--- From: "Chuck Hammill" <weaponsrusat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: cyber-libel subtleties -- OK to post if you deem worthwhile Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:26:35 -0700 As an admitted extremist about the First Amendment and a long-time Politech subscriber, I find myself in a bit of a difficult situation, and one in which I want to make quite certain not to appear as a "bad guy" from a freedom standpoint: I have purchased, lifetime, exactly one item via Yahoo: a set of 4 size 5 1/4" floppy drives which came to less than twenty bucks, including shipping. I paid in advance, and the guy insisted on waiting for my check--checks, actually, as he upped the shipping charges a buck over what was advertised--to clear before he sent them. I have the cancelled checks with his signature in front of me now. I happen to notice while poking around on the site that he has rated me "bad" and specifically claimed that I never paid him for the order. You must understand that my screen name is not something like "Spaceman23" but "chuck_hammill", my actual name; that I have spent fifty years acquiring a reputation for personal integrity; and that I routinely transact thousands of dollars in business on a phone call, mouse click, or handshake. I offer him a chance to apologize and correct the Yahoo rating, but he e-mails me, while I am holding his cancelled checks in my hand, that I am probably mistaken (!) so it is now my intention (in a purely metaphorical legal sense, while respecting all his legal rights) to see he gets stomped like a narc at a biker rally, and so does anybody who assists him. My personal problem is just how much I can hold Yahoo responsible without looking evil in the eyes of Politechers. I understand (and agree with) the fact that Yahoo has a safe harbor against claims of vicarious or contributory liability for defamation they don't know about; anything else would pretty much destroy 'blogs and open discussion on the net. But I want to take the position that on a Yahoo-maintained ratings board they are obligated to promptly delete a libelous allegation after they have received proof of its falsity, rather than waiting for the concurrence of the original poster. In particular, I can demonstrate malice (willful falsity, or reckless disregard whether false) since the vendor cashed in March the checks he accuses me of never sending. This does not seem unreasonable to me, and for that reason alone I would make Yahoo a co-defendant to the lawsuit. I of course realize that it would be easier/cheaper/less stressful to deal with this in other ways like maybe send him a Xerox of the checks and perhaps a freakin' box of chocolates as well, but this is not at issue. Also, I have not even heard a final answer from Yahoo yet, so I'm still contemplating my options. I'm basically looking for a "letter of marque" or at least a "no action on our radar" response so I don't end up looking like the Scientologists or RIAA or some other enemy of cyber-liberties who is improperly targeting innocent civilians. Or, if anybody thinks I'm out of line, I'd like to hear that too; please put "LAWSUIT" in the subject line. Chuck Hammill <mailto:weaponsrusat_private>weaponsrusat_private --- From: "Chuck Hammill" <weaponsrusat_private> To: <declanat_private> Subject: cyber-libel issue w/Yahoo now moot Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:54:20 -0700 Kinda spooky, but the issue of just how much I can legitimately lean on Yahoo about a libelous post has become moot within hours of my addressing Politech about the topic. Not given to un-Randian mysticism, I tend to credit the day's e-screaming to the individual himself about "actual malice" (known falsehoods) and punitive damages and wire fraud; and perhaps even to the discreet mention to Yahoo that the guy's "save and hold harmless" indemnity to them won't be worth much if my judgment puts him into bankruptcy first. Still an important question though: How much "collateral damage" to "innocent civilians" is legitimate in pursuing a just action against a wrongdoer? If the guy had stonewalled, I would have brought Yahoo in as co-defendant only if they continued to leave up an allegation AFTER I had proven to them that it was libelous (false, defamatory, damaging to reputation) and uttered with malice. I still think that would have been legitimate. Cheers, Chuck Hammill <mailto:weaponsrusat_private>weaponsrusat_private ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:25:47 PDT