I guess I shouldn’t be surprised…the web has created it so simple for anybody to slam anybody or something, it was inevitable that individuals using the thickest wallets and thinnest skins — i.e., corporations — would do their darndest to stifle criticism. And certain sufficient, the slander and libel suits are beginning to mount up.
The Times chronicles 1 situation, of the young fellow whose vehicle was legally parked, yet obtained towed anyway. It price him $118 to ransom the vehicle — and he obtained so mad that he produced a Facebook page lambasting T&J Towing, the company that towed his vehicle. Within a couple days, 800 residents had weighed in with their own complaints.
So, did T&J — which was infamous using the local Better Business Bureau for towing legally parked cars — apologize and promise to mend its ways? Ha! This is America. It sued for defamation, saying the criticisms hurt its business and demanding $750,000.
This does give chutzpah a new dimension of meaning. It tows legally parked cars (its excuse: the parking permit wasn’t easily visible), forces people to ransom them, and then sues the people for howling loudly and publicly?
The way i see it, the company owes the kid $118, plus extra for time wasted redeeming his vehicle, plus punitive damages — but this is a post about free speech, so that’s besides the point. The point is, whatever happened to truth being the best defense?
Now I’m not 1 of individuals people who thinks the web is a lawless wild west, where something goes. I do believe that the same rules should apply to cyberspace as have always applied to print — i.e., no 1 should be allowed to knowingly make false accusations against a human being or corporate entity. But accurate complaints about shoddy practices? Bring them on.
This is a corporate nuisance suit, aimed at cowing critics. And the scary part is, this kind of intimidating tactic predates the web:
Some First Amendment lawyers consider the lawsuit an example of the latest incarnation of the decades-old legal maneuver known as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or Slapp.
The label has traditionally referred to meritless defamation suits filed by businesses or government officials against citizens who speak out against them. The plaintiffs are not necessarily expecting to succeed — most do not — but rather to intimidate critics who are inclined to back down when faced using the prospect of the long, expensive court battle.
But the ease with which people can vent on the web brings with it more chances to criticize — and inevitably, more nuisance suits aimed at stifling that criticism.
What’s heartening, though, is that Justin Kurtz, the kid who posted the Facebook page, ain’t backing down. The way he sees it, he posted a true account of what the company did to him, and if that hurts its business — well, it should! And, in fact, the publicity surrounding the suit has garnered him 12,000 members on his Facebook page. (Take THAT, T&J Towing!)
Another reason for optimism: 27 states have anti-Slapp laws, and Washington is considering a national version.
The federal bill, in the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, would enable a defendant who believes he is being sued for speaking out or petitioning on a public matter to seek to have the suit dismissed. Under the proposed federal law, if a situation is dismissed for being a Slapp, the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant’s legal fees.
“Just as petition and free speech rights are so important that they require specific constitutional protections, they are also important sufficient to justify uniform national protections against Slapps,” said Mark Goldowitz, director of the California Anti-Slapp Project, which helped draft the bill.
Amen.
Just five minutes from the Gulf of Mexico, Wilderness offers residents some of the best country club living in Naples, Florida. Wilderness features 28 condo buildings and a championship golf course spread out over 200 acres.
