Chuck Johnson Sues Twitter, Copying Dennis Prager's Lawsuit Against YouTube

from the public-square dept

Last summer, we wrote about an important Supreme Court case, Packingham v. North Carolinia, which made the fairly important ruling that the internet was so central to everyday life that courts could not ban people from the internet, even if they were convicted of a horrific crime. It was an important ruling -- but almost immediately, some people worried that some would interpret the ruling in a way to suggest that online service providers, themselves, could not kick people off of their service. That's not what the ruling actually says, but it's possible to quote it out of context to suggest as much.

And, indeed, we've started to see such cases brought against internet companies. The case Dennis Prager brought against YouTube, for example, cites Packingham to argue that it's somehow unconstitutional to filter his videos with warning labels. And now we can add famed internet troll Chuck Johnson to the list, as he's filed a lawsuit against Twitter, long after the site permanently banned Johnson from using their platform.

As we noted with the Prager/YouTube case, it's unlikely this case will go anywhere. Courts have held out, repeatedly, that platforms have the right to operate however they want regarding letting people use their services or not (the big distinction with Packingham was that was the government denying individuals access to the internet, not private operators). And there is extensive case law around Section 230 of the CDA as well, which states in fairly plain language that sites not only can filter and moderate however they want without liability, but actually encourages them to do so. There is, of course, at least some amount of irony that it was conservatives who were complaining about "bad stuff" (mainly porn) online who pushed for incentives in the CDA to get internet services to censor via filtering... and now it's "conservative" commentators like Prager and Johnson, who are suing because those sites are filtering, as is explicitly encouraged by the law.

In short, I imagine that Johnson's lawsuit against Twitter will go about as well as his lawsuit against Gawker, which didn't go very well.

The arguments in Johnson's case are the same ridiculous arguments in the Prager case. And I mean that... they're almost verbatim. Here's from the first cause of action in the Prager case:

Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces.

In YouTube, Defendants created and maintain a public forum or its functional equivalent for the public to express and exchange views and ideas, or in the alternative at least a quasi- or limited public forum. Defendants further act as state actors because Defendants and the YouTube site perform an exclusively and traditionally public function by regulating free speech within a public forum.

And from the Johsnon case:

Article I, section 2 of the California Constitution protects the liberty of speech and association, especially in public, quasi-public, and limited public spaces....

In Twitter, Defendant created and maintains a public forum or its functional equivalent for the public to express and exchange views and ideas, or in the alternative at least a quasi- or limited public forum.

They're not identical, and each case fleshes out more specifics about the platform in question they're suing, but the arguments are remarkably similar (and, no, they're not using the same lawyers). Johnson's lawsuit gets particularly silly. You can read the whole thing yourself if you'd like, but it's based on the preposterous notion that Twitter has to allow everyone on their platform and can't kick people off. As with the Prager suit, this complaint makes strong reliance on the idea that Johnson was banned for his political views, rather than because he was a troll who regularly went on the attack, often accused of promoting false information or making trollishly outrageous claims.

But, even if he was banned for his political views (and, again, he wasn't), Twitter actually has the legal right to put in place just such a ban. It would be stupid and counterproductive -- which is why Twitter does not actually ban people over such things -- but it would be legal. Johnson's lawsuit even points out that Twitter's current terms of service state: "We may suspend or terminate your accounts or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason." And then immediately whines that they had "no valid business reason" for banning him. First off, that's not true. There were lots of valid business reasons for banning him -- in the form of lots of users complaining about his behavior and tons of people threatening to quit Twitter if the site didn't get rid of certain trolls.

Again, though, even that doesn't impact the legal analysis here. Twitter is within its clear legal rights to remove any user from its service.

Like with the Prager case, we expect the courts not to allow this case to go very far at all. And, unlike in the Packingham case, this really is a situation where if one social media site doesn't want you, there are lots of other alternatives. Johnson told Buzzfeed (who broke the news of the lawsuit) that this was an important First Amendment case:

“This is going to be a very serious case over the freedom of the internet,” Johnson told BuzzFeed News. “And whether people have the right to say what they mean and mean what they say.”

Except... that's not what the case is actually about. Johnson is free to say whatever he wants. He is not free to force private companies to host that speech. If there is any First Amendment argument here at all, it is on Twitter's side, in that the First Amendment gives it the right to present its own site the way it wants to -- and that includes kicking off people it feels are behaving badly.

