jhall at futuresouth.us
Tue Aug 16 23:11:09 UTC 2016
Excuse me for chiming in, here… But, if I’m not mistaken (don’t worry, I’m not) - this doesn’t count as ‘slander’ in any way, shape or form. This mail thread is not any kind of valid FCC controlled or public communications device, as the internet was actually excluded from the public communications device list under the Freedom of Speech Act in… Was it, 1996? Which means, ‘slander’ can’t be called in this case. You could argue that it can, but you’d lose in court in the long run.
If you’re aiming for the defamation card? That’s a very difficult one to prove. I’d counter the argument in a court room by asking the judge to prove the plaintiff is NOT an extortionist scum bag. It certainly works both ways. And either way, defamation requires some form of punitive damage be proven in order to actually win that case. Are you saying that the company he is referencing has some way to claim and directly correlate a loss of income or potential loss of income, either present and/or future, due to the comment made on a mail group? I’d love to see that quantification on paper...
None the less, regardless of what one accuses or says on the internet, the usage of the word ‘extortion’ is quite open for interpretation with regards to context, and making such a statement does not qualify for slander nor defamation. He could feel he’s being extorted, in which case exasperating his opinion publicly is no less legal than me telling you that I don’t really think you’re a good lawyer.
Good luck trying to play that card in a courtroom.
Short and simple: One could threaten to sue over it, and one could even try. Personally, I’d turn that court room in to a circus act if someone tried. I’d most likely get fined in contempt a few times, but at least even the judge will go home laughing. :)
> On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:45, Anne Mitchell <amitchell at isipp.com> wrote:
>>> to say "our accounting system does not track invoice details -- it only shows the total amount due so your numbers mean nothing to us."
>>> All the while they relentlessly levied disconnect threats with short timelines such as: "if you don't pay us $128,000 by this Friday,
>>> we will shut your operation down."
>>> At one point their lawyers and accounting people had the nerve to say "our accounting system does not track invoice details
>> Are you talking with your SP's lawyers without your a legal team of
>> your own present and advising you?
>> I think one of the first things they should tell you is not to discuss
>> pending disputes in public. Time to get
>> a consultation with your own Lawyers to assist with billing dispute
>> resolution, ASAP.
> Not to mention that accusing someone of a crime (extortion), in public (in this context I would argue that this is public, especially as the term 'community' was used in the allegation) is a pretty serious thing.
> Anne P. Mitchell,
> Attorney at Law
> Legislative Consultant
> SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance
> Available for consultations by special arrangement.
> Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
> Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
> Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium
> Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Committee
> Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
> Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
> amitchell at isipp.com | @AnnePMitchell
> Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell
More information about the NANOG