October 11th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
This just infuriates me. I read today that a jury awarded $11.3 million to a Florida lady that was criticized unfairly by another woman on her blog. It was for “defamatory internet posts” that caused loss of reputation and having her feelings hurt.
It is apparent that there is no way the Florida woman is going to get a single penny - the accused had lost her house in Hurricane Katrina and is already struggling to make ends meet. She didn’t even turn up for the trial and didn’t have a lawyer because she couldn’t afford it.
Talk about beating a person while she is down. The Florida woman admits to suing because she wanted to “prove a point”. I understand feelings were hurt and such but this is just brutally evil and heartless i.e. to create a legal case out of the whole thing, wasting the time and money of the courts, all the time knowing that the Louisiana woman was struggling to make ends meet after Hurricane Katrina. Doesn’t she realize that the poor Louisiana woman has more to worry about than this? Where is the compassion? The poor lady is also now probably going to find it tough getting a job because of this legal record against her. All because of one’s pride? This case shouldn’t have been allowed to go this far in the first place. And the jury- what were they thinking?
This is a landmark case that is just going pave the way for a whole string of lawsuits from people claiming to be hurt by so called defamatory posts. It has already started. Such is the case of how America has become. Every little thing can result in a lawsuit! I seem to remember several years ago where a burglar sued the owner of the house because he was injured attempting to rob the house. He won!
As with everything we do, there is always a thin fine line between the speaking your mind, truth and stretching the truth. I am a firm believer of free speech on the internet but also believe that it shouldn’t be taken advantage of - I don’t, in anyway believe that this case crossed that line. The internet is one of the few remaining places where you can actually speak your mind, and it will be a shame to have that very freedom taken away as a result of a select group that are hurt by so-called petty remarks.
Whatever misunderstandings with feelings and remarks should always be settled out of court and if it does go to court - it should be more than just to prove a point and for one’s pride. Yes they may win (as in this case), but they have to think of the major repercussions that will result from it. It is a case of losing a lot more than you would win. Trying to do that just shows the level of maturity of one’s self and his/her ignorance. It is a prime example of how the justice system is often manipulated with petty, time wasting and stupendous accusations. If there is one area where we should gripe about in precious tax dollars being wasted - this should be it.
29 Responses to “Let’s sue everyone, shall we?”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
ANO said: @ 7:28 pm
October 11th, 2006
It’s crazy the things people sue over these days and to go after someone who has nothing left? Was she FL lady trying to prove a point that she’s an asshole or what?
Mr. Fabulous said: @ 7:28 pm
October 11th, 2006
Unbelievable.
A cautionary tale for us all.
Shelli said: @ 8:49 pm
October 11th, 2006
That is just unreal. I have stronger words, but I know you try to keep it clean here. I cannot believe it. Some people should be opened up just to see if they actually have a heart. (Okay, not really.)
janvangogh said: @ 9:09 pm
October 11th, 2006
Hope the person is happy making her point — geez.
On a brighter note. Tell your other half thanks for stopping by my blog.
The artwork she commented on will be a poster. Highsmith is the client. As a teacher, she may have access to their materials.
Thanks again.
Kristyn said: @ 9:40 pm
October 11th, 2006
Oh my goodness, this is rediculous!!! This is the first I’ve heard of this, and it makes me so mad! People are sueing bloggers? We should be free to speak our minds, and I agree the actions of a select few seem to be coming down on the rest of us. It’s a shame, people can be so petty!
Kristyn
eph2810 said: @ 9:48 pm
October 11th, 2006
I so agree with you on this. Okay, blogs are a personal thing. If you don’t like what the author wrote you just move on. I hope that one day someone will not sue me because I speak out about my faith…
Thank you for sharing this…Very sad story indeed.
The Foo said: @ 10:29 pm
October 11th, 2006
ANO: \”…prove a point that she’s an asshole or what?\” That is exactly it… pride can sometimes be an evil thing huh?
Mr. Fab: yes, now we have to watch ourselves when we write. Ridiculous!
Shelli: I did have stronger words too but this is a family friendly blog… i hate to restrain myself. I am still fuming over it!
