheist saying that he/she doesn't believe in a god or gods. They all still have a god that they bow down and worship, from simple power over people to money, to themselves, to mankind, etc. If you look closely enough, you can find their god.
It is like a Moslem I know who has declared that a specific sport teams are gods and he meant it. It was one of those bizarre times when you wonder what strange world you had woken up in.
There are all kinds of people who dislike the "State" dictating the kind of sex education that is needed. From those who think it doesn't go far enough, to those who think it has gone to far.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
As for your assumption of my political and ideological alignments, I observe that you accept his vulgarity but not that of other posters.
Good to hear that your complaints are categorized and organized, because everyone else is still waiting on that list of people and companies ruined which you claim exists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You can disagree with Shiva with denigrating him insulting him and calling him s liar.
I know for a fact he created the first email system he had ever seen. I also know this happened long before we had worldwide computer networks.
There was likely a fair number of similar cases around the world, i know at least 1 as a fact. But it does not take away ftom Shiva claiming to have invented email at least in his country.
Sre i can disagree without baiting him onto a lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
If his claim amounted to 'I created an email program' then he wouldn't be getting any flack, because that does seem to be the case. He did indeed create an email program, possibly entirely on his own, which as far as it goes is an impressive feat.
However when he claims that he created email, even going so far as to insult people who worked on what would become the email system that people use today by claiming that that wasn't really true email and that only his version counts then it's not an 'insult' to point out that he's wrong. It's not 'baiting him into a lawsuit' to point out evidence of email development that took place years before his version came out that undercuts his claims.
If pointing out when someone is wrong is 'baiting them into a lawsuit' then you are setting the bar absurdly low, such that massive amounts of speech is likely to be chilled as people hesitate to question and protest against what they see as bogus claims for fear of being sued into the ground for doing so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Define 'atheist'.
Define 'god'.
Define 'worship'.
I ask because you seem to be using some rather novel definitions of the words that don't seem to match up to how I've seen most people use them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A good summary of your video
This is the very first post you attracted with your video.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Ray Gordon expresses his dislike - and is otherwise not involved in the case, really.
Richard Bennett mostly complains on this website about support for net neutrality. Nothing about getting ruined; in fact even he thinks the lawsuit is stupid.
Patrick Zarrelli - looks to be doing extremely well, so again, no evidence of "injury" or "ruination".
Your supposed "list" doesn't even merit half a drop in a bucket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A good summary of your video
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A good summary of your video
To be fair, I can see why he's got such a vested interest in supporting Shiva Ayyadurai, but this... is not quite the glowing example of "Aha! Got you, Masnick, bang to rights" you thought it would be. It's not much different from a gangbanger swearing revenge against the cop that arrested him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A good summary of your video
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
Making fun of him, insulting him, calling him a liar and so on starts to cross the line.
Best way to describe it is this: how many Techdirt readers previously had no opinion about the guy but now think he is a liar? Even eith a win over gawker and a (WEAK) copyright, people's opinions have been formed here based on what Mike has said and done.
Lets just say I think there is just enough meat on the bone that a dismissal up front isn't the most likely outcome. At that point a settlement becomes a better option for both parties rathen than each spending millions and years of appeals to get it cleared up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
atheist - not a theist
god - what you worship, everything from the Creator of the universe to the Beatles and everything in between
worship - anything that you do that makes you bow down (literally or figuratively) to item above, go to any (what's that bird's name, umm, she's been mentioned here before - I don't know) watsernames concerts or even the local football or basketball team's matches.
Very general, covers all sort's of activities. Australian National Religion is called Sports and the gods are the team members of any sport. Summer Cricket, Winter Football (of any stripe), January Tennis, etc, etc, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: A good summary of your video
That's not a list. I can literally use less than half my hand to point out everyone who's been "harmed" in those YouTube comments. This shouldn't be so hard for you to list people if they number in the thousands.
Or would you like to list John Steele and Charles Carreon among those who were "hurt"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why does Free Speech blog that claims to publish Journalism need Counter Intelligence at all? What is it defending? Certainly not free speech, given the censorship. What IS the agenda? That's the mystery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
From one human to another
So, one human to another, Mike, it's time to be creative. I don't think you have something worth winning here. Your adversary is just too strong, and the hoped for outcome has not come to pass. Open your mind to some new ideas, and recover your normal life and normal way of thinking and waking up every day. I'm just saying, Mike, it's obviously taking a toll on you, maybe it's really not worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
From the impression you gave it appeared that there was a vast collection of individuals and companies who hate Masnick's guts and the fact that he exists because he's such a scumbag. Giving you the benefit of doubt I entertained your claim by checking out the commentary listed as you indicated - and it turns out that the "list" isn't what it's cracked up to be. If this list of maligned people is so long and legitimate, surely there's more than three of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: From one human to another
Make sure you have a good set of information that you are working with.
