We’ve been seeing more threats over the last few months against bloggers from both the public sector and private individuals who don’t want things posted or who take issue with things that have been put up online. The threats come in all forms, from subtle suggestions that quoting an email is a violation of copyright to overt threats of lawsuits from developers. The latter is currently going on in Gerritsen Beach where blogger GerritsenBeach.Net, who does a great job of covering a part of Brooklyn that gets scant attention and does so without trying to make any money from the venture, received a letter from a lawyer for developer Stephen Jemal threatening a suit after the blog revealed a lawsuit against the developer by a financier. The letter, which has been posted in PDF form, demanded that the blogger remove the post, remove all links to the post on other blogs, remove search engine results that would link to it, sign a “non-disparagement agreement” and pay the developer $20,000 to cover legal fees and “additional consideration to induce Mr. Jemal not to file a lawsuit.” In addition GerritsenBeach.Net was hit with a Denial of Service attack designed to bring down his website. He alleges the attack came from someone “closely associated” with the developer and says he has proof in the form of emails.
The lawsuit threat hasn’t been settled yet, but the intended chilling effect of threatening a small, non-profit blog with a costly lawsuit is clear. The threat is the same whether it comes from a local online community miffed that emails circulating publicly are being quoted without “permission” and are “illegal” or whether they are from a developer who demands $20,000 to avoid a lawsuit or to induce someone to sign a “non-disparagement agreement.” In either case, a blogger could face a fortune in legal bills to fight off someone with deep pockets who wishes to prove a point. Sheepshead Bites has an excellent summary of the situation here and, of course, GerritsenBeach.Net offers his own words about the scary developments. The problem is compounded by the fact that bloggers don’t have access to a team of lawyers that reporters do, that many don’t come from a journalism background and can be easily intimidated by bogus claims of liable, slander or copyright violations. It highlights the need for internet groups or a new organization to step to the plate and offer legal advice and counsel to bloggers who are often operating as journalists with none of the institutional protections.
8 responses so far ↓
1 ff // Jul 22, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Sounds like a $20k shakedown… these people are thugs.
2 Anonymous // Jul 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Unless sealed by the court lawsuits are public record.
3 Best View in Brooklyn // Jul 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I don’t agree that the mentioned legal and monetary threat is the same as a listserve (I guess the reference is to PSP) asking that posters be contacted prior to their emails being posted.
Just as sharing news about a development in a neighborhood is different from posting a reaction or question about the neighborhood. (Usually with intended or unintended consequences of holding a certain population up to ridicule.)
That said, the recent trend of getting a law office to send a threatening letter when unflattering items are posted on blogs is disturbing and, I’d think, illegal in its own right.
Thanks for bringing it to light.
4 KaosDG // Jul 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm
He should contact the EFF.
http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/
They handle lots of stuff like this.
5 Sid from Brooklyn // Jul 22, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Right now the only one with a valid lawsuit is the web site. A service denial attack is a federal criminal law violation. I would suggest he contact both the Brooklyn District Attorney and the Brooklyn US Attorney’s office. It would seem to me that a report of a lawsuit is subject to at least a limited privilege and it doesn’t matter if the complaint is accurate or not. so if the threat to sue is not justified by the lawfirm and money is requested, isn’t that extortion?
6 WhiteInBayRidge // Jul 23, 2008 at 12:05 pm
There are way too many lawyers in this world.
7 pfa // Jul 23, 2008 at 8:45 pm
non-disparagement agreement? ha! I’ll disparage Stephen Jamal: Hey, Stevie, you’re a scumbag! Come on and sue me!
8 d2 // Jul 24, 2008 at 7:40 pm
A friend in NYC emailed me this (I’ve personally been there, and it cost me several grand to just beat back a subpoena (one of the more vile aspects of the DMCA is that it allows pre-litigation subpoenas). The FAQ on my site has a lot more info on our case and parties that showed interest in defending against this crap.
@5: it does seem that way to a lot of people. The concept of “Merger” is where I found relevant case law: every word and bit of punctuation in a takedown demand arguably carries some important meaning, so anything less than a full reporting is insufficient for a 3rd party to decide for themselves who is right or wrong or overstepping their bounds.
I _Love_ the EFF but they didn’t seem interested in this case. Sigh.
Paul Levy of ‘Public Citizen’ *DID*, and I’ve recently (last month?) seen him pursuing a similar case for someone else.
For more details on my case, I’ve got a FAQ on http://www.43rdstateblues.com/?q=melaleuca-43sb-faq