Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
USF Law School - IIP Justice Project
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Documenting Your Domain Defense > Notices > Auctioneers Suck Printer-friendly version

Auctioneers Suck

December 20, 2007

 

Sender Information:
Thompson & Riley, Ltd.
Sent by: [Private]
[Private]

Recipient Information:
[Private]
[Private]


Sent via: FedEx First Overn
Re:

Dear [Private]:

I represent Thompson & Riley, Ltd., as well as its principals, [Private], with regard to the defamatory and slanderous statements that you have posted regarding them on a website at www.thompsonandrileysucks.com, defamatory and slanderous statements that you have circulated regarding them by electronic mail, and defamatory and slanderous statements that you have posted at the following location, http://lexington.craigslist.org/for/507750332.html.
The purpose of this letter is to demand that you remove this website immediately, terminate the circulation of any emails immediately and remove immediately the posting on craigslist. You are also instructed to remove any other defamatory and slanderous statements regarding [Private] you have otherwise circulated or posted. You are further instructed not to post or circulate any additional defamatory and slanderous statements regarding Thompson and Riley, [Private].

You are directed to fax to me at [Private] no later than Saturday, December 22, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. EST confirmation that you have removed the website, removed the craigslist posting and terminated the email circulation. If such confirmation is not received, it will be necessary to file suit against you to achieve this result and recover damages and other remedies.
Please direct any questions regarding this communication to the undersigned.

Very truly yours,
[Signature]
[Private]


It should be noted that I responded (in part) to the lawyer:

As of yet, I have had no email communications with private parties in which I discussed the abuses perpetrated upon me by [Private]. My purpose is in educating the public in the name of consumer free speech and private email is simply not public enough. Of course, as I continue to prepare for further action, I'll utilize whatever form of communication I choose to find possible plaintiffs/witnesses in proving that [Private] did not get this good at deception without practice.

 
FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is defamation?

Answer: Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is slander?

Answer: Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory medium, such as verbal speech. It is considered a civil injury, as opposed to a criminal offence. Actual damages must be proven for someone to be held liable for slander. The tort of slander is often compared with that of libel, which is also characterized as a defamatory statement, but one made in a fixed form, such as writing.


[back to notice text]


Question: Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party?

Answer: No, they are not required to delete. 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?

Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken.


[back to notice text]


Question: What is the "publication" of a defamatory statement?

Answer: Publication is the dissemination of the defamatory statement to any person other than the person about whom the statement is written or spoken.


[back to notice text]


Question: If I write something defamatory, will a retraction help?

Answer: Some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in California, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting "special damages" ? the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff's failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. (See Mathis v. Cannon)

If you get a reasonable retraction request, it may help you to comply. The retraction must be "substantially as conspicuous" as the original alleged defamation.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?

Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:

  1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
  2. a false statement of fact;
  3. that is understood as
  4. a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
    b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
  5. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.


[back to notice text]


Question: What defenses may be available to someone who is sued for defamation?

Answer: There are ordinarily 6 possible defenses available to a defendant who is sued for libel (published defamatory communication.)
1. Truth. This is a complete defense, but may be difficult to prove.
2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. This defense applies to "opinion" only, as compared to a statement of fact. The defendant usually needs to prove that the opinion is honestly held and the comments were not motivated by actual "malice." ( Malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth of falsity of the defamatory statement.)
3. Privilege. The privilege may be absolute or qualified. Privilege generally exists where the speaker or writer has a duty to communicate to a specific person or persons on a given occasion. In some cases the privilege is qualified and may be lost if the publication is unnecessarily wide or made with malice.
4. Consent. This is rarely available, as plaintiffs will not ordinarily agree to the publication of statements that they find offensive.
5. Innocent dissemination. In some caes a party who has no knowledge of the content of a defamatory statement may use this defense. For example, a mailman who delivers a sealed envelope containing a defamatory statement, is not legally liable for any damages that come about from the statement.
6. Plaintiff's poor reputation. Defendant can mitigate (lessen) damages for a defamatory statement by proving that the plaintiff did not have a good reputation to begin with. Defendant ordinarily can prove plaintiff's poor reputation by calling witnesses with knowledge of the plaintiff's prior reputation relating to the defamatory content.


[back to notice text]


Question: What if I want to report on a public controversy?

Answer: Many jurisdictions recognize a "neutral reportage" privilege, which protects "accurate and disinterested reporting" about potentially libelous accusations arising in public controversies. As one court put it, "The public interest in being fully informed about controversies that often rage around sensitive issues demands that the press be afforded the freedom to report such charges without assuming responsibility for them."


Topic maintained by USF Law School - IIP Justice Project

Topic Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers)
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts