A New Age psychotherapeutic outfit based in Kittery, Maine, and nearby New Hampshire, the Gentle Wind Project “is a 24-year-old non-profit corporation that describes itself as being ‘dedicated to education and research aimed at alleviating human suffering and trauma.’ … The organization holds seminars across the country, selling “healing instrument” products for donations ranging from $450 to upwards of $10,000, asserting they have exclusive healing technology that is channeled telepathically from the ‘spirit world’ and has healing powers.” On a less serene note, the organization recently filed a lawsuit claiming that a husband and wife from Blue Hill, Me., Judy Garvey and James F. Bergin, and various other individuals defamed Gentle Wind by publishing a website criticizing the organization’s leadership and cautioning newcomers against excessive involvement. Garvey and Bergin were themselves formerly involved with Gentle Wind. (James Baker, “New age therapy group sues over Web site”, Foster’s Sunday Citizen (N.H.), Aug. 8)(more). The Gentle Wind Project’s side of the story may be found here and here. Update Jan. 19, 2006: federal judge dismisses suit.
Posts Tagged ‘online speech’
OJR on web defamation
In an article in USC Annenberg’s Online Journalism Review, writer Mark Thompson examines some recent instances in which webloggers have been threatened with defamation actions on questionable grounds, such targets including Justene Adamec (Calblog) (see Jan. 22) and the pseudonymous “Atrios”. One source of jeopardy is courts’ penchant for narrowly construing statutes intended to protect press freedom: for example, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals refused to extend to the Internet a state law providing that newspapers and magazines cannot be sued for defamation until they’ve been given a chance to retract an item. Also mentions our commentary on the Luskin/Atrios case (see Oct. 30). (“Law Offers Internet Publishers Scant Guidance on Libel”, Jun. 16).
“Is talking about online gambling illegal?”
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, running an ad for an offshore Internet casino may amount to “aiding and abetting” illegal gambling, a felony punishable by up to two years in prison. Rendering banking, computer-security or public-relations services to such a website — or maybe even mentioning its name — might constitute a violation as well, and it matters not that the site may be entirely lawful in the country from which it operates. Although it is far from clear that U.S. prosecutors could actually obtain convictions that would stand up on such charges, both Google and Yahoo have capitulated and agreed to stop running such ads, which “illustrates the chilling effect of vague laws in the hands of ambitious prosecutors,” writes Jacob Sullum. (“Abetting betting”, syndicated/Reason, Apr. 9). Update Aug. 9: and here come the class action suits.
Update: PetsWarehouse case
Latest chapter in the ongoing PetsWarehouse saga (Dec. 28, Oct. 5 and links from there): Robert Novak’s lawsuit against Google and two other search engines was allowed to stand. Novak accused the search engines of violating the law by selling advertising tied to his trademarked phrase “pets warehouse”. (Declan McCullagh, “Judge won’t toss out Google, Overture suit”, CNet News, Apr. 6; Mar. 25 opinion). Update Oct. 16 (Novak prevails in a different action).
More weblogs threatened with lawsuits
The widely discussed Luskin/Atrios affair last fall (see Oct. 30) was just the start, it seems, as far as webloggers being menaced with litigation over their sites’ contents. In November Justene Adamec of CalBlog (Nov. 14) received a demand letter from a lawyer for a telemarketing firm “threatening to sue me and ‘my agents’ for invasion of privacy, misrepresentation and interference with economic relations” because of critical discussion about the firm in readers’ comments at the site. See also Damnum Absque Injuria, Nov. 9 and Nov. 14 and Right on the Left Beach, Nov. 15 and Nov. 17, which have useful information on the workings of this particular telemarketing firm/directory publisher, Infotel by name. And last month Michael Airhart at Ex-Gay Watch (Dec. 23) received a letter from LightHouse World Evangelism, Inc. located in Rohnert Park, Calif., threatening a defamation suit over a post in which Airhart expressed decided doubt about the medical claims made by Pastor Matthew C. Manning, who has appeared on Pat Robertson’s broadcast “700 Club” to say that he was healed by faith from HIV/AIDS.
Web accessibility: still waiting for a case
In October 2002 a federal judge ruled against a claim that Southwest Airlines had violated federal law by failing to make its web site fully accessible to disabled internet users; the judge said a Web site isn’t a “place of public accommodation” covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act because it isn’t a “place” at all. In large part because of that ruling, there hasn’t been the rush that many of us expected to file ADA complaints against online publications and e-commerce providers. But the National Council on Disability, a federal agency, put out a position paper last summer (Jul. 10) aimed at renewing the push to get ADA applied to the Web. And disability rights activists, who are conceding nothing, hope to re-litigate the issue. “‘The Southwest Airlines ruling has set back the process of trying to get Internet sites covered by the ADA,’ said Curtis Chong, who heads the computer science division of the National Federation of the Blind. ‘But one of these days we’ll find a better place to file a better suit and maybe try and get it taken care of.'” If that ever happens, all hell is likely to break out in the online world. (Mark Thompson, “Courts Yet to Make Definitive Ruling on Online Access for the Disabled”, Online Journalism Review, Dec. 10). In its update the magazine quotes at considerable length what I told a Congressional panel in Feb. 2000 (and even runs my picture). Update Feb. 8, 2006: NFB sues retailer Target under California state law.