The Foo said: @ 10:36 pm
October 11th, 2006
Janvangogh: Your pics are a hit with J! I told her about your fish art (w/ the hidden animals) too and she absolutely loved that one! A purchase of some sort may be around the corner ;-)
Kristyn: Yup, people can be so petty sometimes. whatever it is, she\’ll probably pay for her heartless act sometime or rather - \”what goes around, comes around\”.
eph2810: yup the day that jury went against the accused is when it became a sad day for us bloggers. you are right, if you don\’t like what you hear on the blog… just move on.
thewatchlist said: @ 1:44 am
October 12th, 2006
It’d be interesting to see what the people actually said in their blogs. That guy who made false claims about the former lawyer bribing judges on behalf of drug dealers and then following it up with the whole “Rafe, don’t you wish you had given back my $3,000 retainer?” thing deserved what he got. He was making stuff up and putting it out there like it was true info. Some employers google you. Do you really need some cry baby asshat slandering you online in an obvious attempt to hurt your business/livelihood? I can’t really comment on the 11.3 million case because I don’t know what was said but it did mention that she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others online. This is what I found…
http://www.nola.com/printer/pr.....cue20.html
Anyways, if you are doing something with the intention of sticking it to someone, make sure it is truthful and accurate or make it obvious parody. If you present false information as truth just to get revenge, the other person has legal rights to go after you for it.
Janice (5 Minutes for Mom) said: @ 2:02 am
October 12th, 2006
good grief.
Shelli said: @ 5:10 am
October 12th, 2006
I trackbacked your post today.
Bean said: @ 6:09 am
October 12th, 2006
These sorts of stories are the kind of thing people over here usually shake their heads about and say “Only in America”. That’s not really true these days. I’ve heard of just as many ridiculous Australian court cases (though none as yet involving bloggers) and I just find it so hard to understand the suing mentality. Nice post Foo.
Terrapreata said: @ 8:36 am
October 12th, 2006
I am no fan of litigation, windfall lawsuits, or any of that BS.
But from what I read of the links you posted, it sounds like these cases all involve actual libel. Just because we are individual bloggers, it does NOT mean that we are above the law. If we print lies about another person and it can be shown that we did so knowingly, then we will be found legally responsible. If it can further be shown that the lies printed caused harm to personal or (especially) professional life, then the dollar award will reflect that.
tp
Megan said: @ 10:00 am
October 12th, 2006
I’m am so sick of whiners. $11.3 million because her tender little feelings were hurt? Following that logic, I should be richer than Bill Gates.
The jury should be ashamed of itself. As should the court system.
Angela K said: @ 1:27 pm
October 12th, 2006
“Cautionary” is a good word to use today. I wish I had taped my ex calling me an “arrogant c***” when I told him to stop sending my daughter to daycare with lice. (Three times in the span of six months — all from his house.) That didn’t hurt my feelings as much as let me know that I was on the right track as far as trying to keep him in line. You already know how I feel about the court system and juries, etc. I can’t even talk about it without my blood boiling.
Although, reading one of the posts above me, there IS accountability in this world (hopefully), and none of us should be allowed to defame others by using lies with malicious intent. Let the truth speak for itself, I say. (Not sure if that was the case here or not.)
I also think it was EXTREMELY foolish of the woman being sued not to go to court. (I skimmed, so maybe I’m missing something here, but showing up is half the battle. You don’t need a lawyer to show up and say your peace.)
The Foo said: @ 1:33 pm
October 12th, 2006
thewatchlist/ Terrapreata:
I agree both of you on the fact that one should be accountable when they unfairly criticize you, but how do we judge to what extent an unfair or defamatory a remark is when it is so inconsistently practiced in the real world. Slandering nowadays to me is such a relative word - it happens right before our very eyes on TV and nobody even says anything about it e.g. how coke puts down pepsi and vice versa, how Quiznos subs talk bad about Subway subs or cell phone companies criticizing each other openly. I call that obvious slander - someone else might call it healthy competition or marketing tactics and someone else might call it humorous. So if that is ok, all of a sudden Bock\’s remarks are bad? So where do we draw the line of what is a bad or good remark?
