Until last week, I'd had no idea who this guy was -- and then he went and sued a considerable fraction of the
davis_square community (including several folks I know, and some mutual friends of people here), apparently because he believes that he was slandered by them. (ETA: Links to gists get auto-embedded in LJ? When did that happen?) This despite the fact that the "offense" appears to have consisted largely of reposting and linking to publicly-available news, and commenting in the resulting threads -- in many cases, comments that said little or nothing about him personally.I am *totally* not a lawyer, but the lawsuit seems rather specious to me, and I don't like the smell of it. This is a man who one presumes is rather wealthy (from having founded a major game publisher), suing a large number of people who are not, on what appear to be weak grounds. In my personal opinion, that feels like bullying. But of course, the direct effect of this suit (especially its preposterous breadth) is that many people like me now know far more about the background and history than we ever wanted to, having now been motivated to look into it. I wouldn't have paid any attention to him if he hadn't started suing friends of mine. The sheer apparent irrationality of the suit surprises me.
I always like to ask questions to foment conversation, so: does this lawsuit seem to you to have merit? Would you be inclined to contribute to the legal defense fund that I hope will be set up to contest it? How much is it probably going to wind up costing him, per-defendant? (And what is the fact of his filing this suit likely to do to his reputation?) Is he likely to keep suing everyone who mentions him online? Would it be appropriate to start an Internet Meme of mentioning him and pointing back to his lawsuit? (Which is, after all, a public document, so it is hard to see how he could sue over that.) I confess some curiosity about how this mindset works.
And yes, I'm curious about whether he will decide to sue me over this post of personal impression of his public actions. It says something about the chilling effects of blanket lawsuits like this that I did have to think carefully about whether to even post my personal thoughts. But I have the resources to defend myself, I'm a founding member of the EFF (and I have a deep dislike of all forms of bullying), so it doesn't seem like I should be intimidated by him...
And yes -- while this isn't the *most* egregious barratry I've seen in recent years (some of the DMCA stuff is truly outrageous), it's certainly the one that's hit closest to home. It deserves to be illegal...
(Also the only comment I made in the whole mess? Saying I didn't have time for this. YEAH.)
Anyway, sympathies, and count me in for a contribution to the fund, once (I assume) that gets set up. I dislike legal harassment, and there are way too many violations of free speech in this suit. It needs to get slapped down properly...
On the lawsuit front: Oy. Yes, it's absolutely bullying. Sadly our legal system encourages bullying by the rich of the powerless, and drains the resources of bystanders to defend them.
Proving defamation is a tricky business, moreso in this country where truth is a proper defense, and where opinion and fact must first be separated. One can only hope he is retaining himself as counsel. It is cheaper, after all, and therefore the wisest course of action for one as intelligent has he has shown himself to be.
(also the letters say they are confidential and no one can talk about them under Rule 408 of of the Mass Rules of Evidence which is....not what that rule says at ALL.)
1. There appear to be several cases of what might be valid defamation claims involved in the suit. (It has also served to teach me that defamation is actually quite easy to do, even accidentally.)
2. The vast majority of the content he is referring to and suing for is not defamatory in nature.
3. The entire situation seems ... odd. (Dear Mr. Monsarrat: This is a statement of opinion.)
I intend on contributing to a legal fund once it's set up.