Stollznow Defense Fund

[birdterrifier]

The recent week has shone a spotlight on the difficulty of representing one's self against a plaintiff with representation. Since this is the place ardently devoted to free speech, it seemed obvious to me that many of you would want to help Stollznow defend herself against this lawsuit meant to silence her. SHE NEEDS HALP PITTERS!

Side note: I keep vacillating between thinking that Baxter is the worst negotiator ever and an evil genius.

[Dick Strawkins]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/90/905df8a ... 88b91d.jpg

[Gumby]

Oh look, someone thinks they're going to prove some kind of point. How adorable.

[John Greg]

I don't know. Personally, I detect playful sarcasm.

[John Greg]

And for the record, I too vacilate on the Baxter issue. Though I tend to believe somewhat more strongly that he is fully cognizant of the rhetorical loopholes and escape clauses he included in his email to Radford. Let's not forget that Stollznow is a professional linguist.

[Dick Strawkins]

Did birdterrifier know about this?

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/give- ... nt-victims

It's a kickstarter legal fund that Stollznow has set up to fund her libel defense.

[John Greg]

Ya, and at the moment it is growing by about 100 dollars per second.

[birdterrifier]

I was being playful but not sarcastic. I hate libel suits. I hate them more than all of the bullying FTB posts combined and i hate that Karen hasn't been able to represent herself adequately (BUT I do hope this goes to trial so that all of the juicy, luscious details go public).

I knew there was going to be a fundraiser but I didn't know when it was going live. I have since tweeted the link under the #StollznowDefenseFund tag. Hope to see all you free speech absolutists there!

[Gumby]

I was being playful but not sarcastic. I hate libel suits. I hate them more than all of the bullying FTB posts combined and i hate that Karen hasn't been able to represent herself adequately (BUT I do hope this goes to trial so that all of the juicy, luscious details go public).

I knew there was going to be a fundraiser but I didn't know when it was going live. I have since tweeted the link under the #StollznowDefenseFund tag. Hope to see all you free speech absolutists there!

Ok my apologies then. I thought I detected snark in your post that apparently wasn't there. Mea culpa.

[John Greg]

Well I never!

[helenhighwater]

so how much money has she garnered? perhaps i should start calling these wankers cunts, claim sexual harassment against some ignorant fuck, and then start an indiegogo to help me drink away the memories...

[birdterrifier]

Stollznow is not Watson.

[helenhighwater]

who said she was? was that hyperbole or am i missing something

[Kenteken]

I hope she gets the money needed to bring it in court. Let's see what comes of it.

Have a proper judgement based on evidence instead of us guessing day after day, page after page.

If he is guilty, nail the fucker. If she is guilty , good riddance.

[birdterrifier]

FUCK YEAH!

[TiBo]

Why does it say "Give a Voice to Harassment Victims" when it actually means "Give money to me" ?

And will people get their moneys back if the court finds she's full of shit ?

[spiffigt]

Why does it say "Give a Voice to Harassment Victims" when it actually means "Give money to me" ?

Splash damage empowerment?

[TiBo]

More like "I'm every woman" ^^

[Badger3k]

I hope she gets the money needed to bring it in court. Let's see what comes of it.

Have a proper judgement based on evidence instead of us guessing day after day, page after page.

If he is guilty, nail the fucker. If she is guilty , good riddance.

This way, no matter the result, everyone gets their day in court and can't use "silence by lawyer" as an excuse. But if Radford wins, expect the SJWs to go on about how the Patriarchy has favored the white cis man over the helpless female. If Stollznow wins, expect to hear this as a victory over the Patriarchy and (of course) everyone here, since we're all such hopeless evil people.

[Aneris]

I consider donating. But I am unsure why exactly. I don't consider myself within the movement, never heard of Stollznow or Radford before (I didn't follow the outlets they were active) and the Slymepit is pretty much outside of the movement. We're generally unwanted. Everything I do here or with my name is just for fun, but otherwise "throwaway". Perhaps I donate, but since it would be anonymous, it wouldn't make an effect one way or the other.

[Lsuoma]

[T[he Slymepit is pretty much outside of the movement. We're generally unwanted. Everything I do here or with my name is just for fun, but otherwise "throwaway".

I haz a sad...

[Aneris]

[T[he Slymepit is pretty much outside of the movement. We're generally unwanted. Everything I do here or with my name is just for fun, but otherwise "throwaway".

I haz a sad...

