California Lawyer Sues Yahoo Over Message-Board Posts Thursday, August 5, 2004 - 02:56 PM ET LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawyer who has waged an ongoing battle with Yahoo Inc. over personal attacks made against him on Yahoo message boards has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against the company. The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday by associates of corporate attorney Stephen Galton, claims Yahoo has unfairly protected people who post negative messages on its bulletin boards and falsely advertised that it prevents such abusive messages. Spokespersons for Yahoo were not immediately available to comment. Galton is a partner in the firm of Galton & Helm, which specializes in insurance law. He registered to use Yahoo message boards in early 2004 in order to respond to a negative late-2003 post about one of his clients, which he did not identify in the suit. After Galton posted his response, under the screen name "stephengalton," he was subjected to name-calling by various other users of the message boards. One user, a person using the screen name "mumioler" who had posted the original messages about Galton's client that started the dispute, wrote a series of new messages calling Galton a "shyster" and an "overly robust geezer that makes a living walking behind the elephant with a shovel." Other users also took personal shots at Galton, and he filed suit in April of this year against them. At the same time, he sought their personal information via a subpoena from Yahoo. The company, the suit said, responded with incomplete or inaccurate information. The suit proposes as a class any California resident who has been targeted by abusive messages on a Yahoo board, who tried to get such messages stopped or learn the identity of the message poster, and who had such requests denied within the last four years. It seeks restitution, a permanent injunction and other forms of relief. Source: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=5887650
As the object of several abusive, flatly untrue (or at least misguided and fundamentally inaccurate) and even defamatory posts here and elsewhere, lately, I naturally agree. However, as a civil libertarian, a free-speech activist with a long track-record of getting into right into the middle of fights such as this, and as a card-carrying member of the ACLU, I would not want a lawsuit like this to effectively chill free speech, either. It's such a delicate, delicate balance. Truly devastating and unmitigated harm to lives and reputations can be done in an instant of thoughtless, baseless commentary in an Internet forum. But even more devastating harm to civil liberties and free speech can be done just as quickly and easily by the overzealousness of well-meaning forum moderators who nevertheless lack the discernment skills to know when, and when not, to act; or, worse, by well-meaning but nevertheless free-speech-chilling lawsuit rulings and/or direct court orders which inadvertently have chilling effects. There are many fine hairs of difference which must be considered and/or split. Some kind of fair-minded balance between the abusive (and especially inaccurate and flatly defamatory) postings, and those which amount to reasonable -- even if heated -- free and open discourse, must be found. The marketplace of ideas must not be stifled so that people like me and attorney Galton can be made to feel more comfortable. At the same time, thoughtless, mean-spirited, knowingly false (or at least misleading), defamatory (as a matter of law), and intentionally harmful posts which chip away at decades worth of honorable reputation building must not be allowed, either. It's not an easy subject, to be sure. EDIT: None of what I've written, here, should be considered any kind of commentary -- cogent or otherwise -- about the moderators here. I'm just speaking (er... well, more accurately, writing) in general terms regarding forums, generally.
Sounds to me this lawyer isn't generating enough business and is trying to make a name for himself. I don't think the lawyer is arguing about "free" speech on the internet, but yahoo's policy about abuse. So, it becomes an issue with yahoo not following it's own policy. Must be nice to be a lawyer with too much time on his hands.
Quote: "wrote a series of new messages calling Galton a "shyster" and an "overly robust ****** that makes a living walking behind the elephant with a shovel." And there is a jury somewhere that believes that this isn't a fair description of all lawyers?? Totally off topic A friend of mine was recently appointed Queen's Counsel which is merely an honour. It used to be reserved for voting the proper way but has expanded somewhat. Typically you lose all post nominal letters but QC and wear a different monkey suit in the higher courts and gain some unearned?? respect.
Thanks for your analysis, Mr_E_2000, but I think it is overly-cynical and fundamentally misses the mark. Those of us who don't hide behind anonymous monickers and handles in forums; who use our real names in everything we post so that we may always be held accountable; and who have the courage to address issues directly and, by so doing, honorably, often find ourselves the objects of what I call "drive-by" postings from gutless cowards who have no hesitation to write in a forum while hiding behind the veil of anonymity what they would never dare write or say were they identifiable. Readers, lurkers and others often do not bother to perform the due diligence required for them to learn which parts of what they've read in forums are fact and which are fiction. Since none of it is labeled, it's easy for a thoughtless, mean-spirited jerk to do some real and measurable harm to someone else by his careless postings. When the object of such postings is one such as me or attorney Galton who uses his real name in postings, the damage can actually be immeasurable. Forums post policies which they invite potential members to read; which said potential members have a reasonable expectation will be enforced; and upon which said potential members rely -- in much the same way as they may rely on a clause of a contract -- when making their decision whether or not to join and participate. In effect, the policy, and the inferred promise that it will be enforced so that the potential member will know that the forum will be a place of civil -- even if heated -- discourse, becomes an inducement to join. When the policy ends-up being unenforced, the member has the right to feel cheated; that the forum owner breached the implied contract between them; and that his effective inducement amounts to a fraud. Eliminating fraud is a worthwhile endeavor for anyone -- attorney or otherwise. Characterizing Mr. Galton's willingness to pursue it, in this case, is hardly what I'd call "an attorney with too much time on his hands." Equally misguided is your suggestion that he merely trying to generate publicity and by so doing "making a name for himself," and trying to drum-up new business. And, if one thinks about it, even if he were, what would be wrong with that? I always find it amusing when those who have never known fame begrudge those who have from allowing whatever good things happen to come his or her way as a consequence to inure to their benefit. I could be mistaken, but I believe that's the very definition of "jealousy." I never said that Mr. Galton's suit argued "free speech." It should be abundantly clear, by now, that I understand (and that I have understood all long) that this is about Yahoo's failure, in the eyes of the complaintant, to enforce its policies; that by failing to do so after advertising said policies, Yahoo is committing a misrepresentation or perhaps even a fraud. It is you, I'm afraid, who missed that I completely got that in the first place. Perhaps a more careful reading... but I digress. What I wrote about free speech was simply a summary of my fears regarding the unintentionally chilling effects on free speech that lawsuits like this one can ultimately and inadvertently have. Was that not clear from my earlier post?
