When you try to intimidate folks you need to be more than loud...
You made the claim:
... there are literally thousands of defamation suits that result favorably for plaintiffs - including against the press, and many of those for statements of opinion.
... 79 posted on 10/24/2003 11:01 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine
Back it up with the facts or retract.
If you don't you can be charged with intimidation
That's why I want all your aliases. Think about it. Once we get to discovery you'll have to pay for the search time...and we wouldn't want Opey and Habsey to work that off in the Pokey...
Face it, fella. You are a blowhard who keeps going just one more step over the line.
----------
"A U.S. District Court has dismissed a defamation suit and issued an accompanying order that Global Telemedia International (GTMI) pay the attorneys' fees for individuals the company sued over Internet message board postings. The action may set the stage for broader protection of those who post jibes on the Web.
The court's ruling that the postings of Barry King and Ron Reader on a Raging Bull message board were protected free speech on a public issue may discourage the aggressive pursuit of Web posters critical of corporations, according to legal observers.
"The trend is that Internet speakers are becoming more aware of their rights," Megan Gray, the Los Angeles attorney who defended Reader, told NewsFactor Network.
Lawsuit SLAPPed
The defamation suit filed by GTMI, a Newport Beach, California-based telecommunications company, argued that statements made by Reader and Stevens, who posted under different names on Raging Bull's GTMI message board, were defamatory.
The court, however, dismissed the suit earlier this year, applying legislation known as Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP), and ruled last week that GTMI must also pay the defendants' legal fees, which total more than $55,000.
Attorney Gray told NewsFactor that the case marks the first time a company has had to pay legal fees in such a case, and may help discourage companies in their aggressive fight against critical Web postings.
"The large attorney-fee award may stem the hundreds of 'cyber gag' lawsuits being filed around the country to stifle Internet speech expressing negative opinions about matters of public interest, like poor corporate performance," said a statement from Gray's firm, Baker & Hostetler LLP.
Subpoena Squashers
While free speech and legal groups have warned of the growing number of suits that seek to disclose the identity of Web posters and pursue defamation claims, they say the tide may be turning.
"[This case] is going to discourage [frivolous lawsuits] because many of these cyber SLAPP or cyber gag suits are violations of free speech," Gray said. "The law does not permit a company to file a frivolous lawsuit solely to obtain subpoena power. The companies that pursue these look bad."
Attorneys and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are also increasingly defending Web posters and their identities, Gray said, adding that many message boards also now contain more information on rights of expression.