If you have not done so already, ask your attorney to powwow with their attorney and product a settlement document. Just give your attorney general instructions to get you the best deal possible, but set a time limit, I would suggest one day, that will keep everybody focused.
Then just read it, non judgmentally. You will understand more, and nothing can hurt you. You don't have to give up anything (just a few attorney hours), but you can see exactly what your opponent actually wants. No one will know, it's all really confidential and can't be used against you, very strict rules about that.
So, my suggestion is just use your creative power to create this document, and don't pre-judge what you will see. Then take a look at it, and think about it. And then BANG maybe something will hit you, and you may well see a way to resolve the whole thing that's not so bad at all.
Just saying, Mike, you should use all the tools at your disposal, and this is one of them, and it's safe to use. Creating a settlement document will help you move towards resolution. And in the end, what's what everyone wants, especially you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: From one human to another
Then, you don't have to do anything for a while, just meditate on it. It won't cost you much, it won't take long, it won't hurt you, but it will move everyone, including you, towards resolution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If, and that's a big if. Yet, despite supposed thousands of people who think Masnick is a vicious deviant that needs to be removed from Internet society it's strange that he can't even list a name. The names he can list don't stand up to scrutiny after plugging those names through a search engine.
This benefit of the doubt readers are giving him is a joke. Think about it. If an inventor or corporation can be effectively, instantly destroyed by a site its opponents readily dismiss as unimportant, that's pathetic. At that point it seems that they're just vultures circling over what they hope is a corpse, an easy mark, to blame for their failure.
Notice how after your example of Zarrelli is explained, he skips it and moves on. Shiva's attack dog isn't interested in facts of discussion. If you hadn't pointed it out he'd be only too happy to include a "reputation manager" among the ranks of "American inventors" unhappy that a site nobody's heard of is critiquing them.
Until he shows some meat on the bones of his "list", i.e. names and details of court cases, safe to say you can assume that this "list" isn't anything more than bluff and myth. Wouldn't be the first time someone tried to scare users of this site with big imaginary numbers; David Lowery's pet, hurricane head, has been threatening the site with thousands of "artist friends", aka the "sleeping giant", for years. And even David Lowery is speaking out in defense of Techdirt's existence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: From one human to another
Given your adversary, I don't think there will be any alterative to either settling or litigating, which will eventually result in a lot more paper that you have to pay for. So, your focus should be on creating the settlement document that you can live with, given the circumstances, and avoid creating and paying for the other paper, it is immaterial. I don't think you have an ideal worth protecting more than your own money and peace of mind and ability to plan your future without a lawsuit hanging over you.
Again, concrete suggest to help you resolve your dilemma: focus on the settlement document, the paper itself. Bring it into existence sooner rather than later. Then shape it to your needs. But get on it, Mike, it's your path to resolve your quandary. Make it appear in front of you, just wish for it.
In all sincerity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
Thanks for the clarifications.
At first glance it seems the disconnect here is that you're using the words a lot more widely than I and most others I've come across, such that they cover a lot more than I'm used to.
'creationist' - This one leads to another definition request it would seem, what do you mean by 'created'?
For example, if I 'believe' that a carpenter 'creates' a chair, does that make me a creationist? If rainfall over a long period of time erodes a hole into the stone/dirt and 'creates' a puddle/pond, does that count as 'creation', because I certainly believe that that can and does happen, yet I certainly wouldn't classify myself as a 'creationist'.
'Atheist' - Nothing to object to here.
'god' - This one I imagine most religious people would object to rather strongly, as you seem to be lumping pretty much anything under the label. When a band is placed in the same category of a being that's capable of creating universes the word kinda loses any meaning, as anything can be a 'god', and outside of those religions that ascribe 'spirits' and 'gods' to natural forces and certain things, this doesn't seem to match what most people mean when they use the word.
'worship' - Another 'definition needed' here, what do you mean by 'bow down'? I can respect someone, or enjoy something(like say the music at a concert), but I certainly wouldn't classify that as 'worship' as the word carries a religious context for myself and most I've run across and other words seem to be more accurate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
Making fun of him, insulting him, calling him a liar and so on starts to cross the line.
As far as polite conversation goes, perhaps, though absurd claims and/or actions can earn the one saying/making them mockery and insults in turn, and I don't see a problem with that. If for example a public figure has a habit of filing legal charges against those that compare them to a certain fictional movie character then they deserve all the mockery they get for such thin-skin and thuggish behavior.
