Sue Scheff didn't expect she'd make enemies when she founded the child and parenting advocacy organization PURE. But someone began attacking her on the Internet, posting enough defamatory statements to compel her to bring a lawsuit. She won $11.3 million in 2006.In light of what happened to me last month, and what continues to happen to other people attempting to bring out the truth concerning Palin and other GOP leaders, I thought that this might be an important book for people to purchase in order to protect themselves from future attack.
It was written by Sue Scheff and John W. Dozier, who is an expert in "Internet Law", and specializes in representing businesses and individuals who have suffered defamatory attacks via the internet.
I am going to purchase this book for my own edification and recommend to my friends, who own blogs and websites, to go out and get themselves a copy as well.
There is no telling who the evil minions will go after next and we may as well be ready for them.
You go Gryphen! How much is the book? Do you need a donation to help buy it for YOU and all you magnificent BLOGGERS?
ReplyDeleteWell, since you WERE slandered, and inconvenienced/lost your job, I believe you have a cause anyway - even one month later! Many lawsuits are being brought much later. (Good luck!)
ReplyDeleteHi Gryphen, funny you should mention Google. While I do this rarely, if ever, I did go to a few of those "blogs" that trashed you so badly and discovered, through googling, that their venom spread to quite a few other right-wing blogs. I also noticed (because I hadn't been there since the beginning of your incident) how much more trash about you that they actually put out there. I'm also aware that RSM is now threatening Audrey at PD, maybe others too. How wonderful that you found this resource!
ReplyDeleteI've wanted to start my own blog but was concerned after seeing what happened to you. I figured I'd better be sure that if I chose to be anonymous I'd better learn how to do that, or at least how to protect myself. So thanks for sharing.
Oh and the other blogger, DR, who accuses you of being such a trash mouth/perv makes some very disgusting and derogatory remarks towards others with whom he does not agree. Especially women. A real moral guy, huh?
Will the hypocrisy ever end?
Susan in MD
True that, Gryphen.
ReplyDeleteThis looks like a good and useful book but do keep in mind that Palin and her supporters feel the same way progressive bloggers feel about being attacked.
ReplyDeleteI am NOT saying they have support for their "feelings" -- I am JUST saying they feel that way too and if they read this book they will use the same ideas, strategies, legal interpretations to attack others.
When sex, race, age discrimination laws were put into place and guidelines set up as to what criteria had to be met before an employer could fire someone and be SAFE from a discrimination complaint, those guidelines meant to protect employees were utilized by employers in staff meeting to discuss HOW TO PROACTIVELY LAW A PAPER TRAIL TO SUPPORT FIRING SOMEONE WHO WAS LIKELY TO CLAIM DISCRIMINATION.
I know this from first hand experience as I sued the Alaska State Trooper for sex discrimination in 1984 and had to overcome their "paper trails" for why women were not being hired.
Summary: read the book with an eye to how things can be useful to protecting yourself but also to how adversaries can use this same information against you.
Got to play devil's advocate so nothing the "other side" does will come as a surprise. If you are already prepated to counter them, you have great advantage !
With the way things are going in the Palin camp, hurry up or you may have to get in line! I love reading all of the recent vindication material for all of us Alaskans who have been accused of "making things up" for too long.
ReplyDeleteAlaskan Sisu
Each state has it's own statue of limitations when it comes to libel/slander. I think Alaska is 2 years, but for instance Tennessee is 6 months.
ReplyDeleteDiscovery in a case such as Gryphen's would be limited to "malice" of any person making statements of facts and not opinion, publishing of personal information, campaigning against persons based upon those statements of fact (taking it out of the realm of opinion, which is a defense against libel/slander) Gryphens actual statements on his blog about Palin would not be part of discovery process unless libel/slander charges were brought against him by one of the Palins (Todd or Sarah).
I've done some reading which has been interesting since the thing with Gryphen happened.
Nobody is going after Gryphen. He's a small fish in a very small pond and his pockets, I'm guessing, are not deep enough to feed the Palins for a month. Why would they drop their nets for such a limited award even if they could prevail in court?
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, men and women with national political aspirations don't
drag critics into court. This is due to practical concerns-it makes them seem like lightweights-- as well as legal realities: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan has made it nearly impossible for public figures to successfully bring action for defamation.
That being so, I don't think I'd feel at all secure harboring the dangerous misconception that bloggers are bulletproof in matters of defamation.
Wasn't there a woman blogger about three months ago that wound up doing time after being hit with a contempt of court ruling during a cyber-defamation case?
Gryphen, here's some really great free advice: if you want to protect yourself or act in your own enlightened self interest in matters of defamation in cyberspace, study the doctrine of "clean hands".
If you don't get that this book isn't going to help you.
Gryphen...11K hey!
ReplyDeleteRSM and DR say lots of nasty things on there blogs.
Talk about Maureen Dowds vajayjay and are very vile. DR blocked me from posting, so much for free speech.
Yes get the book and sue these fuckers!
Onejerkkitty, thanks for being a wet blanket always....
You know what they say...do you see the glass half empty or half full?
Sorry its THEIR! fingers typing too fast, lol!
ReplyDeleteIf they just believed in the first amendment things would be so much easier. Then the other thing is it's not libel if it's true. If you only write what is true they can never win a case.
ReplyDeleteActually 4:54, I agree, bloggers are not bulletproof, but being able to prove "factual malice" vs opinion if you are a public figure is much different than being able show proof that one blogger has attacked another with malice.
ReplyDeletePerhaps some of the same ones who have made personal attacks and threats need to keep that in mind when they start attacking other bloggers.
Of interest too is, what if it is a public figure (by their own definition) who attacks a blogger.
Interesting no, legally speaking, of course.
Got it. It isn't that expensive. I am only a few pages in, but it takes my breath away.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to begin the process of becoming as anonymous as possible on the Internet shortly. It is unbelievable what people can dredge up about you from the comfort of their easy chair. I urge anybody who is doing any Internet blogging - or just surfing - to think carefully about whether they want that activity PERMANENTLY linked to their real name.
And to be consistent, I'm posting anonymously.
Buy it Gryphen, if its expensive, TELL US!!! You give us and the Alaskan community so much and ask for nothing in return. Just tell us and we'll do. Except unlike people we will not mention, we think first and will not juvenile, un-American, bullying behaviors just because we're asked to. We trust you and support you fully, but I'd say 99% of us have a BRAIN too. That's why we like you. :) Go Gryphen!!!! $5 from a bunch of people adds up, $10 even more, letter writing, whatever, we're here for you!!!
ReplyDeleteI think Gryphen, for his own protection, should try to determine if he could be considered a "limited purpose public figure" as defined in New York Times co. v. Sullivan.
ReplyDeleteHypothetically, if that were the case, the onus of proving malice would rest on him, if, let's say, he was dragged someone into court who he believed had defamed him.
I can't think of any pertinent case law except Hatfield v. New York Times which suggests the concept of a public figure is a very slippery
one and one never knows when they will be so designated, thereby diluting their rights in defamation actions.