Filed Under: cda 230, chuck johnson, dennis prager, first amendment, free speech, intermediary liability, platforms
Companies: twitter, youtube

Univision Execs Have No Backbone: Pull A Bunch Of Gawker Stories Over Legal Disputes

from the no-credibility dept

People celebrating the "demise" of Gawker in being forced into bankruptcy by a questionable lawsuit and ruling from Hulk Hogan, financed by Peter Thiel, keep insisting that it has no real impact on the freedom of the press. And yet... things keep showing that's wrong. Gawker filed for bankruptcy and sold off its assets to media giant Univision, which agreed to close down the flagship Gawker site and redistribute some of the reporters to other sites. But late Friday, Univision management made another decision, and this one is horrific: they agreed to delete six stories on the site (with a seventh one being considered) because those stories were the subject of lawsuits against Gawker.

The reasoning given by Univision is that it only agreed to buy the assets of Gawker, not the liabilities, and keeping those stories posted gave it liability. First of all, this is wrong on the legal side of things. As Gawker's executive editor, John Cook (who fought this decision) notes, Univision doesn't take on the liability here:

Though the posts were published by Gawker Media, and therefore under the so-called “first publication rule” should only be the legal responsibility of the Gawker Media estate being left behind in the transaction, Unimoda’s legal analysis was that the continued publication of the posts under the new entitity would constitute the adoption of liability, and that Unimoda is therefore obligated to delete them.

But that's not the most disturbing thing here. The really problematic issue is that the stories that are being removed involve stories where the lawsuits are almost entirely completely bogus SLAPP suits designed to annoy Gawker, rather than with any serious legal basis -- for example, the two stories that Gawker published about Shiva Ayyadurai, the guy who keeps trying to convince the world that he invented email when he didn't. We've discussed Ayyadurai and his bogus claims many times, and also covered the lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason to take down those posts.

Perhaps even more incredible is that Univision also agreed to take down the story that nutty troll Chuck C. Johnson had filed a lawsuit against Gawker. That's a lawsuit that is so ridiculous it was laughed out of court in Missouri. And while Johnson filed a nearly identical lawsuit (including references to Missouri) in California, it was similarly going nowhere, and Johnson recently said that he'd dropped the case.

And yet Univision voted to delete the story anyway.

This is... bad. It's one thing to make a decision to pull a story once you've analyzed the situation and decided that the story has problems and should be pulled. But that's not what happened here. Univision execs flat out told Cook that this was solely about not taking on the liability. In other words, Univision has absolutely zero backbone to stand up for its journalists. That's shameful.

This move basically immediately does two things. First, it alerts anyone who wants a heckler's veto to threaten Univision with a lawsuit. Second, it should immediately cause any good journalist working for Univision or its properties (including Gawker and Fusion) to start looking for a new job elsewhere. If you can't have your publisher back you up on things like this, that's a dangerous place for a reporter to work. Kudos to Cook for trying to stand up to Univision, but if those execs wouldn't listen to him, the company's got really big problems.

I communicated to Felipe and Jay in the strongest terms that deleting these posts is a mistake, and that disappearing true posts about public figures simply because they have been targeted by a lawyer who conspired with a vindictive billionaire to destroy this company is an affront to the very editorial ethos that has made us successful enough to be worth acquiring. I told them that I am proud that this company refused to delete its accurate posts about Shiva Ayudurrai’s false claim to have invented the email system of communication, and that I am proud that our decision not to take down accurate posts about Mitch Williams’ meltdown at a children’s baseball game was vindicated by a federal judge, who ruled in our favor in his case against us. I am mortified to see them taken down now. We are at the center of an unprecedented assault on the ability of reporters and editors to challenge and critique public figures. While I believe that Univision is a company that values and defends aggressive, independent reporting, the decision to remove these posts is, in my view, at odds with its tradition of confronting bullies with honesty.

Univision just did a big thing badly. And it sullies the company's reputation and brand, and it makes all of the company's remaining journalistic staff look bad.

