Right-Winger Sues Blogger And Wins

From Seeing the Forest for the Trees:

Lee Kaplan writes at David Horowitz's far-right, anti-Muslim FrontPageMag.com. A college student set up the blog Lee Kaplan Watch to expose what the guy is writing. He was sued by Kaplan in small claims court for "business interference," and Kaplan won $7500 (emphasis added). because it was small claims court the judge was not required to explain his decision.

The blogger writes,

I hope that sufficient attention is paid to the great danger that what has happened to me poses to all of us. It is by all means a serious issue. My first amendment rights have been subverted with support from the courts, which only shows that everybody is in danger of facing these abusive small claims court defamation suits. My speech has been punished by a ruling with no opinion explaining why or advising me what not to do in the future. My credibility has been tarnished by a trial with incredibly low standards for admissible evidence and a messy, inconsistent court procedure. And, for me, worst of all: I will never know what element of Kaplan's claim, if any, the judge agreed with, though Kaplan will certainly continue to claim that all of them were accepted, though he knows well that this is not the case.

This is a freedom of speech and right-to-blog issue. We must do something to reverse this because it will become a convenient way for right-wingers to harass all of us.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2007/06/rightwinger_sue.htm

Perhaps we need to look into helping this blogger financially--and making noise about this travesty to our representatives. (BTW, I am saying this--not the writer at Seeing the Forest for the Trees.

I think it would be a great idea if we made some noise about this to expose it more widely, especially considering what right-wing bloggers get away with doing to progressive writers.

If this can be done one way, there are certainly more than enough opportunities to turn it in favor of responsible speech.

A new legal standard needs to be set, and the best way is to flood Small Claims with suits against RW bloggers for 'similar', or more likely 'worse' infractions.

Hit back people. The worst that can happen is outcry over the tie-up of the legal system which will inevitably result in reform.

Can anyone think of a case where a Right-Wing blogger did something similar?

Oh you mean they don't want big corporations that Republicans support sued, but if they want to sue those who oppose their right wing junk by blogging that appears ok.

but that would cost money. That's why I am wondering whether we could help him out--and why I think our representatives (and Keith Olbermann for sure!) need to hear about this. We should all send it to KO. He could make that judge a "Worst person in the World" award winner.

That's why I am asking for help to keep this in front of people. If a whole bunch of us send it to KO, it might get even more exposure--and things like this do need to be exposed. Sunlight is the best disinfetant and all that, you know.

kolbermann@msnbc.com

everyone do it that reads this, come on, get it on the major news channel somehow - this is a horrible injustice!

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<----- top 2008 stickers and shirts and antibush items!!!!!

He should approach the ACLU about helping him with an appeal. This is certainly a first amendment issue.

Well before helping him financially, I believe (depending on his jurisdiction) that you can appeal your smalls claim judgment if you are not the one bringing the claim. This blogger needs a good 1st Amendment lawyer to advice him.

Certain aspects of our justice system are really out of wack.

One more and it will go to the "Greatest Page." Anyone want to do the honors?

(Thanks for that last rec, whoever did it.)

Or at elast it was supposed to be secret.

in small claims court. The RW rarely considers that they better be careful what they ask for because they just might get it.

and that is not legal advise, just a suggestion.

If it can be found that he was influenced in some way he shouldn't be, etc., impeaching this bastard could help our legislative branches prepare for the ultimate war where we may need to impeach some SCOTUS or other high level judges to restore some judicial balance in this country

When they don't control the microphone, they want equal time. When they get equal time, they want to shut out other voices, even a kid who doesn't have nearly as loud a megaphone as them.

And contrast this with Michael Moore giving money to his critic.

In order to support the blogger, we need to hear the argument on the other side.

The blogger says his free speech rights were interfered with. Fair enough. I get that.

But...was the argument on the other side that the blogger was interfering with the complainant's free speech rights? If so, in what way?

Because we all know that there's a line that can't be crossed in free speech. Was the line crossed? Was there something in particular the blogger said? The judgment sounds to me like an award for a one-time offense of some sort.

Just not enough info. I don't blindly support anyone w/o knowing all the facts, whether the one who wants to be supported is right or left or in the middle.