The Slymepit is of course awesome and I know it's secretly appreciated by a lot more people in the movement than meets the eye. ;)

[TiBo]

I consider donating. But I am unsure why exactly

Because most of us have been raised with societal narrative like "damsel in distress" and "fight the bully" .. that's why. Stollznow is playing these tropes like a violin.

[Skep tickle]

The recent week has shone a spotlight on the difficulty of representing one's self against a plaintiff with representation.

Hi, birdterrifier!

Is it known that Stollznow was having to "represen[t her]self"? If so, I missed that part. (Difficult without legal representation? That, and not advisable. Expensive, annoying, time-consuming, depressing, even with legal counsel? Yes, for sure. For both sides, probably. Only the lawyers win.)

Since this is the place ardently devoted to free speech, it seemed obvious to me that many of you would want to help Stollznow defend herself against this lawsuit meant to silence her. SHE NEEDS HALP PITTERS!

Well, the lawsuit is "meant to silence her" in that it's claiming that she committed "libel", causing the plaintiff to "suffer damages".

Obviously you & other people can disagree on this, but I think protection against libel is a very reasonable thing for the legal system to offer. Clearly, the person claiming damage ("plaintiff") needs to make a good case, and the person who might have expressed their speech a little too freely in the eyes of the plaintiff ("defendant") has at least a theoretical opportunity to defend himself or herself against the claim, with 1 or more official representative/s of the legal system making the final decision.

I was being playful but not sarcastic. I hate libel suits. I hate them more than all of the bullying FTB posts combined and i hate that Karen hasn't been able to represent herself adequately...

Well, okay then. I don't remember you speaking out against the Shermer "cease and desist" letter, but it's quite possible you did so and I simply missed it.

So, anyway. You "hate libel suits"; I think they're a reasonable route for a person who feels he or she has been unfairly harmed to pursue.

You "hate them more than all of the bullying FTB posts combined"; I don't, because FTB claims (in its very name) to embody "freethought", yet so clearly doesn't, and in fact seems to embody the opposite, at least in places. And because some of the people associated with FTB, or formerly associated but let go quietly, have actually tried to cause harm to other people (for example, Laden trying to trigger PTSD in Justin Griffith; laden contacting Abbie Smith's employer; and doxxing attempts that could affect people in RL, for example in their workplace).

...(BUT I do hope this goes to trial so that all of the juicy, luscious details go public).

My guess is that that could be pretty humiliating for both of them. I can't promise not to rubberneck, but for their sake I would hope they somehow do find themselves able to reach a mutually agreeable compromise outside of court.

I knew there was going to be a fundraiser but I didn't know when it was going live. I have since tweeted the link under the #StollznowDefenseFund tag.

Interesting, it's fully funded in the first day. I don't see how this allows Stollznow more free speech; it just relieves her (& her spouse, at least to some extent) of the financial burden of paying the legal expenses of mounting a defense against what she's said in the past.

Do you know what's behind her claim in this line from the indiegogo fundraiser: "Although he’s spent thousands of dollars on a lawyer to clear his name, he knew that I could not afford the same." (Who said he could afford it, either?)

Hope to see all you free speech absolutists there!

Did someone here in fact claim that the Pit is full of "free speech absolutists"? - If so, I don't remember seeing it (though of course it would be fine for someone to make that claim, LOL). Clearly there are limits; just try to post kiddie porn or doxxing info and see if you still think that's the case, or if there are some but it's not "all" the posters here.

[d4m10n]

I hope she gets the money needed to bring it in court. Let's see what comes of it.

Have a proper judgement based on evidence instead of us guessing day after day, page after page.

If he is guilty, nail the fucker. If she is guilty , good riddance.

What he said, basically.

Good to see that some Pitters aren't assuming what Radford has yet to prove.

[d4m10n]

I don't see how this allows Stollznow more free speech; it just relieves her (& her spouse, at least to some extent) of the financial burden of paying the legal expenses of mounting a defense against what she's said in the past.

It allows her to speak honestly about her own perception of her own experiences, should she prevail in the case. It also allows other to speak of their own experiences with more confidence that they will not be silenced by lawsuit, again, assuming she prevails.

Did you mean to implicitly compare speaking out about one's own experience of sexual harassment with generally harmful speech such as doxxing?

[Skep tickle]

I don't see how this allows Stollznow more free speech; it just relieves her (& her spouse, at least to some extent) of the financial burden of paying the legal expenses of mounting a defense against what she's said in the past.

It allows her to speak honestly about her own perception of her own experiences, should she prevail in the case. It also allows other to speak of their own experiences with more confidence that they will not be silenced by lawsuit, again, assuming she prevails.