And, of course, this is the internet, where trying to make stuff disappear never works. I went over to archive.is soon after the announcement came out (and before the stories had been taken down) and every single one had been re-archived (many had been previously archived) within the previous hour. So if you're curious what was in the stories too hot for Univision's backboneless execs, here they are:

• The Inventor of Email Did Not Invent Email?
• Corruption, Lies, and Death Threats: The Crazy Story of the Man Who Pretended to Invent Email
• Man Acquitted Of Sexual Assault Sues Blog For Calling Him Serial Rapist
• Wait, Did Clowntroll Blogger Chuck Johnson Shit On The Floor One Time?
• Uber Driver in California Will Be Considered Employee, Not Contractor
• Mitch Williams Ejected From Child's Baseball Game For Arguing, Cursing
• Witnesses: Mitch Williams Called Child "A Pussy," Ordered Beanball

This is why we need publications that don't back down in the face of SLAPP suits. This is why we need stronger anti-SLAPP laws (and a federal anti-SLAPP law). This is why we express concerns about billionaires ganging up to sue publications out of existence in a vengeance play. Publications are vulnerable, but they're supposed to stand up to bogus threats, not cave in out of fear.

Filed Under: backbone, chuck johnson, defamation, heckler's veto, hulk hogan, journalism, liabilities, shiva ayyadurai
Companies: gawker, univision

Yes, A Billionaire Looking To Destroy A Media Organization Through Lawsuits Is A Big Deal Even If You Don't Like The Media Organization

from the slapp dept

So I had thought that our post yesterday about Peter Thiel allegedly financing Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker would be the only time we posted about that story, but a few things have happened that seem to merit a further post. First, Thiel has admitted to it, and insisted that he views it as "philanthropy." There are a number of claims that Thiel makes that are quite troubling. First, he admits that he didn't just back Hogan, but rather gave lawyers money to go hunting for anyone who might want to sue Gawker, directly out of spite.

He said that he hired a legal team several years ago to look for cases that he could help financially support. “Without going into all the details, we would get in touch with the plaintiffs who otherwise would have accepted a pittance for a settlement, and they were obviously quite happy to have this sort of support,” he said. “In a way very similar to how a plaintiff’s lawyer on contingency would do it.” Mr. Thiel declined to disclose what other cases he had supported but there are at least two current cases against Gawker.

Later on he admits: "It's safe to say this is not the only [case]."

This also seems ethically dubious, even if it's perfectly legal. I, frankly, don't have a huge concern over people funding others' lawsuits. While it can be abused, you can also see where it could be helpful for people who otherwise couldn't afford the legal costs. That said, specifically funding lawyers to go hunting for plaintiffs with the deliberate intent of killing a media publication? That's problematic. And that's true no matter how terrible you think Gawker is as a media property.

Incredibly, Thiel, who has given a large amount of money to the Committee to Protect Journalists, and who has claimed to be a big supporter of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, pulled a classic "I support freedom of speech, but..." line in response to questions along those lines, basically saying that he doesn't think Gawker counts.

He said he did not believe his actions were contradictory. “I refuse to believe that journalism means massive privacy violations,” he said. “I think much more highly of journalists than that. It’s precisely because I respect journalists that I do not believe they are endangered by fighting back against Gawker.”

He continued, “It’s not like it is some sort of speaking truth to power or something going on here. The way I’ve thought about this is that Gawker has been a singularly terrible bully. In a way, if I didn’t think Gawker was unique, I wouldn’t have done any of this. If the entire media was more or less like this, this would be like trying to boil the ocean.” Mr. Thiel said he had not targeted any other media companies.

And this brings me to the second reason I'm posting more on this story: a surprising number of people (to me) keep supporting Thiel in this, and arguing that because what Gawker did was so horrible that this vendetta against them is okay. This is dangerous thinking. And I wanted to dig in on why it's so dangerous. First, there's the obvious: freedom of expression is supposed to protect the speech you dislike the most. Otherwise, we wouldn't need it. Carving it out because he thinks they're "bullies" is the kind of stuff that the First Amendment doesn't allow.

Second, the idea that this won't impact other journalism organizations is hogwash. As Felix Salmon wrote, this gives other billionaires a "dangerous blueprint" to be vindictive against any publication they dislike. Basically, he notes that publications are always extra careful about writing about notoriously litigious billionaires. But Thiel's plan is much more dubious: just have lawyers watching for anyone else who may be aggrieved, where a publication maybe wasn't quite as careful, and then mount a series of lawsuits, some perhaps more dubious than others (hold that thought...) to bury the company in legal expenses. Salmon points out that this opens up a huge number of possibilities for others:

If Thiel’s strategy works against Gawker, it could be used by any billionaire against any media organization. Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, the list goes on and on. Up until now, they’ve mostly been content suing news organizations as plaintiffs, over stories which name them. But Thiel has shown them how to go thermonuclear: bankroll other lawsuits, as many as it takes, and bankrupt the news organization that way. Very few companies have the legal wherewithal to withstand such a barrage.