Going past that however, the first two simply aren't illegal, and the third can be a statement of opinion or more, depending on how specific you want to get, with 'just' opinion considered protected speech and a stronger statement likewise perfectly legal so long as it's backed by supporting evidence.
Best way to describe it is this: how many Techdirt readers previously had no opinion about the guy but now think he is a liar? Even eith a win over gawker and a (WEAK) copyright, people's opinions have been formed here based on what Mike has said and done.
I'd quibble over the use of the word 'win' in 'win over gawker' as I don't consider a 'win by default' a 'win' in any real sense, but as far as people's opinions beings formed based upon what Mike/TD has said, I don't see a problem there, as it's not like Mike/TD has some way to control the minds of those that visit here(unless my jokes about them finding a code to make people read articles are more spot on than I'd thought at the time...)
Mike/TD presented what was happening/had happened, backed it up by supporting evidence and citations, and shared his opinions on it all. In turn the readers read what was presented, examined the evidence/citations, considered Mike's opinions and statements and formed their own opinions on the matter. If this resulted in some or even many people coming out of the process thinking Shiva wasn't being honest in his claims and/or thinking poorly of him then that's hardly Mike's 'fault' beyond the fact that he informed them of something that they didn't know about before.
Lets just say I think there is just enough meat on the bone that a dismissal up front isn't the most likely outcome.
Whereas I see this as a pretty blatant SLAPP suit, such that dismissal up front is not only perfectly justified it should also be accompanied by an order for Shiva and his team to pay Mike/TD's legal fees as well, as a bit of incentive not to try this kind of stunt again.
At that point a settlement becomes a better option for both parties rathen than each spending millions and years of appeals to get it cleared up.
I'm pretty sure the 'better option' went out the window the minute Shiva went from complaining about Mike/TD saying 'mean' things about him and challenging his claims to filing a lawsuit attempting to shut TD down and/or bankrupt it. Given that, I don't see either side willing to back down, as it would harm their positions too much to do so.
Mike's not going to cave as doing so would cause massive damage to free speech and essentially throw a bucket of blood into shark infested waters, telling all and sundry that if Mike/TD says something 'mean' about them they can force him to remove it simply by suing, and Shiva's not going to back down as doing so would undermine his claims even more and make it even harder to convince people that his version of history is the correct one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I would have thought he'd be too busy carrying a torch for the ISPs against Net Neutrality and/or Title 2, to have any time for this, anyhow.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just a simple observation - Mike posts a heart wrenching video about the personal toll that his first lawsuit is taking on him, and that generates a response from multiple people that take the opportunity to express their grievances about Mike. Does that tell you anything at all? Even I felt bad for Mike after watching him.
How the heck can you argue that Mike and Techdirt have not harmed people, when you have this evidence staring you in the face? By employing your Counter Intelligence dossier to systematically discredit each and every person and argument, one by one? Really?
Methinks she doth protest too much.
If you were actually Mike's friend and supporter, you would be helping him get out of this mess, rather than imagining that I am "Shiva's attack dog". Really, what a lunatic you show yourself to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
It's a risk, sure(though so long as Mike's team can keep the suit focused on the actual claims I'd argue not a big one), but the alternative seems to be quite a bit worse. 'Don't post anything that someone with enough money to burn might object to, lest they bury you under legal fees whether what you said is protected speech or not'.
The entire point of a SLAPP suit is to punish someone for something they said and/or silence them, caving in just gives the one making the threat what they want, and makes it clear to others that you're a target.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Audio Only
There is a method to the madness, but not what you think. See, the human mind is pretty good at multiplexing, but listening and seeing things are the same time generally keeps our minds occupied enough that we cannot actually think about what we are seeing and hearing, we end up just sort of swallowing it whole. It makes for an interesting presentation because you don't have time to reflect or consider the views, you just take them in.
If you go back and just listen to the presentation, you will find that same sound as the dull podcasts. Without the visuals, the speech is in fact not all the impressive.
The choking up and almost crying adds to it, but honestly, it shows someone who isn't very confident in what he is saying, rather it comes off to me as a schoolboy who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and it trying desperately to explain to his parents why he shouldn't be punished.
There is also a total lack of conviction in the position. Rather than confidently claiming to beat this, the tone instead is more like "I am really scared I am going to lose my ass". This doesn't line up well at all with the the bravado that has been shown here over the years.
So turn off the visuals (scroll it off the screen if you have to) and just listen to the talk, and try to form your own opinion. Once you get to actually thinking about what is being said instead of just swallowing it whole, you will discover a whole different take on things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: From one human to another
I once had the opportunity to chat with a fellow that fought his case all the way to the Supreme Court, and then lost in a spectacular way. I asked him what he learned from the experience. I was expecting something profound, but he said "sometimes you've just gotta tell people that they're right".