Did you mean to implicitly compare speaking out about one's own experience of sexual harassment with generally harmful speech such as doxxing?

I know, I know, I'm being too romantic in thinking that the legal outcome doesn't hinge on the financial resources either side has going into this.

People who want to relieve her of financial burden can certainly donate; those who want her to have the degree of free speech allowed by law can hope that what she said isn't found to have been libelous. (Those groups aren't exclusive of each other, by any means.)

The case was going to court whether or not the fundraiser occurred. So, to repeat, the fundraiser "relieves her...of the financial burden of...legal expenses..." (not an inconsiderable amount of money). It doesn't buy her an opportunity for free speech.

Should she prevail in the case, regardless of the funding source, she has the opportunity to speak openly about her experiences. (Yeah, yeah - that's the ideal, anyway.)

[Dick Strawkins]

I don't see how this allows Stollznow more free speech; it just relieves her (& her spouse, at least to some extent) of the financial burden of paying the legal expenses of mounting a defense against what she's said in the past.

It allows her to speak honestly about her own perception of her own experiences, should she prevail in the case. It also allows other to speak of their own experiences with more confidence that they will not be silenced by lawsuit, again, assuming she prevails.

Did you mean to implicitly compare speaking out about one's own experience of sexual harassment with generally harmful speech such as doxxing?

I know, I know, I'm being too romantic in thinking that the legal outcome doesn't hinge on the financial resources either side has going into this.

People who want to relieve her of financial burden can certainly donate; those who want her to have the degree of free speech allowed by law can hope that what she said isn't found to have been libelous. (Those groups aren't exclusive of each other, by any means.)

The case was going to court whether or not the fundraiser occurred. So, to repeat, the fundraiser "relieves her...of the financial burden of...legal expenses..." (not an inconsiderable amount of money). It doesn't buy her an opportunity for free speech.

Should she prevail in the case, regardless of the funding source, she has the opportunity to speak openly about her experiences. (Yeah, yeah - that's the ideal, anyway.)

I want people to be able to speak out against their abusers if they have been abused.
I also want people to have the ability to seek recourse if they have been libeled through being falsely accused of something of which they are innocent.

These can be competing scenarios when high legal costs are involved.
If the cost of legal action (or legal defence) was minor then I doubt there would be much problem
But it's clearly not minor, hence the current situation where both parties in this case have complained about the financial toll.

I am not on team Radford or team Stollznow. If Radford is guilty of what she charges then he deserves all he gets. If she is guilty of what he charges then likewise.
Finding out the truth of this case is more important to me than some kind of high-minded unlimited free speech ideal whereby any accusation, true or false, is free of consequences.
We had a brief taste of that scenario just a few months back and it wasn't too edifying.

http://i.imgur.com/JZRJMdh.jpg

I lived in the UK for a long time and I'm familiar with libel laws there. In that country the costs are so prohibitive it means, in effect, that only rich people can use them - and furthermore they can use them to silence others who will not be able to afford to either defend themselves against charges of libel, or take a libelous rich person to court to demand justice.
In the current case it should be worrying to all of us that either side may have to withdraw due to costs without the evidence being presented in court.
I think a fund that paid for both sides costs in the current case might be better suited to achieve justice (or at least expose the truth) than one that seems to implicitly endorse one side, and which tips the financial burden so much that Radford may have to withdraw himself.

[Steersman]

<snip>

...(BUT I do hope this goes to trial so that all of the juicy, luscious details go public).

My guess is that that could be pretty humiliating for both of them. I can't promise not to rubberneck, but for their sake I would hope they somehow do find themselves able to reach a mutually agreeable compromise outside of court.

That’s a rather sensible idea, one they should both seriously consider. Otherwise any victory is likely to be somewhat of a pyrrhic one.

Hope to see all you free speech absolutists there!

Did someone here in fact claim that the Pit is full of "free speech absolutists"? - If so, I don't remember seeing it (though of course it would be fine for someone to make that claim, LOL). Clearly there are limits; just try to post kiddie porn or doxxing info and see if you still think that's the case, or if there are some but it's not "all" the posters here.

Indeed. Many seem to forget that rights generally entail some responsibilities - the consequence tends to be anarchy.

[Skep tickle]

Strawkins' funding both sides - that means funding both sides' lawyers, but other than that, indeed, that approach would be more fair, e.g. better way to uncover the 'truth" of the situation (or as close as one can get) as the goal.

Steersman's rights & responsibilities - right on, brother. (Or should that be, "Responsibility on" ;) )

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I was being playful but not sarcastic. I hate libel suits.
... Hope to see all you free speech absolutists there!