The summary seems to be that he went it alone without legal advice, and basically screwed it up.

was a place where people usually represented themselves. In fact from my limited experience, SCC is usually a place where the plaintiff and defendant are encouraged to work things out between themselves.

But I also thought the stakes in SCC were a lot less than $7,500. For that money I definitley get a lawyer.

he could have filed to have it moved out of small claims, but failed to. Then he whines about the process of using small claims. He really wasn't very smart and his claims are not holding up well to scrutiny.

The good thing is small claims courts do not set precedents...

He failed to educate himself about the court system before showing up, losing, giving up, and whining about it on the 'net.

fundraiser for the ACLU and the IMEU:

http://kaplanwatch.blogspot.com/

To the poster who said he needs more information to decide whether the blogger should be supported, the young man's website (link above) contains plenty of infomation about the case. Here is some of what he wrote:

Lee Kaplan presented one allegation against me during the trial regarding defamation. In this regard he claimed that my website had the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag" and linked to another site with his face photoshopped on to gay porn. Had these allegations been true, he very well might have had a legitimate claim against me. However, these allegations were false and he must have known when he presented them.

My website does NOT contain the phrase "Lee Kaplan is a douchebag." However, this spoof of my website on YTMND does (http://leekaplanwatch.ytmnd.com). Lee Kaplan printed this screenshot out and submitted it to the court as evidence, claiming that he got it by taking a screenshot of my website. He further lied and claimed that when clicking on the phrase, it would take you to another page on YTMND with the pornographic photo (http://doucheparty.ytmnd.com/). However, if that phrase was indeed a link to that page, it would appear in the same color as the other links. There is no way anybody could mistakenly claim that the link existed because if you go to the first YTMND site, nothing on the page is even clickable! Kaplan must have known that the phrase was not actually a link, and that the two YTMND sites were not even connected. And he definitely must have known that they were not on this blog.

The important things are: 1) the material he claims is defamatory was never on my website, nor was it anything I was involved in authoring or disseminating; and 2) he knowingly lied about how he found the materials and lied when explaining their source. For those who are interested, Lee Kaplan is on the ytmnd site in the first place because he threatened to sue its owner over another site on their server mocking him.

<snip>

I want to also mention that I had brought a witness who was competent in computer affairs (a degree in computer science from Brown University and a recent PhD at Berkeley) and could have testified these things. But the judge did not allow him or my other witnesses to speak.

Kaplan applauds a Saudi suit against a writer being tossed. http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28726
No mention of his attempt to silence his critic, of course. David Horowitz and his ilk aren't the least bit interested in academic freedom, they seek to silence dissent. They can't tolerate its existence. We can expect to see more of this, unfortunately.

If you put something out there on the innertubes, everyone can see it...and agree or disageee. Why does this require a legal opinion? Very disturbing.

process rolling. Hope this gets appealed.

because you don't like what he writes.

For all we know the small claims court judge is related or a friend. Nothing is fixed till after the appeal. Most of tyhe time they expect you to appeal it. Let us know how the appeal is going to see what kind of help you need.

is raising money for his legal expenses. I posted the link to his site above.

We also need to get Keith and others to make a noise about this.

BTW, I am not the person this happened to. Often, as in this case, the person responsible for the OP (me) is not the same as the person whose situation is described in the OP.

this needs addressed, and he needs to appeal...

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<---- top 2008 stickers & shirts! also antibush items!!!!!

:kick: and if there is a relief fund, I'll contribute. This is STUPID, and I am very certain that
this small claims court ruling violates freedom of speech.

Hopefully, the blogger will appeal to a higher court.

This Kaplan character needs to be fucked over. I'm working on some ideas...

and gave this blog as the reference I hope it will be enough. There are very seldom lawyers in small claims court. I thought the max was 2900 but that may have changed. I do know that the more organised you are the better chance you have in a fair court...this does not sound like it was that...it is very much like judge Judy.

This is bullshit.

The only rule of evidence applied in small claims courts is relevance. Kaplan undoubtedly brought his case in small claims because he knew he couldn't win in Municipal or Superior Court. The case is meaningless except to the blogger who has to pay the judgment. OTOH, the blogger may not know that small claims cases are appealable to a Superior Court as a trial de novo - a completely new trial with right to counsel and all the rules of evidence in play. That's the course he should have taken, instead of just complaining about the small claims judge on the internet. As for his complaint that he got a "ruling with no opinion", well, that's what everyone gets in all trial courts. Trial courts don't write opinions. Appellate courts do.