What we have here is a clear case an unfair trial too - she didn\’t win because of facts - the jury awarded her the case because the other didn\’t show up and didn\’t have a legal defense. How would you put the blame on Bock not showing up to court when the address she had on file was wiped out by Hurricane Katrina and she doesn\’t have a proper place to live - so wherever the court judgment was sent… she never received it. She says it clearly… she wasn\’t allowed to tell her own side of the story - and I believe it. The fact that the Florida person went ahead with the trial without waiting (considering the circumstances) clearly shows that she didn\’t care too much about getting a fair trial - she just wanted to win and save her pride.
In reality, there are a lot of people out there like that Florida lady! … this case just paves the way for those kind of people to start suing more because they know they have a good chance to win citing this case.
I also don\’t believe people or businesses when they claim that one insignificant person criticizing them is bad for their business. Honestly, if you are in business - you have to be prepared for a lot of the backstabbing and criticizing, that is reality. One person\’s thoughts (regardless of whether it is true or fake) IS NOT going to bring down your business nor affect it. If she is SO bothered by one insignificant person\’s comments - then she must surely be hiding something or feeling guilty about something she has done in the past. She could have easily backed up the so-called defamatory remarks with facts or good references from previous clients rather than take the legal route knowing that she would probably win with the cash she has at her disposal.
What we have here is blatant corporate bullying and this happens a lot in the real world - just because she has more money to put out a legal defense to win - doesn\’t mean that she is right and winning fairly… it just means that she has more tools at her disposal to bully the other person! Is it worth trying to prove a point while destroying somebody else\’s life?
Think about it - that one person\’s remarks caused her $11.3 million worth of business?? … that is totally absurd and utter nonsense! That to me is just a case of milking the justice system.
A true business would not care about one person\’s opinion. Obviously there are exceptions when that remark comes from a well known or famous source - Bock is none of those sources. Bottom line is that Bock\’s side of the story was not heard fairly - that is where our justice system fails us - you can\’t just award $11.3 million dollars to a person when you have not even heard the other person\’s side of the story. The jury should have seen that considering the circumstances of an address being wiped out by Katrina, that Bock should at least be given a fair trial or attempts should be made to contact her before making judgment.
Though there may be legit cases - my point to this post is that letting someone like that win just creates a chain effect for others to follow suit. And with a crazy sue happy society we already live in, do we want it extended to the internet where people are afraid to talk about stuff or opinions. People blow off steam all the time - do we sue each and every person that does that on their blog or claim slander? Unless we are more consistent with our claims of what exactly is slander or what we consider defamatory remarks - no one has the right to judge another person with their whims or personal feelings (yet alone based on pride) as it will just vary from person to person.
Terrapreata said: @ 3:16 pm
October 12th, 2006
A couple further points…
You are right, no one has the right to judge another persons’ feelings. But that is not what slander/libel/defamation laws do.
If I say, ‘I really hate X’, no one can a say a damn thing about it. Even if X is a real person, that feels real bad, and even if me ‘hating X’ effects thier business or personal life. However, if I say ‘X is’ something or other and I know that it is not true, THEN I am opening myself up to a slander suit.
So first rule, understand the difference between hurting someone by knowingly (or recklessly) lying about them and simply expressing your personal views, opinions and feelings. The former is illegal (and rightly so), the later is not.
TV commercials do not engage in slander. If they did, we would see lawsuits growing like crazy, because if Coke came out and hinted at a suggestion of a lie about Pepsi, the response would be swift adn devastating — and perhaps we would then only have 1 major cola distributor in this country.
Second, no matter how many times the politicians say so, Americans are not sue-happy. Yes, there are some individuals that abuse the system and we always hear about them. But in fact, most cases involve a valid complaint. We may not like the frame of monetary compensation, but the simple fact is that it is an effective way to
1. discourage people from acting recklessly or with malice toward other individuals and groups (particularly with corporate safety issues, etc) and
2. provide some resources to mediate the problems that DO occur (again, most obviously in regards corporate pollution etc.) Its not a perfect system, but it is designed to provide a mechanism for holding people responsible for their own actions.
Next point, the $11.3 million is irrelevant. None of that money will ever exchange hands and everyone involved knows this. The woman in Florida paid all of the court fees to see this through, knowing that she would never see a penny, not even fee reimbursement, because she felt it was an important issue for establishing legal precedent. In any case, it obviously was not about greed and money.