Libel is not free speech. Oh, and where you come from, isn't it spelled "f r e e z e _ p e a c h"?

i hate that Karen hasn't been able to represent herself adequately

She should've thought of that before libeling someone.

I knew there was going to be a fundraiser but I didn't know when it was going live.

Then you're friends with people who are not our friends.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

I hope she gets the money needed to bring it in court. Let's see what comes of it.

Stollznow's fund's intended use is to drag out proceedings & wear down Radford into dropping the suit.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Good to see that some Pitters aren't assuming what Radford has yet to prove.

Per the law, the onus is on Stollznow to prove her accusations against Radford.

It allows her to speak honestly about her own perception of her own experiences, should she prevail in the case.

Ah I forget -- 'lived experiences' are trumps. Just like in birth rape. No. Stollznow's "perceptions" describe felonies. If she can't show this is the case, it's libel.

Did you mean to implicitly compare speaking out about one's own experience of sexual harassment with generally harmful speech such as doxxing?

Baseless, public accusations of felonious activity are exceedingly harmful, which is why libel is a crime. So far, Stollznow has made only vague, detail-free accusations. I seriously doubt she can provide adequate "evidence and witnesses" to satisfy a court of law that Radford's actions meet the legal definitions of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault.

[Kenteken]

Stollznow's fund's intended use is to drag out proceedings & wear down Radford into dropping the suit.

And how exactly did you reach this conclusion?

[John Greg]

Damion, I will freely and openly admit that I tend to be more on the, so-called, Team Radford than Team Stollznow, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is her obvious and blatant gaming of the situation.

I suspect that you are fundamentally unable to see or perceive the obvious and blatant hypocritical and manipulative gaming that Stollznow is exhibiting, but that's OK. You are not known for clarity of thought, skepticism, or critical thinking, so we can, to some degree, give you a free pass on such important and relevant things.

Nonetheless, I will be, in a personal sense (my own opinion on the matter matters not at all to anyone anywhere), supportive of the court-based outcome, should it come to that, of this whole mess. Well, that is to some degree dependent on the final summation and legal decision, if there is one.

Anyway, my final query to you is (and this may have been asked by others, but that too is OK) will you, in your self-claimed desire for equality, freedom of speech, etc. ad infinitum (keeping in mind that you are desparately superior to the rest of us plebien mortal idiots) offer financial help to Radford, as you have provided financial help to Stollznow? Or are you just another pathetic pocket hypocrite sexist misandrist who only believes the victim when the victim is a woman, and who, in his chthonic heart of hearts, is looking forward to Radford's eventual providential downfall and collapse, and the destruction of his livelihood?

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Based on the wording of Stollznow's e-begging, I suspect she'll defend herself based not on proving truth, rather by claiming privilege. And that'll be an orgy of PoMo/radfem sophistry!

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Stollznow's fund's intended use is to drag out proceedings & wear down Radford into dropping the suit.

And how exactly did you reach this conclusion?

1) Personal experience;
2) Asymmetry. If it's adjudicated, Stollznow runs the risk of having to retract, and also to pay damages. Also, her reputation would be sunk. If it's never resolved, Stollznow & Baxter keep their house, and Stollz can continue to defame Radford in public while getting gigs at TAM. Radford must either get a retraction, or win a case, to restore his good name and avoid further damage to his career. Yet Radford is already in the hole financially, while Stollz is up $40K. It's simply not in her interest to ever have this resolved.

[Kenteken]

If her accusations are false, I sure hope she isn't reading the slymepit.

Your conclusion looks like an educated guess, but nonetheless a guess.

[Dick Strawkins]

I was being playful but not sarcastic. I hate libel suits. I hate them more than all of the bullying FTB posts combined and i hate that Karen hasn't been able to represent herself adequately (BUT I do hope this goes to trial so that all of the juicy, luscious details go public).

I knew there was going to be a fundraiser but I didn't know when it was going live. I have since tweeted the link under the #StollznowDefenseFund tag. Hope to see all you free speech absolutists there!

You didn't donate, did you?
Stollznow's latest update says she intends to use the donated money to sue Radford!

[d4m10n]

I think a fund that paid for both sides costs in the current case might be better suited to achieve justice (or at least expose the truth) than one that seems to implicitly endorse one side, and which tips the financial burden so much that Radford may have to withdraw himself.

A fantastic idea, in theory, but it would require external audits to keep the process fair.

Stollznow's latest update says she intends to use the donated money to sue Radford!