That wouldn't cost you a thing, Mike, and may really help move you towards putting the whole thing behind you. True story, famous case, and I think it applies here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The list of names you have provided can literally be counted on one hand and the supposed “harm” done to them is insignificant, especially in comparison to the harm Shiva Ayyadurai wants to inflict upon Mike Masnick and Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: From one human to another
I would rather die in a gutter, penniless and naked and starving, than tell a liar that his lies are the truth. I would prefer to have my hands and legs cut off and my eyes gouged from my head than to destroy my own reputation for the sake of someone else’s ego. I would choose to suffer a torturous, agonizing, debilitating amount of pain across the next fifty years if a pain-free life meant telling someone who spreads falsehoods that they are the most honest person in the world.
How many lives will you ruin for your truth, Shiva?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A good summary of your video
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You brought this on yourself
And the funny thing is, if he wanted people to stop flagging his posts, all he'd have to do is quit announcing "Hey guys, I'm that obnoxious guy you keep flagging!" every single time he shows up. He's anonymous. All he has to do is quit announcing who he is and we won't know who he is.
Course, to do so, he'd have to quit talking about Shiva Ayyadurai, and I've seen no evidence to indicate that he has anything else to talk about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So, if you want to go on and on about your hatred and condemnation, go ahead, it's a free country. What a wrong-minded way to treat Mike, though, really. He needs some help and support with the difficult hand he has been dealt.
He's the one actually taking the personal risk on behalf of all you nasty posters, he's the one who will pay the price with his personal assets. I think you would all do better to simply let this whole Email thing go, let it go, quick stoking the fire. Mike is the one getting burnt while you all stoke the flames higher. He's the one at real risk.
How about we all support Mike in getting out of this mess. Just call it a mis-step, that he didn't know how terrible the consequences were, but now it's plain and obvious to all who watch the video that he understands how dire the consequences are.
For what is Mike taking all this heat? To support you idiots that fantasize about Evil Email guys? Let it go, this is the real world, Mike is getting pummeled, let it go. Who actually cares besides you mentally deranged idiots, anyway?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Shiva Ayyadurai’s program did not innovate, further the development of, or popularize any of the protocols and standards that became the email system as the world today knows it. He has offered no tangible evidence that contradicts those facts. Why should anyone shut up and let him rewrite history?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell you what, you step in front of the lawsuit and personally indemnify Mike for any potential harm that may come to him. Will you do that?
Not likely - you will just continue your lunatic rants for all to witness. What a coward you are, to fuel a fight that you're not even in. You are a pathetic weakling without a smattering of courage or integrity. Stand behind your words, coward. Back them up with something more than a fake name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, hey, let’s try that again.
Shiva Ayyadurai’s program did not innovate, further the development of, or popularize any of the protocols and standards that became the email system as the world today knows it. He has offered no tangible evidence that contradicts those facts. Why should anyone shut up and let him rewrite history?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You still have not answered the question at hand.
Why should people refuse to challenge or criticize Shiva Ayyadurai’s claims? Why should anyone shut up and let him rewrite history?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Simple example: at breakfast this morning, I was talking to my wife about having a baby in the future, planning for it, considering it, that kind of thing. You understand me, right, I was imagining a future with another child, kind of a magical conversation about being creative and wondering what good thing will come.
When you are actually in a lawsuit, especially one that names you personally, you can't have that kind of conversation, it's almost impossible. Your future is in complete doubt, you don't actually know if you will be able to take care of yourself, let alone a wife and a baby. It affects everything in your life, veryone you know, every waking moment, you literally change in an irreversible way.
When considered in the harsh light of this reality, who really cares about who invented Email, or exactly what that means, anyway? What higher cause are you really serving? That you are right and someone else is wrong? Well, OK, that would be fine, if YOU were the one backing up the suit with YOUR money. If it's that important to you, fine, go prove your point using attorneys @ $1,000 per page. Create a whole lot of paper, have at it.
Maybe Mike has a commitment to this cause, up to him if he does. My words only come in response to the look on his face and the tension in his voice. I don't think he was faking it, it looked real to me. It appears to be a huge personal toll on Mike, and for what? If his heart was really in it, I think he would have been able to breathe normally. I don't think his heart IS really in it, and having you guys stoke the fire of being "right" while you take NO RISK seems unfair to me.
I never imagined myself defending Michael Masnick from his own blog, but here I am. I think you guys should think about helping Mike, and not your own agendas. Watch the video again. He needs actual help to recover his life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should he, or anyone else, stay silent and refuse to challenge or criticize Shiva Ayyadurai’s claims?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Or do you expect him to sacrifice himself like a martyr in the name of your cause (whatever that might be)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
Mike himself has some interest theories about free speech and what is and isn't covered by the 1st amendment. As an example, he has on more than one occasion expressed support for the idea that copyright violated the first amendment. We know that angle got shot down when one of this previous heros tried to argue it in court.
