It's not a statement of fact when the bases for the statement are fully disclosed. Then it's opinion, even if that opinion is objectively re-fucking-diculous. Even were it not, the asserted basis for establishing actual malice (i.e., the length of time before the election) is far less than clear and convincing.
Nevertheless, I'm glad cooler heads on the senator's side prevailed before there was even a chance to criticize them for it.
I just woke up to this after a long night at the day-turned-night-turned-day job, so I'm a bit groggy.
First, some housekeeping:
Regarding the tweets to me that are no longer there: "They are not [deleted]. They were removed when I blocked him I think."
Twitter doesn't 'remove' tweets when you block someone. Even if that were true, I suspect Twitter would have deleted this tweet as well.
"When I saw the very same image (now removed from Adam's Twitter feed btw - by him) in this article, I put two and two together and figured out what was going on."
That's false. My tweet including a link to the screenshot is still there. That screenshot (which I did not take) does not differ from the post it was taken from. When you complained that the quote was out of context, I tweeted a link to the full thread so my followers could judge the context for themselves.
One of my followers is Tim Cushing. The first I learned that TechDirt/Tim had posted about this was when you emailed me today. So I'm at a loss as to how I'm in "collusion" with anyone, although I'll assume that accusation arises out of a mistaken belief that Tim was someone else on the Steam boards.
Having re-read that thread (again), I still feel that it was a fair question as to why you would, in a thread classifying impolite reviews (regarding pricing) as 'trolling' and 'bullying', go on to invoke the legal process as an option:
"I don't care how old I get or what's at stake, I will never - ever - let anyone bully or push me around. Which is why when I fight back, it ends up being overkill because I don't pull any punches. Whether it is a lawsuit or just a discovery engagement to find the misfit behind the anon mask, I will pursue it as I have done on several occasions - and prevailed. Which is why people and corporations simply don't mess with me. Play nice and I'll play along. Anything else and it's game over."
In response to my inquiry as to what you meant, you've since stated, at least implicitly, that you are not considering legal options. That is probably wise. But those who would even suggest that censorious abuse of the legal process is an option should be questioned, particularly when they've issued hyperbolic, unsound legal threats in the past. For someone who has actually sued over words, you're awfully prickly when being asked what your own words mean.
An Internet cartoonist lampoons another site in a hyperbolic rant, using the word "thief" to describe a site profiting off of his creations while the site looks the other way. I can't imagine a court would that defamatory, and many courts have ruled as a matter of law that similar statements were not defamatory in less-sympathetic contexts.
FunnyJunk's threat was an attempt to get a quick settlement at nuisance value. Nothing more.
Charles Carreon lost much of his motion today. He gets 60 days to file a response (not the 120 he sought) and won't get discovery The discovery Carreon wanted was (in my opinion) a thinly-veiled attempt to harass both the satirical blogger and his counsel (he wanted to depose the blogger to ask him questions about how little his blog mattered to the world, and subpoena his lawyer for information regarding his firm) and drive up the costs of litigation.
Key quote from the judge: "The Ninth Circuit discourages major litigation with respect to attorneys’ fees. [...] Defendant’s request for extensive discovery would amount to a mini-trial on plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Such extensive discovery is unnecessary and a waste of resources. Accordingly, defendant’s request for a 120 day extension is denied."
I emailed Chance Trahan and Craig Brittain to offer to correct any statement on my blog that they could point out was inaccurate (and note that I wasn't going to be cowed by legal threats dispatched from a void of legal understanding).
Righthaven may be correct about the limitations of Rule 12(f) and can't really be faulted for pointing out that the judge is wrong. Lawyers have to tell judges that they disagree with them all the time so that they can preserve issues for appeal.
But THIS is just a jaw-dropping, unnecessary insult that, were it contained in a 'pleading' is just BEGGING for a motion to strike:
"[...] Righthaven was unaware of the Defendant's alleged medical condition prior to filing suit. In fact, Defendant's incessant use of the Internet as a means to post inflammatory statements about Righthaven and about these legal proceedings say more about his cognitive ability than one would otherwise surmise from the press statements made by his counsel."