Assuming agnosticism as to the harassment claims, why is that any worse than Radford suing Stollznow to get her to shut up?

Nonetheless, I will be, in a personal sense (my own opinion on the matter matters not at all to anyone anywhere), supportive of the court-based outcome, should it come to that, of this whole mess. Well, that is to some degree dependent on the final summation and legal decision, if there is one.

At least we can agree on that much, John.

Anyway, my final query to you is (and this may have been asked by others, but that too is OK) will you, in your self-claimed desire for equality, freedom of speech, etc. ad infinitum (keeping in mind that you are desparately superior to the rest of us plebien mortal idiots) offer financial help to Radford, as you have provided financial help to Stollznow?

Sure thing. Once the Radford legal fund is set up, I will donate proportionally to my belief that he should prevail.

[d4m10n]

Good to see that some Pitters aren't assuming what Radford has yet to prove.

Per the law, the onus is on Stollznow to prove her accusations against Radford.

IANAL but it seems to me that you should read up on UJI 13-1002(B)(4) NMRA.

[John Greg]

Damion said:

A fantastic idea, in theory, but it would require external audits to keep the process fair.

Well, to be realistic, that may be required anyway, as it has become apparent that people are offering funds under the false pretense of claiming to be someone they're not -- see Mayhew and Vacula.

Sure thing. Once the Radford legal fund is set up, I will donate proportionally to my belief that he should prevail.

Good for you, and call me surprised. Although, I have to admit, I laughed at the phrase "donate proportionally to my belief". That's about as weaselly as weasel words can get.

As to my comment about waiting for a legal decision, ya, I really will. I mean, as I say I am somewhat in Team Radford, so to speak, but that lessens every day because I can't help but agree with the many folks here who have commented that Radford is to some degree weapons grade stupid to have put the supposed retraction online without waiting for a signature.

Also, my instant reponse, the moment I read it ... fuck, as I was reading it, was to see that Baxter's emails contained get out of jail free/plausible deniability clauses, which lead me to beleive, as I was reading it, that Stollznow was playing a game of Let's destroy Radford, and that Baxter is along for the joyride. That Radford failed to see them baffles me. Also, as time passes, Radford increasingly seems to be playing a game almost to the same degree as Stollznow clearly is. All in all, I think the three of them are sick fucks who perhaps deserve whatever bad shit comes to them from all of this nonsense.

Assuming agnosticism as to the harassment claims, why is that any worse than Radford suing Stollznow to get her to shut up?

Primarily because it so blatantly and brutally shatters her game stance of being an innocent injured party who just wants it all to go away and, for reasons other than here supposed inability to afford it, has no interest in such legal gamesmanship.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Good to see that some Pitters aren't assuming what Radford has yet to prove.

Per the law, the onus is on Stollznow to prove her accusations against Radford.

IANAL but it seems to me that you should read up on UJI 13-1002(B)(4) NMRA.

Please, rabbi, elaborate on your lay interpretation of Smith v. Durden, et al. Because in my lay opinion, it supports my above-quoted statement.

[Guest]

Here, d4m10n. Donate to your heart's content! http://www.rockethub.com/projects/41435 ... legal-fund

[d4m10n]

Please, rabbi, elaborate on your lay interpretation of Smith v. Durden, et al. Because in my lay opinion, it supports my above-quoted statement.

I believe you were the one making bold claims about what the law requires here, Matt. Please, do internet lawyer away. Tell us why the burden falls on the defendant to prove falsity as an affirmative defense in this particular case.

[d4m10n]

Here, d4m10n. Donate to your heart's content! http://www.rockethub.com/projects/41435 ... legal-fund

Awesome. Has Ben Radford publicly confirmed that this fundraiser is legit?

[Guest]

Don't know. Ask him.

[Dick Strawkins]

Stollznow's latest update says she intends to use the donated money to sue Radford!

Assuming agnosticism as to the harassment claims, why is that any worse than Radford suing Stollznow to get her to shut up?

Agnosticism?
When we use the term agnostic, at least in the usual sense of a religious agnostic, we don't mean someone who is 50-50 on the God question.
We usually mean someone who is 99% sure that there's no proof for God, but doesn't want to rule out a small possibility that God might be real.
An agnostic usually leans towards the 'no evidence for God' side, rather than stay in the middle, because they have done some investigation of the question and not seen any convincing evidence.

If I look at the Radford-Stollznow case I guess I am probably the same sort of agnostic (although nowhere near the 99% certainty in his innocence point.) There was an independent investigation, commissioned by CFI, of Stollznows more serious claims - and by their reaction (I don't think the report is publicly available) they didn't find Radford guilty of sexual assault.