My fear for Mike is that the legal team he has assembled (or seemingly assembled themselves) may end up going down a legal fox hole to try to prove something bigger than "this is a bad lawsuit", and in doing so will leave themselves open to lose because they failed to properly address the meat of the suit.
I also think that the courts will take a dim view of the attitude and tone that has come with Mike expressing his opinion, and for that matter how the opinion was expressed. I think the I Support Journalism site is a mistake, as it attempts to paint Techdirt as a journalistic site, when Mike then turns and claims it's only his opinion - a blog. I Support Bloggers or I Support Mike would have been a better site. It does potentially add the question of "is this journalism at all?" into the debate, and that too may not be good for the Floor64 crew.
It's important to remember these things: Shiva did invest AN email, he does have a copyight on AN email, and his email is likely the first he ever saw and possibly the first in his country. Oh, and he has a win against Gawker for pretty much saying the same things as Mike has said, and they also redacted and removed the posts in question - full settlement in his favor. It's pretty easy for a court to conclude that the plaintiff's claims are at least plausible, which means the court has merit.
If Mike's team spends the time on the facts, brings in experts, builds a proper history of email to work from, then they may have a hope to knock down the claims. However, that will be a fairly expensive endeavor.
Already I can say without a doubt that Techdirt as a site has suffered greatly with Mike being less and less active on the site and seemingly more tied up with legal issues and other problems away from the site. It use to be that Mike was 90% of the posts on the site, now it's more like 25% and on many days only 1 or 2 posts. Karl Bode copypastas his same basic post twice a day on average now!
Sadly, I think that Mike and Techdirt are going to argue the case to the absolute end, quite possibly on the wrong issues, with the goal of creating precedent. Pushing this all the way to SCOTUS seems quite possible, it would require some nice early round losses to push it up a few levels of jurisdiction, all the while bleeding both sides dry of any cash they may have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Who are the giants behind the thumbs squeezing this pimple?
I'm trying to imagine what's going on, really, to explain the "taken hostage" look on his face. It's not what I expected at all.
I understand that there is a giant on one side of the table, Charles Harder, the Grip Reaper of Defamators, with a history of Flawless Execution in the field of Legal Mortal Combat.
What I can't believe is that it is Mike Masnick, alone, on the other side. I think there is a giant behind the scenes. You know, I wonder if Mike's publishing contracts with his sponsors don't allow him to just back down. Something is on that other side, right, something huge that is keeping Mike hostage.
It must be that there are two giant thumbs at work here, and Mike and Techdirt are just the pimple. But who is behind the other thumb? It's a mystery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lets leave him alone and he can back to finding other people to vent his spleen upon for daring to question his "superior intellect". Methinks he has worn out his welcome here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like the "Deep State" there is a "Deep Left", and if you have to sacrifice Michael Masnick for your cause, no problem, right? Not a hint of concern for another human being who is publicly suffering, right? Even I have more empathy for him than you do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
We would understand that yes, Mike had to back down for financial reasons. Our scorn would fall upon Shiva Ayyadurai because he filed a lawsuit intended to first bankrupt Mike into silence, then serve as a warning to all other critics that Shiva will come for them if they dare question his facts, his truth, his version of history where he alone invented the email system that we use today despite all the evidence that says otherwise.
Shiva wants to leverage the power of the government into silencing protected speech just so he can raise himself higher than everyone else and kick people like Mike into the gutter. Only Shiva would deserve our scorn for going as far as bankrupting a prominent critic just to keep his claims unchallenged and his self-image intact.
That is the American Dream, right—that his words matter more because he has the money to make everyone else shut up, even if their speech is protected by the First Amendment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Question: Why should anyone stay silent and refuse to challenge or criticize Shiva Ayyadurai’s claims?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Mike runs a risky business. Every business carries some risk. I've had people sue me, I don't take it personally anymore. I think about it in the beginning of a venture now, just as Mike said in his video. He called it a "chilling effect", I call it "growing up" and living in the real world.
In America, if you have about $200k (or a great case), you can "bring an adult to the rooom" in form of a judge to settle a dispute. That's our system, for better or worse, we are married to it as Americans, and not ready for a divorce. Is it fair, is it right, is it perfect? It's the best system in the world, bar none, warts and all.
Your idiot rant saying you "would prefer to have my hands and legs cut off and my eyes gouged from my head than to destroy my own reputation for the sake of someone else’s ego" assumes you have a reputation to destroy, which you don't. The man you keep speaking about, Shiva, does have a real reputation and can, and has, backed it up. You would serve yourself and this blog better to remember that and STFU.
