SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the the-first-amendment-means-something dept.
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
As you likely know, for most of the past nine months, we've been dealing with a defamation lawsuit from Shiva Ayyadurai, who claims to have invented email. This is a claim that we have disputed at great length and in great detail, showing how email existed long before Ayyadurai wrote his program. We pointed to the well documented public history of email, and how basically all of the components that Ayyadurai now claims credit for preceded his own work. We discussed how his arguments were, at best, misleading, such as arguing that the copyright on his program proved that he was the "inventor of email" -- since patents and copyrights are very different, and just because Microsoft has a copyright on "Windows" it does not mean it "invented" the concept of a windowed graphical user interface (because it did not). As I have said, a case like this is extremely draining -- especially on an emotional level -- and can create massive chilling effects on free speech.
A few hours ago, the judge ruled and we prevailed. The case has been dismissed and the judge rejected Ayyadurai's request to file an amended complaint. We are certainly pleased with the decision and his analysis, which notes over and over again that everything that we stated was clearly protected speech, and the defamation (and other claims) had no merit. This is, clearly, a big win for the First Amendment and free speech -- especially the right to call out and criticize a public figure such as Shiva Ayyadurai, who is now running for the US Senate in Massachusetts. We're further happy to see the judge affirm that CDA Section 230 protects us from being sued over comments made on the blog, which cannot be attributed to us under the law. We talk a lot about the importance of CDA 230, in part because it protects sites like our own from these kinds of lawsuits. This is just one more reason we're so concerned about the latest attempt in Congress to undermine CDA 230. While those supporting the bill may claim that it only targets sites like Backpage, such changes to CDA 230 could have a much bigger impact on smaller sites like our own.
(Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Thursday September 07 2017, @04:14PM (2 children)
While I understand the desire not to quote too much of TFA in TFS, I agree with Techdirt that the analysis on SLAPP was disappointing.
SLAPP is short for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation," and is a mechanism that at least some states have to discourage well-heeled individuals/organizations to chill free speech by imposing the lengthy and costly burden of defending at trial against smaller participants. i.e. "take back what you said or I'll tie you up in lawsuits for months, and it will cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars!" Anti-SLAPP legislation allows for relatively quick dismissals of lawsuits that are brought knowing lacking in merits for the primary purpose of imposing costs on defendants, and provides a mechanism for the defendant to recover all their legal costs if the case lacks merit (in the US system, each party typically pays its own legal costs, which is part of the reason why SLAPP lawsuits are a major threat to speech in the US).
One issue with Anti-SLAPP legislation is that each state that has an Anti-SLAPP law (not all states do) has a different one, and the protections offered and standards of proof required to invoke it differ. There is no federal Anti-SLAPP status yet. This is problematic because, in this day and age of the internet, "where" speech takes place is diffuse - because anyone can access something, it's in theory said "everywhere," so the "right" legal standard to apply to the speech is problematic.
In a case like this, where the speaker is in California and the target of the speech is in Massachusetts, the court chose to favor the target's home state (Massachusetts), which has a considerably weaker Anti-SLAPP law. The judge determined the Massachusetts law ought to apply. The reason this is problematic is that it weakens Anti-SLAPP protections - while the speaker might be in a state with strong Anti-SLAPP laws, the protection of those laws are weakened if an offended party can bring suit in a state where the laws are less strong. Effectively, there can be an "end run" around the law the speaker might reasonably think applied to their speech. (This, among many others, is a reason why I and others think we desperately need a federal Anti-SLAPP law).
Here's what TechDirt said about it. You can also read the decision for the judge's analysis.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday September 07 2017, @05:43PM
It is disgusting that TechDirt could not recover damages.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday September 08 2017, @02:46AM
There's no constitutional basis for a federal anti-SLAPP law.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.