So in that case, yes, I'm agnostic of claims against him, but I suspect there's little evidence to support them.

In my opinion the CFI investigation should have been made public and so we could have seen the evidence for ourselves. If Stollznow continued to accuse Radford of sexual assault he could point to that and allow the rest of us to make up our minds about who is telling the truth and who is lying on the basis of evidence presented, rather than emotional manipulation (from either party.)

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Please, rabbi, elaborate on your lay interpretation of Smith v. Durden, et al. Because in my lay opinion, it supports my above-quoted statement.

I believe you were the one making bold claims about what the law requires here, Matt. Please, do internet lawyer away. Tell us why the burden falls on the defendant to prove falsity as an affirmative defense in this particular case.

Sheesh, Damion! The answer's staring right at you, in Smith v. Durden.

[Aneris]

Agnosticism — from ancient Greek, ἀγνοεῖν a-gnoein means ~unknowable. I think something is either knowable, or unknowable. If its unknowable, someone can still believe something was true, or believe it to be false (or be unconvinced by the proposition it was true).

[Skep tickle]

Please, rabbi, elaborate on your lay interpretation of Smith v. Durden, et al. Because in my lay opinion, it supports my above-quoted statement.

I believe you were the one making bold claims about what the law requires here, Matt. Please, do internet lawyer away. Tell us why the burden falls on the defendant to prove falsity as an affirmative defense in this particular case.

Sheesh, Damion! The answer's staring right at you, in Smith v. Durden.

This isn't my interpretation, but from near the end of this page: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/ ... 2-594.html

Smith v. Durden - Justia.com Opinion Summary: ... The issue before the Court was whether New Mexico requires a showing of injury to one's reputation to establish liability for defamation. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that it does, "as injury to reputation is the very essence of the tort of defamation. Evidence of humiliation and mental anguish, without evidence of actual injury to reputation, is insufficient to establish a cause of action for defamation."

IANAL but AFAIK: The plaintiff would need to show that he or she has a case, so to speak - that he or she has suffered some "civil harm". If the plaintiff can't demonstrate that the defendant's words caused harm, then the defendant doesn't have to mount a defense. I think.

In a defamation claim, if the plaintiff can set the stage well enough, then 2 approaches the defense can take (& potentially win) are (a) to present evidence that the statements the defendant made were demonstrably true, or (b) to show that the statements were merely opinion.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

This isn't my interpretation, but from near the end of this page: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-mexico/ ... 2-594.html .... The plaintiff would need to show that he or she has a case, so to speak - that he or she has suffered some "civil harm". If the plaintiff can't demonstrate that the defendant's words caused harm, then the defendant doesn't have to mount a defense. I think.

In a defamation claim, if the plaintiff can set the stage well enough, then 2 approaches the defense can take (& potentially win) are (a) to present evidence that the statements the defendant made were demonstrably true, or (b) to show that the statements were merely opinion.

See Damion, that's how an honest person disagrees -- by rebutting with specific counterpoints, even a citation!


Here's how an arrogant dissembler does it:

I believe you were the one making bold claims about what the law requires here, Matt. Please, do internet lawyer away.

--

@Skep tickle: You are correct! Plaintiff has the burden to show tangible harm was caused by the defamation (libel or slander). If that weren't a slam dunk for Rads, his lawyers would never have filed. Interestingly, in New Mexico, it's not required to show malice (unlike, for example, in Shermer's California suit vs. Peezus.)

Once plaintiff has shown tangible harm, however, the burden shifts to defendant to show just cause for making the harmful statements. If they are true, they are protected, no matter how harmful. And that's all laid out in Smith v. Durden.

Alternatively, defendant can claim "privilege" -- that, regardless of veracity, their statements served some greater societal good. My hunch is that's Stollzy's strategy. Cuz she can't be so dumb as to consider putting Carrie Poppy on the stand, right?

--

@damion: you're not a lawyer, you're certainly not running queries on WestLaw or Lexis-Nexus. So how was it you just happened to stumble upon THE landmark case on defamation in NM, (albeit, misunderstanding its import), not to mention citing it by docket #?

[d4m10n]

The answer's staring right at you, in Smith v. Durden.

Please show us where exactly in that case you got the idea that "the onus is on [defendant] to prove her accusations against [plaintiff]."

I'll happily grant that truth was an affirmative defense at common law, but I think you'll find that things have changed much since the constitutionalization of defamation law in the U.S. starting in the 1960's.