Shiva = Real Reputation as an Inventor, Entrepreneur and as a Potential US Senator
Stephen T. Stone = Reputation as a raving lunatic anonymous coward in disguise
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Except, no, he cannot. I have not seen anyone present tangible and verifiable evidence that contradicts these five facts:
I have seen plenty of evidence, however, that backs up those five claims.
Ayyadurai’s claims rely on his definitions of certain terms and functions of email—including the portmanteau “email” itself—and he constantly changes those definitions when challenged on them so that no one can claim he is “wrong”. In his recent interview with Ars Technica, he resorts to that tactic numerous times when pressed on his claims. People in the “real world” refer to what he does as “moving the goalposts”, which is a universally frowned-upon debate tactic.
His reputation exists so long as he can kick people down into the gutter while he sits atop a golden throne of lies. If he has a problem with people pointing out the facts that contradict his claims, he must back up his claims with evidence and avoid moving the goalposts. If he hates that people are pointing out how he wants to cudgel his critics into submission by winning this lawsuit, he must prove that he does not want his critics bankrupted and sent into the streets to die like a sick dog in a gutter.
Shiva has done more damage to whatever reputation he has built for himself than any critic ever could. No one forced him to file a lawsuit over protected speech or lash out at anyone who dares to contradict his claims. Those are all unforced errors, and they are all on him.
…oh, and one more thing:
While I am just a lone jackoff within the grand sea of men that is humanity, I do not come here as a coward. If Shiva wants to sue me for unloading my criticism all over him, he can nut up and serve me the papers through Twitter. Maybe he does not have the testicular fortitude to do that himself, but if he does, I am not hard to find.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pretty sure the Search function still works on Twitter; how about using that, champ.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Shiva has the balls to sue any of his critics for daring to speak their minds, he can sue me. If he wants to find me, he can contact me on Twitter; I am not difficult to find there.
Of course, by doing so, he would be committing two other unforced errors:
But if his reputation is worth so much to him, he can reach out to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about we meet for a cup of coffee, Stephen - would that be OK? And if you could leave your home address and phone number, that would help me fill in the forms, thanks. Employer information might be nice as well, paystubs, and any bank accounts you would care to list in advance would be a big help. Credit report, mortgage history, deeds and titles in your name, standard things, tax returns if it's not too much to ask, thanks again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If Shiva wants that information, he can contact me via Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is no different tgan russians claiming to have their own wright brothers. We can call bullshit but for them it is still a dact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s my secret, Captain: I know he’s a troll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a lack of a real name is enough to rescind someone's entitlement from being taken seriously, you've more than earned it. (That and the need for you to respond to yourself, and demand engagement when everyone else is away from a keyboard or typepad... because responding to yourself, apparently, does not count as "obsessive" behavior, but talking about a case you are involved in is being "obsessed". Somehow.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is why I hate insomnia.
…you were trying to make a point? 🤔
I imagine that being targeted for destruction by an individual with delusions of grandeur, a persecution complex, and enough money to make the courts indulge both of those things would shake anyone.
Only cameras in movie theatres do more projecting than you.
He is fighting a man who wants the courts to rule that lies are the truth and anyone who says otherwise should pay. Goddamn right, Mike is a hero.
Mine is, too.
What does that tell you about the person who is on the other side, that he wants to strip Mike of his possessions and his freedom to speak his mind for calling out a lie?
Goddamn right, I am ready to stand in front of a judge and say “Shiva Ayyadurai is a liar”.
Shiva Ayyadurai makes claims that he cannot possibly support, then tries to destroy people for pointing that out. If he is supposedly my “better”, I would rather respect a pile of horse shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
http://drjaniceduffy.com/2017/06/techdirt-mike-masnick-lessons-from-hypocrisy/
An then tried to pull rank to hide my comments on his video...well...enough said
Sooo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AmkmqYEarw
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I am staying awake longer than I should just for this.
Being a quite frequent poster here I'd say he is including me. I have to ask Mike for a pay check. I've been here for years and I've only paid to be an insider so far. I should have known before I was paid!