Both Sheldon Adelson and Donald Trump have done vindictive SLAPP suits against news publications that have said things they didn't appreciate. And then there was the infamous case of billionaire Frank VanderSloot who waged a years long SLAPP legal campaign against Mother Jones over reporting he didn't like.

Josh Marshall, over at Talking Points Memo also does a good job of showing why this is so concerning:

Regardless of his politics, this news should disturb everyone. People talk a lot about the dominance of the 1% or in this case more like a tiny fraction of the 1%. But being able to give massive political contributions actually pales in comparison to the impact of being able to destroy a publication you don't like by combining the machinery of the courts with anonymity and unlimited funds to bleed a publication dry.

We don't have to go any further than Donald Trump to know that the incredibly rich often use frivolous litigation to intimidate critics and bludgeon enemies. Mother Jones had a lawsuit like this, clearly intended to bleed them dry through endless legal expenses. They won, though at a steep cost. But when bully plutocrats do so in their own name there is at least a self-correcting dynamic at work. A plaintiff in a libel suit opens him or herself up to reputational harm and highly intrusive legal discovery which is often enough to scare people away. (Remember, when Trump sued Tim O'Brien for publishing Trump insiders' claims that Trump was worth less than $250 million dollars, Trump was eventually forced to show O'Brien's lawyers his tax returns.) In some ways, this lines up with something I noted in my 'Brittle Grip' series of posts: growing calls from the extremely rich to not only be able to use their money without limit to shape the political process but to do so anonymously to avoid being "intimidated" or "vilified".

And even if you still think it's okay because (1) Gawker is awful or (2) "publishing a sex tape shouldn't be protected," consider, again, that Thiel has admitted that he's funding more lawsuits against Gawker. I currently know of at least four other lawsuits against Gawker -- with at least three of them using the same lawyer as Hogan used. And those lawsuits are ridiculous. We've written about both the Shiva Ayyadurai lawsuit (with the same lawyer) in which he's mad that Gawker accurately pointed out that Ayyadurai did not invent email, and the laugh out loud bad lawsuit by Chuck Johnson against Gawker. For what it's worth, Ayyadurai denies knowledge "of any behind-the-scenes financial arrangements involving my attorneys and anyone else." So perhaps Thiel is not funding his lawsuit, but with Thiel admitting to funding others, there aren't that many other choices.

Taken as a whole, this takes SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) to entirely new levels. Flooding the zone with lawsuits, even if some have validity, with the sole admitted purpose of trying to destroy a publication you don't like has tremendous chilling effects on the press. Wired, with its tongue firmly in cheek, made this point fantastically with an article entitled How Can We Make You Happy Today, Peter Thiel? which is paragraph after paragraph of this kind of thing:

If you don’t know who Peter Thiel is, set your swoon-sockets to Stun, because Peter Thiel is the best—just an awesome, handsome, awesome guy—and we would never want to give the impression that we think otherwise. See how happy he is in this picture below? That’s how we want him to look every time he thinks about his ol’ buddies at Wired: “Great, great team. Total pros. Definitely not gonna get mad and team up with a former wrestler to secretly bankroll a lawsuit against them, and all because I didn’t like what they said about me.”

Three cheers for Peter Thiel!

Yes, it's exaggerated for comedic purposes, but the chilling effect can be very, very real. Publications that don't want to face such a vindictive campaign are going to stay silent. And that's a serious concern.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Spiers highlights another point on all of this, focusing mainly on the fact that Thiel's response is massively out of proportion to any actual harm. Her focus is on whether or not this activity coming to light should worry entrepreneurs who work with Thiel, suggesting "I have no sense of proportionality, and might go completely apeshit on you for the slight infraction, or if godforbid we just have a simple misunderstanding."

Or, as a way of summing it up, if you think that it's okay for Thiel to do this because you think that Gawker consists of a bunch of jackasses, be afraid, because there's someone out there who thinks you're a jackass too. And just hope they're not a billionaire who has the free resources to wait for any attempt to destroy you... and then call it "philanthropy."

Hate on Gawker all you want. But this blueprint of trying to bury a company in legal fees, just out of spite, should worry everyone if you believe in freedom of the press. There's a reason that we're so concerned with typical SLAPP suits, and why we keep asking for stronger state anti-SLAPP laws and a federal anti-SLAPP law. Thiel's actions make this even more important today than ever before.

