Sticks And Stones

 

1. So, let me get this straight. Some woman (Bock) has a kid who is so “troubled” that he needs to be sent to a special school ... in Costa friggin Rica. Against her wishes of course. I guess her marriage broke up, so now she wants to get her son back from the school. “Hello school, send my kid home please.” Yeah, that was tough. No no no, instead of that she needs to go talk to some other lady who runs this “resource” center, who apparently tells the first lady there’s nothing she can do, but here’s the number for some consultant guy who can get the job done. First woman makes that contact, and the consultant guy gets her kid back for her. Seems like the problem was solved to me, though why on earth the kid had to be sent to Costa Rica in the first place is beyond me.

   So, helpless housewife Bock now has her kid back, so now she gets mad at the intermediary lady (Scheff). Go figure. Bock says a bunch of snippy things about her on a web site. Can we say flame wars boys and girls? Boo hoo hoo, Scheff gets her feelings hurt so she sues; we all know that the two most important (yet invisible) right these days is the Right To Never Get Your Feeings Hurt, No Matter What.

   Ok, so we now have a libel and defamation lawsuit. Let’s bring out the postings and read them ... are the statements made by annoyed lady (Bock) just nasty remarks, or are they outright lies? Or are they her reactions to her take on real events? If and only if they are provably false, and not just her opinion, and it can be shown that intermediary lady Scheff lost business from comments posted at one forum (like there aren’t a million forums for each subject these days), then she has a case and can get settlement. But 11 million? WTF? I’d say 50 grand. I’m sure this judgement will be overturned on appeal.

   In the court of Drew, juries that awarded crazy huge amounts to “send a message” would be sent their own message: “your ass is going to jail now”.

   Posted by Drew458       10/11/2006  at  09:20 AM  



2. I agree with you Drew on all three counts: (1) $11 million is way too much for any kind of “damaged” reputation, (2) it will be probably overturned on appeal if Bock can afford to appeal, (3) juries like this need to take a cold shower before rendering judgement.

   I think the “loss of business” thing is the key here and will probably be the mark for future lawsuits against people on the internet. That should scare some people.

   Posted by The Skipper       10/11/2006  at  09:32 AM  



3. Skip, this smells like a sleeper bomb.  A test case.  Meaning, an attempt to establish a very dangerous precedent.

   Therefore, I’m sure that Bock will find a way to afford an appeal.  Either that, or the way to afford an appeal will find her.

   Why?  If this is allowed to stand, the implications of such a precedent are obvious and frightening.  From this point, how far is it to the point of shysters going after any website and/or blog that has ever “offended” someone?  Not to mention so-called “class actions?” And neither of us have to guess which general categories of websites and/or blogs would be the first targets.

   I’ll say it again, Bock will find help, or help will find her.  I hope so, and I hope this is stopped cold (although somebody is bound to come back and try again soon thereafter).

   

   Posted by Tannenberg       10/11/2006  at  09:46 AM  



4. Bingo, Tann! That’s exactly what I was hoping you guys would see. Politically critical bloggers like yours truly would be the first target.
   
   As for Bock, you are also 100% right. Somewhere out there a hundred shysters are already looking up her phone number, fully prepared to take the case on appeal and also file a countersuit against Scheff.

   Then again, there are blog sites like MoveOn.org, funded by George Soros’ millions who might decide that me or Misha or Michelle or some conservative blogger critical of them needs to pay damages. At the very least, I’d have to pay thousands in attorney’s fees to defend myself. That’s money I could never get back. They could bleed us to death.

   Are you scared yet?

   Posted by The Skipper       10/11/2006  at  10:02 AM  



5. Enough so that I’ll be following this case carefully, Skip, like all of us should.

   Posted by Tannenberg       10/11/2006  at  10:26 AM  



6. Hey Skipper, if you get sued maybe the ACLU will come to your defense!  Hey, they ought to, free speech being one of the fundamental civil liberties they say they fight for. Oh wait, yours is the wrong kind of free speech isn’t it? Never mind.

   Posted by Drew458       10/11/2006  at  10:45 AM  



7. The ACLU represent me? You crack me up, Drew!

   

   Posted by The Skipper       10/11/2006  at  11:18 AM  



8. Squiggy, you sure ask a lot of questions for someone from California.

   The answers are:

   Maybe.Yes.No.No.Yes.Maybe.Yes.

   

   Posted by The Skipper       10/11/2006  at  04:03 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.