Filed a Defamation Lawsuit? Don’t Think You Can Keep People From Noticing
Most lawyers who practice internet defamation law are well aware of the Streisand Effect, and you’d think they would be counseling their clients accordingly. But from the looks of it, they aren’t making much headway in convincing internet defamation plaintiffs of the futile and counter-productive nature of most such suits. Or are defamation plaintiffs just so angry, so out to extract a pound of flesh that they insist on pushing forward, irregardless of the wisdom of so doing?
You see, there continues to be no shortage of misguided defamation litigation. This week’s example is a case featuring a dead-loser of a defamation case accompanied by a request to keep the whole thing hushed-up: Vision Media TV v. Forte, et al. Quick summary: the plaintiff (a provider of quasi-news television productions, the subjects of which are asked to pay upwards of $20K in “production costs”) is peeved about comments that appeared on 800notes.com, a site devoted to consumer reviews of telemarketers.
Of course this lawsuit is barred by Communications Decency Act Section 230, and of course Vision Media TV would have been far better off ignoring these comments or asking that satisfied customers post positive remarks. How many people who weren’t aware of the comments, allegations of scammy practices at Vision Media TV, or 800notes.com are now aware of all three, solely due to Vision Media TV filing this lawsuit? Textbook Streisand Effect.
Now, to make matters more amusing, Vision Media TV is seeking a court order requiring that defendant’s counsel (Public Citizen) stop posting the court filings on its “blog website” (click here to see the filings). No matter that these filings are public records, or that merely by making this request more people will pay attention to these filings. No matter that other websites unrelated to the lawsuit will be moved to post the papers themselves (see below). Yep, ask the court to put a muzzle on the lawsuit you brought. How’s that working out for you, Vision Media TV?
Public Citizen Motion to Dismiss
Vision Media TV Motion to Strike Defendants Posting Their Motions to Their Blog Website
February 14th, 2010 at 4:50 am
Josh,
Thanks for a great post, but as a man of words, I know you would want to be made aware of a small faux pas you are making. The term “irregardless” is not generally accepted as a legitimate word. The correct and accepted word in the context you have set forth is simply “regardless”. At best, even in spoken communication, “irregardless” is looked upon as a sign that the speaker is not well educated, and perhaps unintelligent.
Obviously, such a description is not appropriate for someone such as you, but you may wish to remove this poorly constructed substitute term from your personal lexicon. I hope that this does not offend you, it is meant only to share information which could help to spare you future embarrassment.
Again, thanks for a great post on an important problem. Like you, I believe 800notes provides a valuable resource for the public, in an era when marketers, collectors, and others, routinely flout the law.
With warmest regard,
Cherry Torte Tort
February 15th, 2010 at 8:18 am
Thanks – several of my coworkers were quick to point that out as well. Irregardless, I have chosen to leave my controversial word choice intact :)
February 18th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Personally, I think yer grammar ain’t so bad, irregardless of yer not sayin’ it rite, though.