"...in only one type of case can New Mexico's common law rule that truth is an affirmative defense possibly continue to apply. The supreme court has not barred the treatment of truth as an affirmative defense rather than falsity as part of the plaintiff's case where the plaintiff is a private figure and the subject matter of the alleged defamation is solely a matter of private concern." - NM UJI 13-1006 (use note)

Maybe you have an elaborate argument that this is a private plaintiff / private concern sort of case, rather than a case in which a public figure accused another public figure in the course of media commentary about issues wherein the public has a justified and important interest. If so, I'd be interested to hear how that argument goes, and you might should pass it along to the attorneys at Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward.

[Skep tickle]

I waded through a pdf of the NM Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Durden and through the Justia.com summary (which was, for me, more of a slog than the decision itself).

I am just not seeing there the distinction d4m10n draws, between private and public-in-course-of-media-commentary; maybe that's the New York Times aspect that's referred to in the decision itself, and maybe d4m10n only brought up Smith v. Dunbar for the first-plaintiff-has-to-show-damage part. If so, I was a little confused about that.

Taking a stab at the part about a statement being protected if it's made "in the course of media commentary about issues wherein the public has a justified and important interest" (I think I looked into this for the Shermer/Myers thing but the legal decision in (3) below is new since then):

1) Media are careful to add the modified "alleged" whenever they say a specific person might have committed a crime.

KS didn't add the term "alleged" - she claimed specific illegal acts were perpetrated by a specific person. (a) Those illegal acts turn out to have somewhat different definitions in different jurisdictions; I don't know if that might be useful in her defense. (b) More imporant, I would guess, is that SHE didn't name the person. Others did that, presumably based, at root, on private conversations with her and/or events they witnessed, with layers of hearsay spreading out from there.

2) If the claim is clearly "opinion", subjective, hyperbole, etc, it may be okay. I don't know exactly where the line is drawn here. If she had said "I was treated in a way that made me very uncomfortable and that I felt was highly inappropriate, that I reported to his employers", IMO that would probably have been fine. But she didn't put it that way.

3) This seems relevant because KS aired her concerns publicly in a blogpost at Sci Am:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/blo ... ibel-suits

Friday, January 24, 2014

A website that castigates others as “evil doers” and “thugs” has exactly the same First Amendment protection as USA TODAY and the New York Times – and that’s a good thing.

In a landmark decision on Friday, a federal appellate court held for the first time that blogs enjoy the same First Amendment protection from libel suits as traditional news media.

At issue were the blog posts of Crystal Cox, who accused Bend, Oregon attorney Kevin Padrick and his firm Obsidian Finance Group of misconduct in connection with his role as a trustee in a bankruptcy case. A jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages.

But the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit saw things differently, deciding that Cox’s allegations were matters of public interest and to sue her successfully, Padrick would have to prove her negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued.

“The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist,” Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote.

While the Supreme Court has previously observed that the lines between traditional news media and native web content have become blurred, this makes the first time that federal appellate court has essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment. ...

Speech doesn’t get much more free than blogs and comments on websites, and long-established principles protecting opinion and hyperbole help to keep it that way. In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to toss out other libel claims against Cox, despite her assertions that her targets engaged in corruption, fraud, deceit, money laundering, harassment and illegal activity. She called them immoral “evil doers” and “thugs” and alleged that a hit man had been hired to kill her. The appellate court concluded that Cox’s post were so outrageous that no one would take them seriously and these hyperbolic attacks couldn’t be the basis of a lawsuit. Apparently it also helps to name your site “obsidianfinancesucks.com.”

The decision in a nutshell: Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent, and if you do decide to attack someone online, make sure you go over the top. ...

But her allegations weren't phrased as "over the top" - she used terms that have specific legal meaning, "sexual harassment" and "sexual assault", without details; so her statement does look like it's a claim of illegal conduct against a specific person.

But, again, as others have pointed out & I said higher in this post, it's not clear to me how BR can point to KS as his defamer. KS hasn't publicly tied BR's name to her claims; others have done that.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

The answer's staring right at you, in Smith v. Durden.

Please show us where exactly in that case you got the idea that "the onus is on [defendant] to prove her accusations against [plaintiff]."

I'll happily grant that truth was an affirmative defense at common law, but I think you'll find that things have changed much since the constitutionalization of defamation law in the U.S. starting in the 1960's.