Other than that I have to say I actually like the trolls because every once in a while they get replies like yours that are very entertaining to read.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
This is a bad lawsuit precisely because the meat of the suit has no actual meat. The centre of Shiva Ayyadurai’s complaint rests on a statement of fact (“I am the inventor of email”) that he cannot support unless he gets to decide what “email” means. The rest of his complaint asks the court to silence protected speech because it hurt his feelings. Techdirt should fight this as far and as long as they can because a win for Shiva on the merits of his complaint—which has no actual merit—would chill the speech of anyone else who would dare claim tha Shiva is not “the inventor of email”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
If a spam filter is the only blocking you from having your voice heard, you are not trying hard enough to make yourself heard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
We did not ask Pissed Consumer to remove anything. If they removed them, it was due to PC's own decision making. We also did not ask PDF to remove comments -- as you well know since they told you directly that the links in your comments caused them to be flagged, and they were released as soon as they were noticed. And they are still available on the video (again, as you know).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Slumdog Narcissist
LIEN, a litigious, indignant, entitled narcissist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
Did he invent all email? I don't think so. I think that there were a lot of different people who got to the same place around the same time, because mail is what I consider a natural app - it's something you naturally want to do. But I am wise enough to admit I don't know specifically who actually is the creator of email, the 1970s had a lot of players who were not corrected and didn't know each other.
It's interesting. Techdirt has often featured stories about parallel creation, where two or more parties end up creating the same or nearly the same thing at the same time. The push is that both of them are creators, both of them are the originators. I think Shiva is exactly in that situation. He isn't likely THE inventor of email, but he is almost certainly one of them. It's hard to tell what all happened 50 years ago. There is plenty of overlap between stand alone mainframes, apranet, various hobbiest dial ups, school computer systems, and the like. Can we really discount anything from that era at this point?
Free speech is wonderful - but just like Shiva, Mike doesn't get to re-write history to suit his narrative either. The all American "we invented the internet and everything on it" story doesn't wash when faced with the reality of parallel development.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reading between the lines, do you know if anyone asked Pissed Consumer to remove it? You leave open the possibility that someone else (like MR) asked them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
Watching you curry favor with Shiva is an indication of the lengths you go to demonstrate your love-hate affair with Techdirt - pretty extreme. "Sure, Shiva probably didn't invent email as we know it, but if I fudge the details enough, I get to say 'Fuck you, Masnick', so go Team Shiva!"
Try writing love letters to Hamilton next time for the lulz.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did not engage or reply to any of the comments on Techdirt (after December 2015), deriding me as a 'loon' and worse, falsely stating that I am a criminal and involved in reputation management.
Techdirt commentators sent threats to my blog in an attempt to scare me by imputing that I defrauded my government, deserve to be raped, and threatened to kill my dog. Well, they worked for a few days.I was terrified! I hope that your commentators are proud of themselves.
I don't believe PDF and I certainly do not believe that you or Techdirt are innocent disseminators of free speech.
I did NOT deserve to have my life destroyed. I reported a scam and formed a support group for others in the same position. Websites such as Ripoff Report and Techdirt hide behind and profit from free speech.
Both lawsuits are deserved and I hope they win! Maybe now Masnick you understand the absolute decimation to peoples' lives wrought by people like you and Magedson. You could have raised the same issues and viewpoints using critical analysis rather than running a website with a 'lynch mob'.
I am proud that I fought back and I support others who also fight against the perversion of and profit from the right to free speech. By the way, I note that you did not report that the High Court of Australia granted leave to appeal in that 'nutty' case (as you described it) Trkulja v Google. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2017/129.html
I won't be making any more comments here but the fact that my comment was 'hidden' speaks volumes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
The problem with the "parallel creation"/"both of them are the originators" line of argument is that, from what I read, Shiva is explicitly arguing that everything else/earlier(/independent, possibly?) which people call E-mail is not E-mail, and that what he created is the first thing which qualifies.
He's claiming exclusivity in the role, in other words, which is exactly the reverse of what parallel creation is about.
If he claimed that he independently devised something which reflects more of the features of a modern E-mail system than the widely established electronic mail systems of the time, that would be one thing; it might be a more reasonable position, and (particularly the "independently" part) might very well be deserving of respect on its own.
But that does not appear to be even close to what he is actually claiming in practice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 'No, that's not true' does not equal 'baiting him into a lawsuit'
And if that was all Shiva Ayyadurai ever claimed to have done, nobody would have an issue with him. (Mostly because nobody would care all that much about his accomplishment, what with it being an isolated anomaly.) But he claims to be “the inventor of email”—the man who, according to him, invented the very email system that we all know, use, and sometimes even despise.
To make that claim, he either ignores the work that preceded his program’s creation or dismisses it as “not real email”. He cannot show that his work influenced the actual development of email, so he instead changes the definition of “email” to make sure his program becomes the only one that fits said definition.
Nothing Shiva Ayyadurai ever did influenced the development of email as we know it today. His work exists in isolation from the development of the standards and protocols that would become the backbone of email. If he says he is the sole exclusive creator of a system that was in development before he ever wrote a line of code, he deserves to have that claim challenged and criticized.
And no one who offers that criticism should be sued because they did so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Learn the First Amendment...