Filed Under: billionaires, chuck johnson, free press, hulk hogan, lawsuits, peter thiel, shiva ayyadurai, slapp, threats
Companies: gawker

Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel Accused Of Financing Hulk Hogan's Ridiculous Lawsuits Against Gawker

from the wtf,-peter? dept

So here's a crazy and unfortunate story. On Monday evening, the NY Times posted a rather weird story suggesting that there was someone with a grudge against Gawker funding the various lawsuits against the site, including Hulk Hogan's multiple lawsuits (he recently filed another one, even more ridiculous than the first -- which resulted in a $115 million verdict against Gawker that hopefully will get tossed on appeal). The NYT piece was weird in that it was pure innuendo -- just saying that Gawker's Nick Denton was increasingly sure that someone who really disliked the site was funding the lawsuits. It was surprising that the NY Times ran it given the lack of anything beyond speculation and rumor. And then, about 24 hours later, Forbes publishes a story saying that it's well-known billionaire Peter Thiel funding the lawsuit (warning: Forbes' ridiculous anti-adblock policy means you may not be able to read that article):

Peter Thiel, a PayPal cofounder and one of the earliest backers of Facebook, has been secretly covering the expenses for Hulk Hogan’s lawsuits against online news organization Gawker Media. According to people familiar with the situation who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, Thiel, a cofounder and partner at Founders Fund, has played a lead role in bankrolling the cases Terry Bollea, a.k.a. Hogan, brought against New York-based Gawker. Hogan is being represented by Charles Harder, a prominent Los Angeles-based lawyer.

First off, it's perhaps no surprise that Thiel is very anti-Gawker. Lots of people dislike Gawker, and many of them have really good reasons to dislike Gawker. Its Silicon Valley coverage, in particular, was often terrible and basically just wrong. Its Valleywag publication often went for snark and conspiracy over reality. In Thiel's case, he has a much more direct reason for hating Gawker. In 2007, the publication outed him for no reason at all other than because it wanted to do so.

That said: this is insane. Thiel has his quirks, and has a reputation for supporting extreme political causes (that then, unfortunately, lead many outside of Silicon Valley to think his views are representative of the Valley), but funding a lawsuit (or possibly a series of lawsuits) that is flat out designed to undermine the First Amendment goes beyond what most people would expect. And that's doubly true given that his lawsuits against Gawker could have serious damage on free speech on the internet. It's one thing to hate Gawker and to wish its demise. It's another thing entirely to fund a series of lawsuits that chill expression online.

For what it's worth, it's also worth noting (as both of the articles linked above do), that the same lawyer who represented Hogan, and who Thiel is allegedly paying, is also the lawyer handling Shiva Ayyadurai's ridiculous lawsuit against Gawker, which cites the Hogan case for support. In our write-up of that ridiculous lawsuit, we noted that it looked like Ayyadurai was inspired by Hogan's victory, but we didn't realize that it was the same lawyer, and possibly funded from the same source.

For what it's worth, there are questions about if other lawsuits against Gawker are also being funded by Thiel, and you have to at least wonder if that includes Chuck Johnson's ridiculous defamation lawsuit against Gawker. As you may recall, Johnson struck out in Missouri, but filed the identical suit in California. Ayyadurai's lawsuit cites Johnson's lawsuit as proof of Gawker's pattern of bad behavior, even though both lawsuits are ridiculous. But it's also worth noting that Johnson and Thiel actually appear to have some political similarities, including both becoming strong Donald Trump supporters (Thiel is, famously, a Trump delegate, while Johnson says he's an alternate).

As a bit of an aside, how much more terrifying is it now when you hear Trump talk about "opening up" libel laws to make it easier to sue the press -- or him praising the district court win by Hogan over Gawker?

Thiel has obviously had quite a bit of success on the internet with Paypal, and then leveraging that into the first money into Facebook, along with helping to found Palantir (though that company is raising questions lately as well). He's also funded lots of other companies and famously supported Ron Paul and certain libertarian causes. But a lawsuit against an online publication solely out of vindictiveness (even if his hatred of the publication is for perfectly valid reasons) is a terrible, terrible idea that seems to go against his supposed libertarian views. It's also just petty and vindictive, and only cements in the misleading idea that Silicon Valley is full of ego-maniacal billionaires for whom the ends always justify the means.