This whole thing is like crying over spilt milk. It's inconsequential.

Maybe if he can get his site, FrontPageMag, more attention he can become the Grand Wizard.

I never understood why Horowitz railed so much against kids going to college.
I went to college for an education, yet because I don't agree with Horowitz' philosophical rants against higher education "poisoning" our youth with liberal ideas, he thinks colleges should become more dogmatic.
Yet, there are many conservative colleges and religious colleges that students can attend if they want that type of education.

I studied Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and Sophocles when I went to college, yet Horowitz thinks they are at the root of the problem for the downfall of liberal colleges.
Yet, I learned that these men were the men who helped form the very first civilizations that our Western civilization was built upon.
I imagine that Horowitz would have had Socrates banned from teaching at college these days because he doesn't agree with his philosophy.

What kind of a "teacher" is that?
It's not, that's a preacher.
And that's what Horowitz is, a preacher.
A preacher of hate.
Nothing he ever spouts is edifying, his rants are only meant to tear down.

Horowitz reminds of that old grumpy man character that Dana Carvey used to play on Saturday Night Live -

College kids these days!
They think they have it tough because they have to eat in the cafeteria.
They whine and complain because they can't eat their little snacks in their classrooms.
Flibbility-floo!
Why, in my day, we didn't even have cafeterias.
We had to eat outside, on wooden benches, that we had to build ourselves, or else we didn't get to eat.
And we didn't have cooks at our school either.
We had to bring our own cows and chickens to school, and we had to slaughter them and dress them and then cook them before we could sit down to eat.
And we liked it!

College kids are soft these days.
They whine because they have to use computers that are almost 2 years old.
They think that they should use new computers that don't take so long to download their songs.
Flibbility-flee!
Why, in my day, we didn't have special, wired, computerized classrooms.
We only had one kind of classroom, and it didn't have any windows in it, either.
And all we had were chalkboards.
And one thin stick of chalk.
And that stick had to last for the entire year, or else we had to memorize everything the teacher was saying because she could no longer write it down.
And we liked it!

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2002/04/04/aquatic_plants/index.html


legal dispute between online aquatic plant enthusiasts and a pet supply store illustrates the perils of casual opining on the Web.

By Katharine Mieszkowski

Pages 1 2 3April 4, 2002 | This is a legal thriller set in a fishbowl.

It's the story of a multi-million dollar lawsuit that has transformed a sleepy online community of aquatic plant gardeners into a hotbed of accusations of libel, conspiracy, defamation, computer hacking, infringement on freedom of speech and even death threats.

The plaintiff in the case of Robert Novak vs. APD List Members, filed last May in a federal court in New York, seeks damages of more than $15 million. The FBI has even been notified, although there is no public evidence to date that it is conducting an investigation.

"I've been an attorney for over 20 years, and I have rarely seen anything that's as frivolous as this is," says John Benn, a lawyer and aquarist in Sheffield, Ala., who collects monies for the legal defense of the defendants named in the case. So far, says Benn, the defense fund has raised more than $14,000 from online sympathizers around the globe.




Overview
Updated: Saturday, April 07, 2007 08:23:17

There are now eight separate lawsuits involving Robert Novak that have been noted since this ugly episode began.

http://216.168.47.67/psw/Default.html

He wasn't sued for blogging.

http://kaplanwatch.blogspot.com/

He claims that he thought he was complaining to Kaplan's hosting provider, not to his employer. That's what he got sued for.

:kick:

The infamous "makaka" cameraman is probably wearing cement boots at the bottom of the Potomac holding an autographed George Sr. pigskin. Why are we surprised? The GOP cares about the bottom line, not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and our other constitutional rights. And they call us anti-American. Imagine that.

threatened with bodily harm and that's OK, but a guy whose writing is being questioned or criticized gets $7500?

Does anyone have the details about the specific claims and reasoning?

What exactly was the plaintiff saying was written that caused specific harm?