From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 19:08:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Vexatious Litigants  (was: SurfWatch)
Message-ID: <ad64fc0f01021004bf2a@[205.199.118.202]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 2:38 AM 3/8/96, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At  6:59 PM 3/7/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>If SurfWatch can be sued for a "bad review," then Siskel and Ebert had
>>better find a new line of work.
>
>As long as a reviewer corrects errors, as SurfWatch seems to be willing to
>do, I think they are relativly suit-proof.  If they don't, well - anyone
>can be sued for anything.  I'll let the lawyers comment on the possibility
>of success.

OK, OK, I did not stick enough qualifiers in my "If SurfWatch can be sued"
point. I should have said, in gory detail, "If SurfWatch can be
successfully sued and found liable," etc.

It is true that "anyone can be sued for anything" in these BS. I can sue
Bill for writing the post he wrote.

However, such a suit would definitely never reach trial.

My point was that "opinions" (such as movie reviews) are not "tortable"
(don't know the legal name), unless specific inaccuracies can be
demonstrated, and even then it is hard. Siskel and Ebert have undoubtedly
destroyed the box office prospects of many a movie with their "thumbs down"
diss of death, but I know of no successful (or even adjudicated) lawsuits
on this basis.

One of the few cases of a reviewer being successfully sued involved the
Bose Corporation, maker of the once-trendy Bose 901 speakers. It seems that
around 1970 or so, at the height of popularity of the 901s, one of the
stereo mags, or maybe it was "Consumer Reports," ran a review of the 901s
and (correctly) criticized them as being not worth the high price (and
maybe a comment that Bose's "direct-reflecting" snake oil was just that).

Bose sued, and the case dragged on for many years. I think Bose eventually
won. Too bad.

Opinions are opinions, and a free society has no business suppressing
opinions by use of torts. (Another related area is the use of torts to halt
public comment on controversial development plans. These are called "SLAPP"
suits--"Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." For example,
where AT&T sues "the Cypherpunks" to shut them up about their anti-Clipper
feelings. Some judges are awarding large damages to the groups hit with the
SLAPP suits.)

So, while it is technically true that "anyone can sue anyone else," having
the case get to trial is a different thing. And the law actually means what
it says, in some cases. The First Amendment, for example, will stop Bill
from successfully suing me because he dislikes my use of the word
"tortable." If he files some number of these frivolous suits, he may find
himself on a list of "vexatious litigants" (one of my favorite phrases of
all time!).

--Tim May

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."