Filed Under: charles harder, chuck johnson, defamation, financing lawsuits, free speech, hulk hogan, lawsuits, peter thiel, privacy, shiva ayyadurai
Companies: gawker

Missouri Court To Chuck Johnson: WTF Are You Doing In A Missouri Court?!? Go Away

from the moed-down dept

Back in June, we had a post about an absolutely ridiculous lawsuit filed by noted internet news troll Chuck C. Johnson against Gawker, basically because they said some mean things about him, and mocked Johnson's own style of publishing bullshit articles that attempt to imply something awful about someone by asking a question about them. In this case, Gawker, mockingly seized upon some joking claims about Johnson supposedly shitting on the floor of a dormroom, which no one believed, but which Gawker used to mock Johnson. Johnson, for months and months and months, used to threaten libel lawsuits against basically anyone who mocked him, so it was interesting to see one actually get filed. But that was about the extent of the interest. Because the lawsuit was nuts. Almost nothing in it made even the slightest bit of sense, starting with filing in Missouri. Johnson lives and works in California. Gawker is based in NY. The stories about Johnson had nothing to do with Missouri. About the only thing in Missouri was... the one lawyer, John C. Burns, who was willing to represent Johnson (Burns had also helped Johnson in an earlier case involving Ferguson, Missouri). When questioned why it was filed in Missouri, Burns would only reply: "I will say this: I’m not an idiot."

Then, in October, Johnson and Burns filed a ridiculous laugh-out-loud legal collage of a brief in the case that certainly moved the "idiot" needle away from Burns' assertion and more strongly towards the alternative. As Adam Steinbaugh noted in his analysis at the Popehat link above, the brief (apart from seriously going beyond the court's fairly clear limits) made no sense. It was basically a conspiracy theory argument, complete with random clippings of things. The court had no time for it, and told Burns to file something that actually met the requirements of the court.

And, finally, a little over a week ago, the court again suggested that Burns' "I'm not an idiot" statement needs at least a bit more evidence as the case has been dismissed on the basis of "why the fuck did you guys file this in Missouri?" Okay, the actual legal reasons are a bit more involved, and a bit less profane, but it's still the same basic thing. It goes step by step through the silly arguments that Burns/Johnson made for why the case was legitimately filed in Missouri and says "LOL, no." The conclusion is pretty straightforward:

In this case, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have failed to meet their “minimal” burden of proof to show that the balance of the relevant factors weighs in favor of the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this forum. For the reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that defendants’ contacts with Missouri are insufficient to indicate they purposely availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the laws of Missouri

Get out of Missouri, folks.

Of course, this isn't necessarily over just yet. That's because last month, just as the statute of limitations was about to run out, Johnson, without a lawyer, basically filed a carbon copy lawsuit in California, just so he'd have other options. Of course, since it's a carbon copy of the Missouri lawsuit, the California lawsuit bizarrely spends many pages arguing why it's okay to sue Gawker... in Missouri. Yes, the following (and many, many, many more mentions of Missouri) are in the lawsuit: Also, you see that footnote saying that it was last checked on June 17th? That's because June 18th is when it filed the Missouri lawsuit, but why bother updating anything six months later when you file in California.

There's also the following, in the second paragraph of the lawsuit, which is clearly untrue: If you can't read that, it reads:

Plaintiff Charles C. Johnson has never before initiated a lawsuit for defamation.

Yeah, sure. You mean other than the other one you filed six months earlier using basically the identical text to this lawsuit, but just in a totally different state? Or does that not count?

Of course, without the aid of any "not an idiot" lawyer in California, Johnson apparently didn't spend much time researching the fact that California has a pretty strong anti-SLAPP law, which very likely means that not only will he also lose this case in California, but he's likely going to have to pay Gawker's lawyers for the privilege.

Filed Under: chuck johnson, defamation, john c. burns, jurisdiction, missouri, slapp suit
Companies: gawker

Nutty Trollish Guy On The Internet Files Nutty Trollish Defamation Lawsuit In Random State

from the news-at-11 dept

Okay, look. We've really tried to ignore Chuck Johnson. It's pretty obvious that he's the kind of guy who does a bunch of the stuff that he does to get more attention. We've never covered his various hilarious legal threats, though you can see a bunch of them nicely cataloged at this website. If you're not aware, you can do some Google searches, but suffice it to say that he plays a "journalist" on the internet, and he's somewhat infamous for the various stunts he pulls, combined with his penchant for threatening people with libel, as well as for many of his biggest stories being, well... ridiculous. A few weeks ago he threw something of a public tantrum because Twitter kicked him off its service. He had a lawyer in Missouri, John Burns, send a ridiculous threat letter to Twitter, based on an interpretation of the law that might be described as "crazy" by some and... "wrong" by many others.

