libel
Latest
Elon Musk painted as 'thin-skinned billionaire' in court documents
The fallout from Elon Musk's ill-advised "pedo guy" comments -- made last year about British cave rescuer Vernon Unsworth -- is not going away. In new court documents, Unsworth didn't hold back when it came to his opinion of the South African tech billionaire, accusing him of orchestrating "a malicious, false and anonymous leak campaign in the UK and Australian press."
Former Ashley Madison CTO sues security researcher over hacked emails
While it appears the hackers who stole a treasure trove of data from adultery-focused "dating" site Ashley Madison are done embarrassing the company, that doesn't mean the fallout from the attack has stopped. The latest drama involves noted security researcher Brian Krebbs, who says he's facing a libel lawsuit from former Ashley Madison CTO Raja Bhatia. The lawsuit stems from a report Krebs posted in late August in which he claimed that the leaked emails of now-former CEO Noel Biderman revealed a plot to hack Ashley Madison's competitors. Bhatia apparently took issue with a number of Krebs' claims in the article and asked for a retraction and correction, which thus far Krebs has been unwilling to do.
English Court: Top Gear didn't libel Tesla
BBC's Top Gear (it's like The Engadget Show, but for cars) did not libel Tesla Motors when it reviewed the Tesla Roadster way back in 2008. Jeremy Clarkson's review showed the super-EV conking out after 55 miles of driving (a quarter of its expected range), suffering brake failures and an engine overheat that Elon Musk's company flatly denies ever happening. In the High Court, however, Mr Justice Tugendhat said that people could tell the difference between Clarkson's torturous, heavy-footed "powerrrrrrrrr" driving that goes on at Dunsfold Aerodrome, and the staid manner in which people drive on motorways. Tesla still maintains that the review has damaged its image, which is why it's also pursuing a claim for malicious falsehood, yet to be decided -- and on that bombshell, here's the original, legally non-libelous review for your enjoyment... goodnight!
The Lawbringer: Mailbag 4.0
Pop law abounds in The Lawbringer, your weekly dose of WoW, the law, video games and the MMO genre. Mathew McCurley takes you through the world running parallel to the games we love and enjoy, full of rules, regulations, pitfalls and traps. How about you hang out with us as we discuss some of the more esoteric aspects of the games we love to play? Welcome to another exciting mailbag edition of The Lawbringer. I've pulled some of my favorite questions from my inbox this week to discuss topics like slander, libel, and that pesky idea about gold selling that I had during one the recent WoW Insider Show (I think it was the WoW Insider Show; I do a lot of shows sometimes) about the auction house. Somewhere, Basil has felt a twinge in his leg, as if a thousand voices cried out in unison and then were quickly silenced by the ringing of the auction house bells ... If you've got a question for The Lawbringer, send it along to mat@wowinsider.com. Be sure to include some sort of subject that lets me know that you're asking a Lawbringer question, because otherwise it will probably get lost in the millions of potential tags your email could be filed under. A long time ago, I was reading a post by venerable internet man Merlin Mann about managing your inbox and fighting with the notion that email needed to be sorted and dealt with quickly. It's been years since then, and I hate my inbox more and more every day because I never listened to Merlin.
Tesla sues Top Gear for libel, New Stig unavailable for comment (update: BBC responds)
Fans of a particular show featuring three middle-aged men with an unhealthy penchant for cars, plus a fourth individual whose interests are rather more elusive, probably remember a 2008 episode in which the Top Gear crew lambasted the Tesla Roadster. (If not, a particularly low-quality recording is embedded below.) On that show, Jeremy Clarkson could be seen flogging one around the track, complaining about a range of only 55 miles before showing that car being pushed into the garage, supposedly out of charge. Not true, says Tesla, who has filed a lawsuit against the BBC for libel and malicious falsehood. Tesla claims that, among other things, two cars were provided and at all times at least one of them was ready and willing. Beyond that, Tesla knows that neither car ever dropped below 25 percent charge, meaning the whole pushing into the garage thing was, well, staged. It's hard to look at this as much more than a PR move, Tesla waiting over two years to file, but that doesn't mean the complaint isn't legit. Now it's time for the Beeb to roll out its crew of tame racing lawyers. Some say their suits are made of wool, and that their briefcases contain actual briefs. All we know is they're very well compensated. Update: Well, the hornets' nest has been kicked, and it didn't take long for the swarm to arise. The BBC has dropped a bombshell, saying that it "stands by the programme and will be vigorously defending this claim."
Google ordered to pay libel damages to perturbed gentleman, plans to appeal
You know those search terms that automatically pop up once you begin typing something on Google? Yeah, that's Google Suggest, and it's just an aggregate of the most popular searches based on past requests from users. In other words, Google doesn't actually generate those suggestions itself, nor does some magical alien in its California labs. Despite all that, the Superior Court of Paris has ordered El Goog to shell out €5,000 ($6,721) to an unnamed gentleman who claimed that searches for his name automatically led to a list of suggestions that were damaging to his reputation. The kicker? Said gentleman actually had been "condemned to a prison sentence on charges of corrupting a minor" earlier in his life. Imagine that -- humans interested in his story were searching for his name along with "rape," "rapist" and "prison." Shame on you, Google. P.S. - Google's appealing, for obvious reasons.
Thompson sues Kotaku owner over comments, suit dismissed
[Update: The Kotaku suit has been dismissed by Federal District Court Judge Paul Huck, GamePolitics.com is now reporting. Apparently, Thompson "failed to follow the proper federal court procedure for amending a complaint." Thompson says he'll try it again though, so please, read on.]The smoldering battle between Florida lawyer Jack Thompson and the gaming press has been taken to a new level. In a tersely worded post yesterday on Kotaku, Brian Crecente revealed that Thompson has added a complaint against Kotaku owner Gawker Media to a March 13 suit against the Florida Bar.The childishly-worded complaint (He actually makes a "NOT!" joke on page 27) focuses on a few Kotaku commenters (which Thompson mistakenly refers to as "bloggers") that allegedly said Thompson "should be shot ... struck with a baseball bat, shot in the face by an irate gamer, [and] castrated and his testicles stuffed down his throat," among other things. To be fair, those are some strong, hateful words, and threats like these are not necessarily protected by the first amendment. Still, Gawker or Kotaku probably can't be held liable for them -- a federal judge ruled in June 2006 that "bloggers cannot be hit with libel suits on the basis of anonymous postings on their Web sites."Perhaps knowing this, Thompson goes a different route in his complaint by alleging Kotaku is part of a "civil conspiracy ... to deprive Thompson of his various basic constitutional rights" and that the site is "attempt[ing] to intimidate a citizen for the exercise of his constitutional rights." Mark Methenitis goes into detail on what exactly is legally wrong with this overreach over at his Law of the Game blog. All we'll add is that we're sickened by this obvious attempt at legal intimidation and we support our blogging brothers at Gawker all the way.
