Psychiatrist Drops His Lawsuit Against Critic Who Left Wordless One-Star Review
from the but-the-damage-is-already-done dept
It looks like the psychiatrist who sued a pseudonymous reviewer over a wordless one-star review has finally decided to stop digging this particular hole. Since news broke of psychiatrist Mark Beale's defamation suit against "Richard Hill," Beale has amassed a great many one-star reviews by non-patients. There's no telling if Beale will be seeking to file an en masse lawsuit against these Does (taking a page out of copyright trolls' handbooks), but this cannot possibly be what he envisioned when he decided the original one-star review was worth suing over.
Unbelievably, Beale managed to convince a judge to allow him to seek the real identity of "Richard Hill" in order to continue with his lawsuit. Not only did the judge give enough credence to Beale's argument that a one-star review was per se defamatory, but the judge granted the unmasking order, calling a review of business "commercial speech" -- something given less protection under the First Amendment.
University of South Carolina professor Eric Robinson has been keeping an eye and the local docket and sends us news that Beale has dismissed the case. It's a voluntary move [PDF] on Beale's part, but it's also without prejudice, leaving the path clear for Beale to refile.
But it doesn't look like Beale will amend this suit or refile, even if he's found a judge willing to bypass First Amendment protections to unmask a critic who left nothing more than a wordless single-star review. At least not against a Doe defendant. The unmasking did happen and Beale's request [PDF] to view the information turned over under seal to his lawyer was granted [PDF] by the judge. Soon after that, the request for dismissal [PDF] was filed.
This means Beale now knows who "Richard Hill" actually is. He could have stuck with the lawsuit, amending it to include the Doe's real name and serving the defendant. But he sought dismissal instead. Does that mean Beale found "Richard Hill" was actually someone he didn't want to take to court, or worse yet, someone he already knew? Remember, his original lawsuit contained some very curious assertions to bolster his allegations, the weirdest being that his mother thought "someone she knew" was trying to ruin his reputation.
Or it could be Beale discovered Hill was an actual patient of his, despite his assertions otherwise. (His lawsuit claimed two things: "Richard Hill" was a fake name and "Richard Hill" was not a patient of his. These two statements are tough to make definitively, but Beale asserted both simultaneously in his lawsuit.) Maybe he didn't feel like pursuing an unhappy patient in court, especially after he had already sworn otherwise in his complaint. Or maybe Beale is planning some sort of offline, out-of-court battle against the unmasked critic -- something that would be unfortunate but at least wouldn't allow this particular judge to continue his attack on the First Amendment.
That makes this cut-and-run a bit more interesting than it would normally be, as litigation has ceased after discovery of the only thing Beale appeared to be missing from his suit: a defendant he could serve. Equally problematic is there's a judge in the South Carolina court system where locals can take their grievances about anonymous commenters and expect unmasking to proceed, no matter how weak their arguments are.
Whatever the future holds for Beale and his litigious moves is unknown, but there's no undoing the damage Beale did to his own reputation by trying to make a case out of a one-star review. Had he done nothing, it would have been carried away by internet flotsam with zero damage to his career or future prospects. Instead, Beale could not let a one-star, wordless review go unanswered, and now his Google results are full of them.
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: anonymous speech, criticism, defamation, first amendment, mark beale, one star review, reviews
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not necessarily:
He may decide to pursue his white whale outside of the courts, whether through the standard bumptious legal demands for money or through other means.
If that happens, I'm wondering if "Richard Hill" would have grounds to sue those who unmasked him and exposed him to any such harassment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some guy stopped his car and started to drive away with Rosy. A local kid tried to talk him out of taking the snake, and gave the man my telephone number.
Two days later, Dr.*** (a psychiatrist at the VA Hospital across the street)called me, the snake was lost at his Mother's house, could I help find it while she was shopping?
His mother was going to phreak out if....
He brought my Boa back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember that DC judge who sued a dry cleaning company for $65 million over a lost pair of trousers back in 2005? A case that was still going on over a decade later?
I'm beginning to suspect that he was seeing a psychiatrist after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Mark Beale
Please get therapy from a psychiatrist who won't sue you for leaving a one star review.
Be sure to discuss with the psychiatrist the issues about your childhood and influence of lawyers and judges which might have deeply scared you for life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Probably not, but wouldn't it put a pretty bow on this stupid case showing the flaws in the system??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One of the very points of free speech is so we can criticize our wealthier overlords when they abuse their power for profit. To say something that the establishment doesn't like even if it costs them money. If you can't say something that someone doesn't like then what's the point of having free speech laws in the first place? and people wouldn't be as likely to express their opinions if they had to stay anonymous as those with power may try to retaliate. So anonymity is important. Anonymous product reviews are intended to be protected speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, she did, ultimately - her son, by filing such a ridiculous lawsuit that it had to be widely reported that the man was a bullying idiot and therefore not the type of stable person one would normally wish to have looking after your psychiatric care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are writing this post, as if this was a good thing?
Do you really believe that this case of unmasking was correct and justified?
That should have come up much much stronger!!
Kinda like "hitting back twice at hard" against that blowhard psych scheister!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Climb Too Steep
Or, perhaps, after being buried under a pile of dicks by trolls responding to his court filing, he just couldn't face another Dick Hill in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]