"...in only one type of case can New Mexico's common law rule that truth is an affirmative defense possibly continue to apply. The supreme court has not barred the treatment of truth as an affirmative defense rather than falsity as part of the plaintiff's case where the plaintiff is a private figure and the subject matter of the alleged defamation is solely a matter of private concern." - NM UJI 13-1006 (use note)

Maybe you have an elaborate argument that this is a private plaintiff / private concern sort of case, rather than a case in which a public figure accused another public figure in the course of media commentary about issues wherein the public has a justified and important interest. If so, I'd be interested to hear how that argument goes, and you might should pass it along to the attorneys at Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward.

I love how damion's not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, but damion is certain he knows exactly how the law works. That's because damion has the biggest brain in the world! (Shh, don't tell Dick Carrier).

[d4m10n]

I waded through a pdf of the NM Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Durden and through the Justia.com summary (which was, for me, more of a slog than the decision itself).

I am just not seeing there the distinction d4m10n draws, between private and public-in-course-of-media-commentary; maybe that's the New York Times aspect that's referred to in the decision itself, and maybe d4m10n only brought up Smith v. Dunbar for the first-plaintiff-has-to-show-damage part. If so, I was a little confused about that.

I did not bring up the Smith v. Durden case, that was Matt.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

Damion referred to a NM statute re. proving tangible harm from defamation; I jumped to the test case. My mistake.

It's too much for damion ever to specifically state what he means -- he wants us lower life forms to have to look it up. So here it is, juror instructions on defamation cases:

(B)   To establish the claim of defamation on the part of defendant, the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following contentions: 
[(1)   The defendant published the communication; and]   
[(2)   The communication contains a statement of fact; and]   
[(3)   The communication was concerning the plaintiff; and]     
[(4)   The statement of fact was false; and]           
[(5)   The communication was defamatory; and]           
[(6)   The person receiving the communication understood it to be defamatory; and] 
[(7)   The defendant [knew that the communication was false or negligently failed to recognize that it was false] [or] [acted with malice]; and]           
[(8)   The communication caused actual injury to the plaintiff's reputation; and] 
[(9)   The defendant abused [its] privilege to publish the communication.] 

So yes, damion, if you meant plaintiff must first prove these, that is correct. Still so weird that you just knew this obscure New Mexico statute right off the top of your head.

I considered Rads attorneys proving all of these a given:
1) Stollzy's byline;
2) "he sexually assaulted me on several occasions"
3) Stollzy has confirmed this in writing;
4) Rads was never convicted of sexual assault. Stollzy never even reported anything to the police;
5) "he is a predator", etc.;
6) She's got a PhD in lingistics, for chrissakes;
7) the CfI internal investigation should cover that;
8) plenty of ways to show that;
9) this is not a NYT type case, rather personal accusations.

Meaning, per section (D),

the defendant has the burden of proving [at least one of] [each of] the following contention: 
(List disputed factual elements relevant to affirmative defense.)

   

to avoid a summary judgement. And she can't. She's got nothing. I can't wait to see her try.

[d4m10n]

You caught the part where "plaintiff has the burden of proving...[t]he statement of fact was false."

Right, matt?

[Skep tickle]

I waded through a pdf of the NM Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Durden and through the Justia.com summary (which was, for me, more of a slog than the decision itself).

I am just not seeing there the distinction d4m10n draws, between private and public-in-course-of-media-commentary; maybe that's the New York Times aspect that's referred to in the decision itself, and maybe d4m10n only brought up Smith v. Dunbar for the first-plaintiff-has-to-show-damage part. If so, I was a little confused about that.

I did not bring up the Smith v. Durden case, that was Matt.

Oh, sorry, that was totally my bad. I assumed that when you pointed to "UJI 13-1002(B)(4) NMRA" then he said "Smith v Durden", that they were they same case. Now I see that's not so, according to the Google School of Law. ;)

You caught the part where "plaintiff has the burden of proving...[t]he statement of fact was false."

Right, matt?

Hmmmmmm. I see that, but how can a plaintiff do that? Seems difficult for any of us to prove that - as an example - we had never sexually assaulted an acquaintance who claims we (an individual one of us, that is) had done so?

[helenhighwater]

I don't see how this allows Stollznow more free speech; it just relieves her (& her spouse, at least to some extent) of the financial burden of paying the legal expenses of mounting a defense against what she's said in the past.

It allows her to speak honestly about her own perception of her own experiences, should she prevail in the case. It also allows other to speak of their own experiences with more confidence that they will not be silenced by lawsuit, again, assuming she prevails.

Did you mean to implicitly compare speaking out about one's own experience of sexual harassment with generally harmful speech such as doxxing?

this argument is tantamount to Citizens United.

money is not free speech. unless you're the Koch brothers