I imagine that fact will be of interest to the plaintiff.
Masnick was warned about karma so many times that it's comical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Who are the giants behind the thumbs squeezing this pimple?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:^18 You brought this on yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Minnesota SLAPP statute found unconstitutional
I’ve lived the consumer side of this SLAPP topic.
Minnesota First Amendment lawyer Marshall Tanick was earlier quoted in a Star Tribune newspaper article August 27, 2001. It said in part: “If a company sues, alleging simple business disparagement or perhaps defamation, its goal isn’t necessarily to win,” said Marshall Tanick, a First Amendment expert . . . “The strategy is to force the other person to incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others from making such statements,” he said . . . “yet very few (cases) go all the way to trial and verdict,” Tanick said.
I suspect that if Minnesota had a stronger SLAPP statute, more readily known by lawyers in 2010, I might not have been sued from 2010 through 2013 for criticizing the bedside manner of a Duluth doctor.
Unlike other SLAPP statutes that protect any public interest speech, Minnesota's only protect(ed) speech aimed at government processes. I think opposing counsel was mindful of that when his suit on behalf of his plaintiff addressed only my Internet comments and not my letters to government bodies.
A good SLAPP statute does not prevent an insulted doctor or plumber from getting his jury trial, but it does make his suit get scrutinized for validity more quickly - particularly in Minnesota, which maintains the quaint custom of hip pocket law suits. During four years of depositions, discovery, hearings, and motions, I never once spoke to a judge.
My four years of association with the defamation process was a distressing war of financial attrition for my family. The plaintiff’s first contact with me was a letter that said in part that he had the means and motivation to pursue me. The suit cost me the equivalent of two year’s net income – the same as 48 of my car payments plus 48 of my house payments. My family members had to dip into retirement funds to help me.
We were overwhelmed by my being sued after posting a consumer opinion, and we were shocked by the rapidity with which it happened. My mother and wife preferred no discussion, because they didn’t want to think about it. Conversation with my father only reminded him of his anger over this situation. My siblings and children didn’t often bring it up, because they didn’t know how to say anything helpful. I was demoralized by four calendar years of being called “Defendant Laurion” in public documents.
While being sued for defamation I was called a passive aggressive, an oddball, a liar, a coward, a bully, a malicious person, a Boy Scout who did no good deed, and a zealot family member. I was said to have run a cottage industry vendetta, writing 19 letters, and posting 108 adverse Internet postings in person or through proxies.
After receipt of a threat letter from opposing counsel on behalf of his client, I deleted my rate-your-doctor site postings and sent confirmation emails to opposing counsel. Not only was I sued, but I was denigrated as a liar in a demand letter to my insurance provider of 25 years, in spite of the fact that I didn't carry liability insurance.
Since May of 2010, postings on the Internet by others included newspaper accounts of the lawsuit; readers’ remarks about the newspaper accounts; and blog opinion pieces written by doctors, lawyers, public relations professionals, patient advocates, and information technology experts. Dozens of websites by doctors, lawyers, patient advocates, medical students, law schools, consumer advocates, and free speech monitors posted opinions that a doctor or plumber shouldn’t sue the family of a customer for a bad rating. These authors never said they saw my deleted ratings – only the news coverage.
Medical peer newsletters or magazines that interviewed the plaintiff did not approach me. Websites maintained by doctors for doctors or lawyers for lawyers often caused an inference that I was a zealot family member or somebody who had asked about my dad’s chances and then shot the messenger. Generally, however, those websites echoed other websites in advising public relations responses other than a lawsuit – for fear of creating the “Streisand Effect.” As a retired layman, I brought far less resources to the battle of financial attrition.
I’ve learned that laws about slander and libel do not conform to one’s expectations. I’ve read that online complaints are safe “if you stick to the facts.” That’s exactly the wrong advice. I did not want to merely post my conclusions. I wanted to stick to my recollection of what I’d heard. I don’t like to read generalities like "I am upset," "I think the doctor did not treat my father well," "I think he was insensitive," "he did not spend enough time in my opinion." However, such generalities are excused as opinion, hyperbole, or angry utterances. I heard opposing counsel tell the Minnesota Supreme Court that if I had stuck to such generalities, they'd not have been considered defamatory. If one purports to say what happened, factual recitations can be litigated. The plaintiff must prove the facts are willfully misstated, but the defendant can go broke while waiting through the effort - they can "incur huge legal expenses that will deter them and others from making such statements.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dear Shiva Ayyadurai, out_of_the_blue, antidirt, and My_Name_Here (aka John Smith),
You lost.
Get bent, preferably over a rusty railroad spike, shoved up your navel.
Love,
Bangladesh
[ link to this | view in thread ]