Lee Kaplan, a journalist who writes on Middle East controversies for (among other outlets) David Horowitz’s conservative Front Page, attracted the critical interest of a Berkeley student named Yaman Salahi, who set up a blog entitled Lee Kaplan Watch that assails Kaplan and his work. Kaplan proceeded to sue Salahi on charges of “business interference” in small claims court, a venue lacking in the extensive fact-finding and procedural protections that would attach to a conventional suit for, say, defamation. Last month the court awarded Kaplan $7500. The blogosphere has begun to notice the story with some alarm: Seeing the Forest for the Trees, Dean’s World, Ann Althouse, Slashdot. More links: Media Law Resource Center. Kaplan’s side of the story is here.
9 Comments
My first impression after hearing about this case a while back was that the small claims court really screwed over the student/blogger, but after reading Kaplan’s account of what happened, I’m not so sure.
The student ducked service, a default was entered against him, he got it vacated and had several hearings before 3 different judges as well as an appeal. At his final hearing, he even had a lawyer. It appears as though he got plenty of opportunity to be heard.
I am unfamiliar with California law, but every small claims court I know of has a procedure by which you can demand a jury trial (indeed, the Constitution protects our right to a jury trial) and transfer the case to a court that follows the ordinary rules of procedure and evidence. He chose not to.
Good point E-Bell.
And on the other hand Walter, some of us are focusing attention on people/institutions (with our blogs) who interferred with & destroyed our business . . . all the while hiding behind the guise of public service . . . and paying for it on the public’s dime.
Folks have asked me if I worry about getting sued (again . . . the first time didn’t work out so well for the small-town-gods who sued me). Sure I do.
But right is right and wrong is wrong. And if someone was thick enough (again) to do something like that, it might just make this story (showcasing every nasty black/loophole of civil and criminal law I fell through) finally go “viral” . . . beyond the local newspapers that have long kept it in the can.
The notion that Mike Nifong is the only bad apple in North Carolina, is a notion that needs to be squashed.
E-Bell,
I have to agree. IMNAL but if even a small part of Kaplan’s claims were true, this seems like a reasonable use of the courts time.
Checking out the links provided, I did not notice any of them providing Kaplan’s side of the story. It seemed mostly, knee-jerk reaction.
Both the court and the appeal sided with Kaplan. It is at least possible that they were right.
After posting the above, I went to the student’s site, entitled “Lee Kaplan Watch.”
In one of the posts (Oct. 22, 2006), he encouraged readers to go to the Alameda court’s web site (http://apps.alameda.courts.ca.gov/domainweb/casesumbody.html) and enter the case number (BS06288332) to see a record of the documents that were filed.
I did so, and after reading the student’s untimely SLAPP motion and Kaplan’s response (especially the exhibits attached to it), it’s obvious to see that there was at least a factual basis for Kaplan’s claims.
Kaplan seems to be in the right here if a fraction of his claims are true. He’s not suing over the establishment of the blog, he’s suing over some fairly despicable conduct.
My guess, from my experience with California courts, is that Kaplan is going to spend more than $7500 in time and money trying to collect that judgment if Salahi continues to attempt to evade court proceedings. He’s issued an order of examination, and courts don’t particularly care when the debtor fails to show up to those.
I read the stuff on the Lee Kaplan post and the lawsuit. It seems pretty clear to me that Kaplan was first libelled by Salahi and then Salahi used the libelous postings to at the very least attempt to interfere with Kaplan’s attempt to make a living.
I guess I do not see the overlawyered point here. Kaplan even tried to handle this in way that neither consumed a huge amount of legal nor judicial resources. I would think that overlawyered would be highlighting this as a measured way (Small Claims court) to deal with a dispute of this nature (where one party simply refused to engage the other party and where there is a potential underlying tort). The only reason Salahi did not get to respond in the first trial was his delibrate avoidence of notice. The second trial that Salahi attended and made arguments at came to the same conclusion and that conclusion was confirmed on appeal to the superior court.
The only way this could be a problem is if Kaplan was never libelled by Salahi.
If the blogosphere believes that this is a threat then it is being had by someone who sounds like a kook to me.
The problem with ‘academic freedom’ is that is neither ‘academic’ nor ‘free’. I think I’d advocate the medieval concept of trial by combat. Much more final, much more entertaining and we would really be able to determine how deeply one’s ‘sense of injury’ is.
I hope the officials at Berkley try to provide mental help to Yaman Salahi. He is obsessing in much the same way as did Timothy McVeigh before blowing up the Murrah building and killing nearly 300 innocent people. That event didn’t phase Bush or Cheney at the time because McVeigh was a God-loving gun nut.
Free speech is premised on having truth overcoming falsehoods through open debate. The Israelis voted for Peace in electing Ehud Barak, and a fair peace treaty was worked out at Camp David with the help of President Clinton. The Palistinians rejected the treaty, and then voted for the annihilation of Israel by choosing Hamas. Yet our brightest students declare Israel to be an aggressor in the Middle East. I do not understand why free speech doesn’t work in this case, or in the evolution case either.
Uh, William . . . Oklahoma City was in April 1995–that would be “Clinton” and “Gore”, respectively. And, it was about 170, not 300, people. (Whether McVeigh was a “God-loving gun ‘nut'” or not, is not relevant. By your definition would that make Salahi a “Palestinian nut”, a “car-bomb nut”, a “Hamas nut”, or what?)