Update: PetsWarehouse suits
Robert Novak of Long Island has suffered yet another setback in his series of lawsuits against aquarium hobbyists and others arising from criticism of Novak’s business in online forums (see Oct. 5 and links from there). Last month federal judge Denis Hurley granted a motion to dismiss most of the defendants in one of Novak’s actions for lack of personal jurisdiction (case summary at defendant’s site). Update Oct. 16, 2004: Novak prevails in an Alabama action and regains domain.
Conspiracy to keep you scared and silent?
Economics commentator Donald Luskin, who operates a website entitled The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid, is known for his furious and unremitting attacks on New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman. So furious and unremitting have these attacks been as to raise the question of whether Luskin was actually daring Krugman to sue for defamation, as when Luskin declared on “Hannity and Colmes” Oct. 27 that Krugman “masquerades as an economic scientist” (whatever one thinks of his politics, Krugman is exceptionally well credentialed as an academic economist; by comparison, columnist Robert Novak let himself in for years of hard-fought litigation when he printed an assertion that Bertell Ollman, a much less well-known economic scholar, “has no status within the profession”). And two months ago Luskin alleged (“Lights-out economics”, National Review Online, Aug. 20) that a statement by Krugman about the Northeast electrical blackout was “one of the few truthful statements I can ever recall him uttering” — inevitably recalling, for defamation-law buffs, Mary McCarthy’s talk-show gibe at Lillian Hellman, which led to one of the American literary world’s most bitter and celebrated lawsuits: “Every word she writes is a lie, including ‘and’ and ‘the.’ ”
Now, however, it seems that Luskin pictures himself appearing in court as a plaintiff rather than a defendant. Recently he was verbally savaged in the comments section of the left-wing anonyblog “Eschaton” (http://atrios.blogspot.com) and now attorney Jeffrey J. Upton, claiming to represent Luskin, has (“http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_10_26_atrios_archive.html, scroll to Oct. 29) written to that site’s proprietor (“Atrios”) demanding that the entire comments section in question be taken down within 72 hours on pain of “further legal action”. The threat has provoked a widespread outcry in the blog world, with dozens of sites commenting since yesterday (examples: Mark A.R. Kleiman, Armed Liberal, David Neiwert, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler). We don’t know how much money Luskin has made on Wall Street, but we would be nervous on behalf of his prospective targets if his pockets prove deep. More: Jack Balkin points out that courts have found website proprietors not liable for hosting outsiders’ libels in their comments section, which leaves us wondering all the more about what happened to AVWeb, above. Stuart Levine discusses possible homeowner’s insurance coverage. (& welcome Curmudgeonly Clerk readers) Update Nov. 5: dispute settled. (& letter to the editor Aug. 16, 2004).
Fear of litigious diploma mills, cont’d
“Under pressure from administrators at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, [tenured physics professor George Gollin] has shut down a Web site he created to make information available about the unaccredited distance-learning institutions often referred to as ‘diploma mills.'” (Andrea L. Foster, “U. of Illinois Administrators Ask Professor to Remove Web Site About Diploma Mills”, Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 13; “Cracking Down on Diploma Mills”, CBS News, Jul. 25). Some of the alleged diploma mills cited by Gollin had threatened to sue the university, and Eugene Volokh (Oct. 25) finds it a fair inference that fear of litigation contributed to university administrators’ wish to be rid of the site. However, the state of Oregon accreditation office soon agreed to put up Prof. Gollin’s material on its own site (Office of Degree Authorization). On earlier suits and threatened suits by these enterprises, see our Apr. 28-20, 2000 entry.
Update: Pets Warehouse case
Longtime readers will remember the saga of Robert Novak, owner of Long Island-based Pets Warehouse, who first sued hobbyists who criticized his business and then went on to sue a lengthy list of online entities that seemed to have lent aid and comfort to his opponents (see Oct. 4-6, May 27, and May 22, 2002 and links from there; letter from Novak to this site, Aug. 10, 2001). This summer, Novak declared bankruptcy and he recently lost the rights to the PetsWarehouse.com domain which was purchased by one of his adversaries and presently serves as a voluminous guide to the status of Novak’s various lawsuits, many of which continue to rage unabated. See also Lisa Napoli, “Freedom of Gurgle in the Fish Tank” (opinion piece), MSNBC, Apr. 4, 2002 (& see update Dec. 28). Further update Oct. 16, 2004: Novak prevails in Alabama case and regains control of domain.