On the post: Roca Labs Threatens Other Sites For Writing About Its Case, Files Another Questionable Document
Also fun
On the post: Roca Labs Threatens Other Sites For Writing About Its Case, Files Another Questionable Document
Empty frame
On the post: Roca Labs Story Gets More Bizarre: Senator Threatens Bogus Defamation Lawsuit, While Nevada Quickly Rejects Bogus Bribery Charge
Re: Bribery
Nevertheless, I'm glad cooler heads on the senator's side prevailed before there was even a chance to criticize them for it.
On the post: Techdirt's Response To Roca Labs' Demand For A Retraction
"Dear Mr. Berger and Roca Labs, Inc.:
lol.
love,eff and techdirt and mike"
In crayon, naturally.
On the post: Federal Revenge Porn Bill Will Look To Criminalize Websites
Re:
On the post: Game Dev Derek Smart (Again) Responds To A Negative Review By Making Vague Legal Threats And Banning Commenters
Re: Re: Tweet Detweeted
First, some housekeeping:
Regarding the tweets to me that are no longer there: "They are not [deleted]. They were removed when I blocked him I think."
Twitter doesn't 'remove' tweets when you block someone. Even if that were true, I suspect Twitter would have deleted this tweet as well.
"When I saw the very same image (now removed from Adam's Twitter feed btw - by him) in this article, I put two and two together and figured out what was going on."
That's false. My tweet including a link to the screenshot is still there. That screenshot (which I did not take) does not differ from the post it was taken from. When you complained that the quote was out of context, I tweeted a link to the full thread so my followers could judge the context for themselves.
One of my followers is Tim Cushing. The first I learned that TechDirt/Tim had posted about this was when you emailed me today. So I'm at a loss as to how I'm in "collusion" with anyone, although I'll assume that accusation arises out of a mistaken belief that Tim was someone else on the Steam boards.
Having re-read that thread (again), I still feel that it was a fair question as to why you would, in a thread classifying impolite reviews (regarding pricing) as 'trolling' and 'bullying', go on to invoke the legal process as an option:
"I don't care how old I get or what's at stake, I will never - ever - let anyone bully or push me around. Which is why when I fight back, it ends up being overkill because I don't pull any punches. Whether it is a lawsuit or just a discovery engagement to find the misfit behind the anon mask, I will pursue it as I have done on several occasions - and prevailed. Which is why people and corporations simply don't mess with me. Play nice and I'll play along. Anything else and it's game over."
In response to my inquiry as to what you meant, you've since stated, at least implicitly, that you are not considering legal options. That is probably wise. But those who would even suggest that censorious abuse of the legal process is an option should be questioned, particularly when they've issued hyperbolic, unsound legal threats in the past. For someone who has actually sued over words, you're awfully prickly when being asked what your own words mean.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]
Re: Re:
FunnyJunk's threat was an attempt to get a quick settlement at nuisance value. Nothing more.
On the post: Charles Carreon Keeps Digging; Now Targeting Lawyer Who Is Seeking Legal Fees [Updated]
Judge: lolno
Key quote from the judge: "The Ninth Circuit discourages major litigation with respect to attorneys’ fees. [...] Defendant’s request for extensive discovery would amount to a mini-trial on plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees. Such extensive discovery is unnecessary and a waste of resources. Accordingly, defendant’s request for a 120 day extension is denied."
On the post: 'Revenge Porn' Site Owners Escalate Their Failure, Going From Bogus DMCA Notices To Bogus Legal Threats
Re: none
"Chance, this is chess."
On the post: 'Revenge Porn' Site Owners Escalate Their Failure, Going From Bogus DMCA Notices To Bogus Legal Threats
I emailed Chance...
Chance replied:
"Thanks, I can now use this as proof as well that you are in turn harassing us. Thanks for replying. I knew you would."
Sigh.
On the post: Righthaven Tells Judge Handling All Its Colorado Cases That He's Wrong
That's nothin'
But THIS is just a jaw-dropping, unnecessary insult that, were it contained in a 'pleading' is just BEGGING for a motion to strike:
"[...] Righthaven was unaware of the Defendant's alleged medical condition prior to filing suit. In fact, Defendant's incessant use of the Internet as a means to post inflammatory statements about Righthaven and about these legal proceedings say more about his cognitive ability than one would otherwise surmise from the press statements made by his counsel."
Next >>