Oh Wow - Never Post About NATs On A Board Again!

She also is a licensed private investigator. As Squirt said, between her 5 years experience writing on Internet security, the publications where she's been published, and the levelheaded nature of her writing (and her concern for the bigger picture of protecting journalists' sources), I think we have someone here who is reasoned and levelheaded, hardly one of the sleazy 'writers' that write for the gossip rags.

Additionally, I wasn't aware that TMM was going after a *slander* claim until I read the article. That's a stretch at best, since slander is spoken and libel is written. I suspect the reason they're doing that is they know they have no chance under the stricter rules regarding libel... but how you can make the argument that something written by a journalist, in a blog (or on a message board) was somehow "spoken" is beyond me.

Here again, the adult industry relies on various free expression protections, and our forefathers recognized that a strong press, with access to confidential informants, is crucial to our democracy. The last thing a company working in the adult business should be doing is trying to strike down protections either in free expression, or in protection of journalists, yet TMM is doing both, yet when you read about this situation, a number of scholars are saying that this case has the potential to establish precedent that determines the level of protection bloggers have. If TMM wins, it will be a huge loss to everyone except TMM.

Sad, sad when people put their personal gripes ahead of what's good for the industry -- and the country as a whole. But, as Lee said, not terribly surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

These laws aren't written to prevent someone's feelings from being hurt, they are written to address actual damage to a reputation, and further protect speech by ensuring that unintentional speech isn't punishable.

In this case as I understand it, under the law, unless TMM can prove that the original poster knew what she was saying was false, and intended to harm TMM, then defamation and libel has not occurred.

---

These points may be fairly minor, but in fact under New Jersey law, like most
common law countries and US states, the three things you just said aren't
actually correct.

There is no requirement that the defendant knows the accusation is false.
TMM only has to prove the she was negligent is this regard - that she
wasn't careful about whether what she said was true or not. That, and they
have to show that the statement was actually false, but they do not need to
show that she KNEW it to be false. That fits with common sense. I can't go
around saying "Chip is a registered sex offender" just because I don't KNOW
that to be a lie. I have no idea whether you are or not, so it would be reckless
for me to say one way or the other, and therefore unlawful. The exact level
of knowledge or negligence required depends on other factors, but simple
negligence can be enough.

Also, because the statement claims that TMM committed a felony, it is
defamation per se and they need not prove intent to harm. Any
reasonable person would know that if you falsely accuse someone of a
murder threat, that's going to harm their reputation and their business. T
here is no need to prove the obvious, hence the defamation per se statute.

Lastly, you said "These laws aren't written to prevent someone's feelings from
being hurt". In fact that is exactly what the "false light" statute is for. TMM is
suing for both defamation, which is the external damage to their reputation,
and "false light", which is the internal stress and upset caused when someone
goes around saying terrible things about you.

Not knowing the full facts of the case, but having read the complaint, I tend to
agree that the suit is probably a mistake. Interestingly, Hale did not do what
many defamation defendants do, seek to have the case summarily dismissed
by showing that the accusation was true. That's how she could have avoided
the hassle and expense of much of the legal process, but she has not done so.
That suggest that she probably cannot show that her claims are true.

Thanks Ray. You had it correct. The first amendment that gives Americans the right to free speach expressly says that government will not abridge freedom of speech. I support free speech and it has been recognized. I just wanted to get that part out of the way.

Just to be clear, the owners of NATS are not my friends. So I am not defending them out of some sort of Loyalty. It is simply at face value I do believe this lawsuit has some merit and isn't a complete sham as what some of you are saying.

This blogger specifically stated that credit card account numbers could have been compromised. With 5 minutes of research one would know right away this isn't the truth. Second she in a sense is turning this company into a band of gangsters and mob men by saying they had threatened to kill someone. She wrote this as fact because her informant had a nice telephone voice?

I say again, I do not believe that their was sufficient research and enough verifying of sources done to include some of the things she did. This is not responsible journalism. I reject the argument that this is the price of free speech.

Additionally, Chips first sentence in his rebuttal to my post was she probably crossed a line. A judge and possibly a jury will decide if the line was crossed. I am simply saying that when you come close to the line you can't be suprised when someone or another company exerts their legal right too. We all know of companies that have exerted their muscle with the sole intention on destroying a competitor or getting someone to shutup. In this case their is clear evidence of at least encroaching on a line and both parties should have their day in court.

When looking at this, it might also be helpful to know that I've had prior experience
when I very publicly criticized TMM, saying something that I regret, and John
handled it like a gentleman. My own experience suggests that TMM wouldn't file
a defamation suit at the drop of a hat without any legitimate reason. I don't know
the facts of this case, so I can't judge. However, I'm sure TMM didn't like some of
the things I said about them and they didn't file a frivolous law suit to shut me up,
but rather responded with some grace.

It is really, really unfortunate that New Jersey residents do not enjoy the protections that California residents do against bogus lawsuits. Whether or not the blogger crossed the line, I seriously doubt that it rises to at least the standard that most of the country adheres to; if New Jersey has a weakened standard for libel and defamation, that's unfortunate, but the fact that they are suing for *slander* when the statements were written rather than verbal would tend to point in the direction of knowing their case is weak.

Defend TMM all you want, where there's smoke, usually there's fire. There are the statements of OC3 networks, the Rhino (or whatever it was called) case, at least one very large adult program that abruptly dropped the product (long before the major breach happened) and cannot say anything about it except in very obtuse language, and a breach that affected a very large number of NATS programs which TMM reasonably should have known about based on the inquiries made to them, or at the very least, should have inquired about, but instead allowed these breaches to continue for a year.

Then, when a few courageous people came forward, they, too, were threatened, until it came out that enough programs were compromised that TMM would end up suing much of their client base if they went after everyone who reported a problem.

A lot of programs, such as ours, told affiliates the truth as soon as they became aware of the problem. A handful of others evaded the truth and dodged the entire question by sending out self-serving statements. A lot of customer data and God knows what else was compromised from a lot of programs. I suspect that people who were not affected still don't know what really happnened. Nearly all of it was preventable if TMM had been more proactive about warning of the possible breach.

What this blogger did was courageous. If she were in California, TMM would likely have no case, because of our anti-SLAPP statutes. Fortunately for the industry, she decided to take the high road and put the word out about the problem, and likely largely because of the national visibility she brought to the situation, the next time there was a security breach, TMM, in a complete about-face from their previous actions, actually let people know.

Ray, I hear what you say... but John had to also realize that taking action against you would amount to professional suicide. You and your products are so highly regarded in the industry that the bad will TMM would generate by going after you would have almost certainly destroyed TMM's reputation. TMM is nothing if not shrewd, and I'm inclined to think that had more to do with John's response than anything else.

I'm sorry to sound so cynical, and I am generally not terribly cynical about life, but if you look at all that's been said, all the people that are strangely silent, the actual events that have happened, it does not paint a pretty picture.