As far as your contention that this does no harm to people… imagine yourself as an independant business person, working within a niche market (ie, everyone knows and talks to each other), your clients find you by word of mouth and reputation… and then someone starts telling everyone that will listen that you are a bad person, you eat children and small mammals and they should never trust you (or whatever, we don’t know the specific statements). First thing, you would probably try talking to this person that is mouthing off — try and find some way to work out whatever the issue is. Failing that… you can close up shop and go get a totally different kind of job, or you can hang on until you go bankrupt, or you can fight back — in this case by bringing the issue before a jury. What would you do?
Finally, it is true that the defendant did not ‘have a chance to tell her side of the story’ but she says that she knew the trial was coming up, just not the exact date. That tells me that she didn’t bother finding out when it was going to be, nor actually attending. So either she had no interest in defending herself, or she knew she was in the wrong. (There are other possibilities, various forms of depression can make one apathetic and enduring Katrina would certainly be cause for depression…) In any case, her lack of defense was a result of her own (in)actions, so I don’t see how that can ascribe to her the victims status.
tp
serena said: @ 4:34 pm
October 12th, 2006
who in the HELL would actually award this bitch 11 MILLION DOLLARS for an insult against her on the freaking internet? what warrents 11 million?? seriously.
was she going to be injured physically for the rest of her life? NO!
did someone die or almost die? NO!!
does this insult in anyway affect her life outside of her intial supposided mental anguish after reading it? HELL FUCKING NO!!
this is unbelieveable. someone should kick her in the head. atleast then she’d have something to complain about.
serena said: @ 4:36 pm
October 12th, 2006
you know what, on a secondary follow up note, i can imagine why this woman was greated with a negative comment on her blog. she probably deserved it.
Lynda said: @ 5:21 pm
October 12th, 2006
On the other hand, maybe people will get together after hearing about this silly lawsuit, and help the Louisianna woman get on her feet.
Remember the Colorado brownie incident?
Kailani said: @ 5:30 pm
October 12th, 2006
Yes, I heard there are a few lawsuits over DontDateHimGirl.com, too. It’s actually a pretty funny site!
Ron Amos said: @ 8:07 pm
October 12th, 2006
Perhaps the philosophy of law needs an accurate epistemology and an effective enforcement clause.
Tug said: @ 9:20 pm
October 12th, 2006
Found this through Shelli’s….holy COW. We really need to get rid of the judges & juries that allow this to happen - insanity more & more. Unfrickingbelievable.
Angela K said: @ 1:02 am
October 13th, 2006
Oh, that’s wonderful! I want to come up with a dontmarrythisman.com, but it looks like it’s already been done. Fabulous! I myself was recently sued (countersued, actually) for some stuff that no one can prove. Prove it, buddy! That and the fact that facts are facts and you can’t be found guilty for telling the truth about someone. HA! p.s. Just found out today that Heather Armstrong (Dooce.com) was also sued. What’s up with the world?!
kristarella said: @ 9:41 am
October 13th, 2006
There was a case down here where a guy won against a municipality because he broke his neck while drunk and diving into a sandbank at a beach. I don’t remember how he won, I think the beach was even sign-posted, or maybe it wasn’t and that’s the arguement… do drunk people read signs telling them not to do things anyway?
Bean said: @ 10:04 pm
October 13th, 2006
Hey Foo, just wanted to remind you that if you would like people to vote for this entry in the phi blog war, there is a link to vote for your entry that you can use in your posts.
The link to vote for this entry is:
http://www.notbean.com/content.....entryId=97
The Foo Logs » Blog Archive » Vote for me at the Philosophy Blog War Pinged With: @ 2:13 am
October 16th, 2006
[…] This is the last chance to vote for me at the Philosophy Blog War! Deadline for voting is the 17th of October. I appreciate the support! My entry was last week’s article: Let’s sue everyone, shall we? […]
The Foo Logs » Blog Archive » Last chance to vote… Pinged With: @ 1:19 am
October 23rd, 2006
[…] My entry was the post: Let’s sue everyone, shall we? […]
The Foo Logs » Blog Archive » Who won? Foo won… Pinged With: @ 8:02 pm
October 24th, 2006
[…] Hooray! I won this month’s Philosophy Blog War for my entry Let’s sue everyone, shall we? Thanks to all that voted for me. […]