But, now, by all accounts, it appears that Johnson has actually filed a defamation lawsuit in Missouri against Gawker (who is currently fighting a big (and much more important) lawsuit concerning the Hulk Hogan sex tape excerpt that it published). The lawsuit is equally as nutty as most things associated with Chuck Johnson, but go ahead and read it. The one thing that's important to note is that there hasn't, yet, been confirmation that it's actually been filed, but at the very least someone put work into it.

By all public appearances, the only reasons that this was filed in Missouri was because... that's where Johnson could actually find a lawyer willing to file something so ridiculous (the same lawyer who made the silly threats against Twitter) and, perhaps, because Missouri lacks a real anti-SLAPP law. It has one, but it only applies to petitioning the government. All the more reason to support a federal anti-SLAPP law.

We can go through all the reasons why the lawsuit is likely to fail, but, come on, we've got other stories to write as well, so we'll just pick out some of the highlights.

1. Missouri?!? WTF? There is no legitimate reason to file this lawsuit in the state court in Missouri. Johnson is in California. Gawker is in NY. And no, the fact that it's kind of "in the middle" doesn't count. This lawsuit will almost certainly be thrown out over the venue choice. The rationale in the lawsuit is laughable:

   Because Plaintiffs have been injured in the State of Missouri, the matter is properly before a circuit court of Missouri. Venue is determined solely by statute. State ex rel. Selimanovic v. Dierker, 246 S.W.3d 931, 932 (Mo. banc 2008). Because the matter alleges torts, including defamation and invasion of privacy, venue is proper in this Court.

   That's unlikely to fly. As Adam Steinbaugh notes in his write-up (the link above), the case will almost certainly get dumped for "lack of personal jurisdiction." At the very least it won't stay in state court as it meets all the easy criteria for removal to federal courts (parties in different states, over $75k at stake...). Steinbaugh also wonders if Gawker might try to jump into federal court and file for declaratory relief in a state where it can use an anti-SLAPP law, but that's not actually as easy as it may sound for a variety of reasons.
   
2. The standard for defamation: As we've discussed many, many times, if you're a public figure, the standard for defamation is very high (as it should be). The statements need to be done with "actual malice," meaning that Gawker published false stuff, knowing it was false and that it would harm Johnson. That's not happening.
   
3. That's not defamation: Among the things that Johnson complains about is a Gawker claim that he is the "web's worst journalist." That's clearly a statement of opinion. No court is likely to find that defamatory.
   
4. Intermediary liability to the rescue: Johnson also claims that Gawker reporters "solicited" defamatory comments. That's protected by CDA 230 and should get tossed out. From the lawsuit:

   It is very common for initiators of writings (such as Defendants Howard and Trotter) to create content amongst other non-initiating content creators, and to directly respond-to and collaborate with non-initiating content creators, instigate and solicit responses from non-initiating content creators, and adopt the conclusions of or otherwise advertise or approve of the content of non-initiating content creators as signified through text content or by hyperlinking to additional locations on the same webpage or the webpages of other stand-alone writings.

   Yeah, that's not how the law works.
   
5. False things about false light: The lawsuit makes "false light" claims in addition to defamation. There's a problem with that. For the most part, Missouri does not recognize "false light." It's not absolutely true, but mostly true, as noted in a recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling that notes that it has left open the possibility of false light in future cases, but that it absolutely will not allow attempts to just pile on a false light claim that is nothing but an attempt to allege defamation in another form. This is not false light and Missouri's courts have rejected basically all false light claims for decades.

In the end, this may be more of the same nutty trolling from a nutty troll, but now that it's (supposedly) actually hitting the judicial system, it's worth highlighting yet another attempt to use defamation law to silence the press. What's almost hilarious about this is that Johnson often holds himself out as a strong supporter of the First Amendment. Funny stuff.

Filed Under: cda 230, chuck johnson, defamation, false light, first amendment, free speech, john burns, jurisdiction, missouri, opinion, venue
Companies: gawker