OT? BOSTON Mastermind's Legal Action Against Forum

[finalfight]

From Blabbermouth.net

"According to The Boston Globe, BOSTON mastermind Tom Scholz and his wife Kim have enlisted Burns & Levinson attorney Lawrence Green to send a cease-and-desist letter to the creator of a BOSTON fan board called "CoolTheEngines" where registered users were allegedly badmouthing Scholz for his treatment of late singer Brad Delp and other former band members. "You have caused a multitude of defamatory statements to be published about the Scholzes on your website. . . . These statements have all been made falsely and maliciously and otherwise with reckless disregard to the truth," wrote Green, who added that he'd seek "substantial monetary damages" unless all references to Scholz and his wife were removed from Gouldsmith's site. "I haven't shut it down yet, but I'm going to this week," Gouldsmith told The Boston Globe. "It's become very stressful." Scholz's spokesperson, Gail Parenteau, told The Boston Globe: "Over time, 'Cool the Engines', via its moderator, has said things and allowed things to be said that were hurtful and untrue. The moderator has been asked to stop, but instead has taken apparent delight in circulating the postings, and has tried to pique interest in the falsehoods."

Let's hope Journey don't follow suit!

[conversationpc]

I've supported Scholz in the past but he is just going too far with all the lawsuit BS. Give it up, Tom!

[finalfight]

I've supported Scholz in the past but he is just going too far with all the lawsuit BS. Give it up, Tom!

Don't say that, he'll be sniffing around here next!

[T-Bone]

Mastermind?

[bluejeangirl76]

From Blabbermouth.net

"According to The Boston Globe, BOSTON mastermind Tom Scholz and his wife Kim have enlisted Burns & Levinson attorney Lawrence Green to send a cease-and-desist letter to the creator of a BOSTON fan board called "CoolTheEngines" where registered users were allegedly badmouthing Scholz for his treatment of late singer Brad Delp and other former band members. "You have caused a multitude of defamatory statements to be published about the Scholzes on your website. . . . These statements have all been made falsely and maliciously and otherwise with reckless disregard to the truth," wrote Green, who added that he'd seek "substantial monetary damages" unless all references to Scholz and his wife were removed from Gouldsmith's site. "I haven't shut it down yet, but I'm going to this week," Gouldsmith told The Boston Globe. "It's become very stressful." Scholz's spokesperson, Gail Parenteau, told The Boston Globe: "Over time, 'Cool the Engines', via its moderator, has said things and allowed things to be said that were hurtful and untrue. The moderator has been asked to stop, but instead has taken apparent delight in circulating the postings, and has tried to pique interest in the falsehoods."

Ok, then by this same token, they should sue everyone who has ever spoken an ill or untrue word about Boston. As with any message board, its just people talking (mostly out of their asses, and most of the time, but still). Seriously, its a fucking MESSAGE BOARD, Tom... cool out.

Its NO different than Louise and Lucille sitting under the dryers at the local beauty shop yakking about how much they dislike that little Britney Spears trollop that's always in the Enquirer and how they read she used to be a man or was born with 5 breasts. It doesn't make it true and it gives them something to entertain themselves with, and life goes on. I'm still waiting for the day that this whole world gets together and lightens the fuck up.

This reminds me of Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, where they try to go stop a movie from being made just because people are talking bad about them on the internet.

[finalfight]

This reminds me of Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, where they try to go stop a movie from being made just because people are talking bad about them on the internet.

Ah, moviepoopshoot.com!

[finalfight]

Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

[ebake02]

With Tom Scholtz being a public figure he'll have a hard time winning this anyway.

[amaron]

There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

[conversationpc]

Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

I've heard him called that before and, at least through "Third Stage", I think it was appropriate.

[artist4perry]

Tom needs to chill, most people don't read blogs for facts. Barbarshop and beauty shop gossip was the precurser as someone above said. Nothing novel about gossip. He could always print a disclaimer to the rumors. But why even acknowledge them?

[finalfight]

Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

I've heard him called that before and, at least through "Third Stage", I think it was appropriate.

Makes him sound like he is planning an invasion or some such.

[TRAGChick]

Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

I've heard him called that before and, at least through "Third Stage", I think it was appropriate.

Makes him sound like he is planning an invasion or some such.

Or - this guy:

[Don]

If the site is reporting things as truths Instead of opinions, like Tom drove Brad to suicide or something like that, then I think he might have a case as you would with a gossip magazine or some other form of media reporting something as fact with out any evidence. If the site is just saying he is an asshole, then that's another matter.

[Voyager]

Tom Scholz has always been a control freak.

[Arianddu]

There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

[Arkansas]

Always wondered if all the $hit posted on this board would/could someday cause legal trouble here. I don't believe in running to the courts like that sue-happy Scholz guy, but I do believe in some degree of owner's responsibility for the website's content. Call it libel, slander, or any other sort of defamation, I don't know. But like newspapers, television stations, editorial comment/opinion may need to be buffered somehow. Either that, or public people should just grow thicker skin. I guess, everyone should.

Interesting debate.


later~

[FishinMagician]

There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

so basically it is talking shit/spreading rumors. which is legal as long as its not on the interweb, apparently

[Andrew]

Ok, closing MR Journey forum today and deleting ALL posts.

Goodbye.

[Ehwmatt]

There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

Libel is EXTREMELY hard to prove in court when it involves a public figure.

[AlteredDNA]

Ok, closing MR Journey forum today and deleting ALL posts.

Goodbye.

[Arianddu]

There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

Libel is EXTREMELY hard to prove in court when it involves a public figure.

Don't deny it, defamation is a tricky beast where there is a kernel of truth. My point is, freedom of speech is not a get-out-of-jail free card. You have the right to say whatever you want, BUT others have the right to sue your arse off if what you say is false or defamatory. There are legal ramifications to what you say and consequences to be paid.

[Voyager]

If Tom Scholz wins this lawsuit, the entire Internet will have to be shut down.

Seriously... what the hell is the Internet? It is 50% porn and 50% people talking shit about celebs.

Can Britney shut down every website that talks shit about her? People talk shit about George Bush all the time and even he couldn't do anything about it.

When you are a public figure, you have to prove malice in order to successfully sue someone for slander or defamation. People can talk as much shit about you as they want to. Unless Tom Scholz can prove that this guy is trying to harm him, his suit won't stand.

I bet the lawsuit will be tossed.

[Voyager]

Check this out:

Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

Link: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

[DracIsBack]

Let's hope Journey don't follow suit!

Ha!

The way some forum members talk, you'd swear they were personal longtime friends with the Journey members and are over at their homes for dinner three times a week. Why would Journey sue people who obviously know them so well and have such a close personal relationship with them!

[Ehwmatt]

Check this out:

Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

Link: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

Thank you, Voyager. "Actual malice" is legalese for a "DAMN NEAR IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN" when it comes to proving libel/slander.