I have been a defendant in a defamation lawsuit for about six months now. If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to have your day in court, let me take a few moments and relate to you my impressions so far.
First of all, you probably won’t ever have your day in court. The law is like playing Monopoly when you were a kid. It goes on and on with no movement. People make shit up. You argue if that’s really what the rules say. You accept some lies and come to an agreement. People take a turn, make up new shit, and dispute the amended rules. Don’t believe me. Let me walk you through an example.
The plaintiffs, The Connor Group (TCG), own about a half dozen apartment complexes around Columbus. Associates at these complexes have to post Craigslist ads throughout the day to keep their properties “fresh” and at the top of the listings. Multiple associates at multiple properties making multiple postings multiplies into them essentially “spamming” the housing section of columbus dot craiglist dot org.
TCG contends that saying they spam is defamatory. Because TCG (figuratively) goes before a judge and says:
- Spamming is a criminal act (CAN-SPAM act, 15 USC 7701)
- Defendant admits to accusing Plaintiffs of this criminal act
- Plaintiffs allege the statements are not true
- a false factual assertion of illegality is defamatory
OK. Who can spot the bullshytt in that argument? I have no legal training, but I’ll take a shot. Well you see,………………………………………………. Well, I can’t really find anything wrong in that argument. Then again, I can’t find anything wrong in this argument either.
- Spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages (spam), especially advertising, indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions, social spam, television advertising and file sharing spam.
- The plaintiffs do this.
- A statement cannot be defamatory if it is true.
Wait a minute, Junior. If they’re both true….
Good question. It would be impossible for the court to decide what was in the brain of the speaker. The tie goes to the runner. If speech can be interpreted in a protected manner and in a defamatory manner, it was long since decided that protecting protected speech is more important than the bruised ego of some pompous ass in Dayton. Well, they didn’t decided it exactly that way.
If an insolent jackass like you know this, wouldn’t a lawyer? And wouldn’t a judge bitch-slap some idiot for daring to file this?
Wait. The stupid’s not over. I found a TCG employee bragging on Twitter about how they own Craiglist. The ass-steamed barrister for the opposition said that these posting could have been made by me. Would asking your stupid employees if those were their tweets be a little more judicious than accusing me of perjury?
Another less comical item was that these internet posting (some of which were on Glassdoor) could not be authenicate. The plaintiff has little problem accepting the authenticity of internet postings when it suit them.
This is just ONE item in there complaint.
Do you feel better now, Cupcake?
Yes. I do. I may not be able to be able to stand up in court and say it Al Pacino style, but I can say it in this blog and there is not a goddamn thing Larry Connor or his taint-snorting lackeys can do about it beside annoy me.