Posted on 10/11/2006 7:28:57 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
A Weston, Fla., woman who spoke out publicly against a Utah-based company affiliated with a controversial chain of boarding schools for troubled teens around the world has won an $11.3 million Internet defamation verdict.
On Sept. 19, Susan Scheff and her Weston-based company, Parents Universal Resource Experts Inc., won the jury verdict in Broward Circuit Court against Carey Bock, a woman whom Scheff helped in getting Bock's two sons out of a school in Costa Rica. The judgment included $5 million in punitive damages.
Scheff filed the suit in December 2003, alleging that Bock posted defamatory statements about her on an Internet bulletin board viewed by parents of troubled teens, according to court pleadings.
The verdict is the latest chapter in the increasing volume of litigation around the country over the content of Internet sites, blogs and online bulletin boards.
"This is a new area of law," said Scheff's attorney, David H. Pollack of Miami. "The problem with the Internet is people can post anything about you and it can destroy you."
Pollack said that his client previously offered to settle the case for $35,000.
Scheff, who bills herself as an educational consultant, "tried to do something to help other parents and she wound up sort of being the object of hateful and vindictive statements," Pollack said. Scheff and her company sometimes get paid for their referrals.
The message of the verdict "is you just can't go out there on these blogs and slander and defame people without having any facts to substantiate what you are stating," Scheff said.
Bock could not be reached for comment before deadline. Her former lawyer, Jan D. Atlas of Adorno & Yoss in Fort Lauderdale, did not return a call for comment before deadline.
According to the suit, Bock had sought the help of Scheff and her company to refer her to an educational consultant who could get her sons out of a school affiliated with the Utah-based World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools. Pollack said the consultant succeeded in doing so.
After getting the boys out, from June 2003 through December 2003 Bock accused Scheff and her company of being "crooks," "con artists" and "frauds" who "exploit[ed] families" and place[d ] children in "risky" and "possibly abusive" programs as well as of operating a "scam," and being "no different than [the World Wide Association of Specialty Programs and Schools]," according to Scheff's suit.
Pollack said that a witness at the trial testified that Bock turned against Scheff after Scheff refused to help her contact a minor who allegedly was sexually abused at one of the World Wide-affiliated schools. The witness said Bock wanted to contact the minor for a documentary about the schools.
Among other things, Scheff's company has provided information to parents of troubled teens about World Wide affiliated schools.
The suit originally named Ginger Warbis, the owner of the Internet bulletin board, as a defendant. She later was dropped as a defendant in the suit.
*snip*
Is there no danger that lawyers can't save us from? /sarc
It's called the Mainstream Media.
This case is a disgrace to our legal system. Why don't we all just sue those people who called us names on the playground when we were kids? That mean spirited behavior has undoubtedly scarred people for life, and they are entitled to millions in compensation.
Better yet, we can all go over to DU (those of you who aren't already banned like me!!) and incite some of the wackos to call you names. It isn't hard over there, just post any logical argument and they will deride you to no end. Then we could in turn sue all of the libs for their mean words!!!! We could name Soros as a co-defendent by being part of the mean spirited left wing bunch of mean people!!!.
Give me a break.
Another reason why lawyers are scumbags.
Just a little question re: your tagline:
"Where does free speech end and character assasination begin?"
Probably need to ask politicians, the MSM, and politically motivated actors that question.
Let's say, just for argument's sake, that you owned a vegetable stand.
Some customer, mad because he found a worm in an apple or something, began to tell everyone that all of your produce was poisoned. In fact, he went so far as to take out a full page ad in the local newspaper broadcasting to the world that your produce was poisoned.
You don't think you'd have the right to sue the pants off him?
Is there any qualitative difference between a full page newspaper ad and postings on the Worldwide Web?
By the way...I'm generally not a fan of lawsuits or lawyers.
It seems to me this stuff happens all the time.
Thank You
We're going to see alot more of these sorts of actions in the future. The web is where business and politics intersects with millions of bored people who think they can post whatever they want on the web and that their perception of anonymity is real.
LOL...
See, that's the thing. With cached pages and all, there is no such thing as a memory hole. ;-)
Perhaps it does.
Just goes to prove that lawyers are our friends especially when then get 30 or 40 percent as a fee.
Hehe...
Great tagline, btw...
"A cautionary tale..."
...that means nothing, since it will not be appealed and won't be anything but an anamolous lower court decision, will never be enforced, and is not one that involved any real legal argument from the defendant.
And truth is a defense to charges of defamation. If you ain't lying, that's a tough civil suit agin ya.
Internet. Serious Business.
Yep.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.