By reader acclaim: Allen Heckard of Portland, Ore. “says he’s been mistaken as Michael Jordan nearly every day over the past 15 years and he’s tired of it.” So he’s suing the basketball star and Nike founder Phil Knight for $832 million in all. “’I’m constantly being accused of looking like Michael and it makes it very uncomfortable for me,’ said Heckard. Heckard is suing Jordan for defamation and permanent injury and emotional pain and suffering. He’s suing Knight for defamation and permanent injury for promoting Jordan and making him one of the most recognized men in the world.” Why $832 million, exactly? “Well, you figure with my age and you multiply that times seven and ah, then I turn around and ah I figure that’s what it all boils down to.” That’s no more arbitrary as a calculation than some damage assertions we can think of that have done very well in court (Pat Dooris, “Local man sues Jordan, Nike for resemblance”, KGW, Jul. 7)(& more). Update Aug. 3: he drops case.
Posts Tagged ‘libel slander and defamation’
DontDateHimGirl.com
The website invites women to post negative “reviews” warning others against men who are poor dating material. Now it’s being sued by Pittsburgh criminal defense lawyer Todd Hollis, who says false and defamatory material about himself appeared on the site. (Moustafa Ayad, “City lawyer sues ‘don’t date him’ Web site”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jun. 30; Carl Jones, “Scorned Attorney Sues Kiss-and-Tell Web Site”, Miami Daily Business Review, Jul. 5; Robert Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch, Jun. 30; Lattman, Jul. 3; Evan Brown, Jul. 1.
Why the Jessica Cutler case matters
For some reason, we haven’t yet covered the Washingtonienne libel suit, where Little Rock law professor Robert Steinbuch revealed he was “R.S.” by filing suit against the infamous blogger, causing Judge Paul Friedman to comment, “I don’t know why this guy thought it was smart to file a lawsuit and lay out all of his private intimate details in an appendix to the complaint.”
Now Wonkette reports that Cutler’s third set of attorneys in the litigation Robert Steinbuch has filed against her, and has not yet retained new attorneys. Why might you care? Because Steinbuch, who waited until May 16, 2005 to complain about a May 4, 2004 blog post, is planning on arguing that every new blog post restarts the statute of limitations for a plaintiff wishing to complain about a blog. (T.R. Goldman, “A Man Scorned”, Legal Times, May 22). If Cutler defends against this argument pro se, Judge Friedman could be induced into an erroneous ruling that makes life difficult for bloggers everywhere. And there’s no reason that Steinbuch’s logic wouldn’t equally apply to computer databases like LEXIS that “republish” mainstream media articles upon request. One hopes Friedman will see through the Steinbuch argument.
Lawsuits it would be prudent not to become involved in
An example: one would not wish to be sued for defamation by the chief justice of one’s own state, as is happening at the moment to the Kane County Chronicle, which is facing a lawsuit from Illinois Supreme Court Justice Bob Thomas over a series of critical columns in the suburban paper. Noway, nohow would one wish one’s name to turn up as the defendant in such an action (Christi Parsons, “Chief justice doesn’t just get mad, he sues”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 18).
The Bloomsday litigants
The grandson of James Joyce, Stephen James Joyce, has used his control of the copyrights to Joyce’s work to impede scholarly research by threatening to withhold consent to any academic who would veer into investigation of the family history. He spent a hundred thousand dollars of the estate’s money to halt publication of a new edition of “Ulysses”; has “blocked or discouraged” a number of readings; and threatened to sue the National Library of Ireland when it sought to display its copies of Joyce’s manuscripts. In revenge for Michael Groden’s favorable blurb of a scholar Stephen Joyce disliked, Joyce quoted a price of a million and a half dollars for Groden’s right to quote “Ulysses” in the multimedia work he spent seven years preparing. D.T. Max in the June 19 New Yorker explores the younger Joyce’s battles, and also mentions other litigious literary estates.
“New Year’s Eve party from Hell”
On TuckerMax.com, anonymous participants used harsh language in deriding a holiday party thrown by a Philadelphia-based publicity firm. Its operator sued for defamation, and U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell ruled that under federal law a blogger cannot be held legally liable as the “publisher” of anonymous comments. And no, this does not mean that participants in our comments section should from now on assume that anything goes. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Judge: Bloggers Entitled to Immunity Under Communications Act”, Legal Intelligencer, Jun. 2).
UK: Police “wanted” posters could infringe privacy
“Detectives across the country are refusing to issue ‘wanted’ posters for [foreign ex-criminals in flight from police] because they do not want to breach human rights laws. Forces said that the offenders had a right to privacy and might sue for defamation if their names and photographs were released.” (Ben Leapman, “Human rights fears mean police refuse to issue wanted posters of foreign criminals”, Daily Telegraph (UK), May 14) (fixed broken link).
Blogosphere libel standards
As pointed out by commenter Scott McDonald in our earlier thread, an editor/commentator at NetworkWorld thinks Eric Goldman’s animadversions on lawyers suing Yahoo might strike those lawyers as itself cause for legal action (Paul McNamara, “More blogging off the cliff … lawyer-style”, May 12). Glenn Reynolds takes note of the controversy (May 12) and points to an SSRN paper of his own entitled, “Libel in the Blogosphere: Some Preliminary Thoughts“. Comments on the Goldman/Yahoo case: Denise Howell, Evan Schaeffer.
Dept. of Intimidating the Little Guy: Maine Board of Tourism
Lance Dutson of the Maine Web Report had the temerity to note that an expensive advertising agency published a phone-sex number instead of the correct line for the Maine Office of Tourism. For this, and other criticisms, Warren Kremer Paino Advertising is suing Dutson for millions. The plaintiff’s lawyer is Portland attorney Alfred Frawley III, who alleges that an opinion that a state agency is “pissing away” money is legally actionable. Dutson has numerous links for this ludicrous lawsuit. Greenberg Traurig is once again stepping up to protect free speech in defense, in conjunction with the Media Bloggers Association. (via Lattman)
Update: CAIR using litigation to silence critics?
The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has settled its Canadian lawsuit against the Web site Anti-Cair-net.org, the Canadian terrorism expert David Harris, writer David Frum, and the National Post. The settlement is secret, but there was no retraction of the claim that CAIR is a “terrorist-supporting front organization . . .founded by Hamas supporters” that aims “to make radical Islam the dominant religion in the United States.” David Frum has details in the April 25 National Post, and expresses optimism that free criticism of terrorism supporters can now take place.
Update: As Bob B points out in the comments, elsewhere in the blogosphere, Israpundit, LGF, and Powerline. Daniel Pipes also writes with extensive detail. It reasonably appears CAIR dropped the suit, to avoid submitting to discovery: an important lesson for every libel plaintiff. Three cheers for Greenberg Traurig LLP, which did pro bono work that was actually pro bono.