Comments on: Blogger Sued in Small Claims Court

Blogger Sued in Small Claims Court

jaronson — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:35:16 -0800

Bloggers Beware? A UC Berkeley college student/blogger, Yaman Salahi was sued in small claims court for "business interference" by Lee Kaplan, a contributing writer for FrontPageMag.com. (From Seeing the Forest, via redditt)

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:46:03 -0800

Well, bloggers are subject to the same laws the rest of us are, and without any clear list of the offending statements, its hard to tell how this case should've come out.

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:49:03 -0800

I plead the fifth.

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:51:23 -0800

Only the guilty plead the fifth anymore.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:53:02 -0800

Strange, since frontpagemag seems to push "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech" so hard. Sounds like Kaplan only won because he used small claims to do it, instead of a full blown court with actual lawyers and judgments and stuff.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:06:33 -0800

critical thinking and Mr President Dr. Steve Elvis America are apparently only loosely acquainted.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:14:51 -0800

According to your first link, the suit was for libel. There's no mention of "business interference".

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:19:36 -0800

critical thinking and Mr President Dr. Steve Elvis America are apparently only loosely acquainted Huh? How'd you get there, Heywood? I look at the Kaplan watch web site and see headlines like "Kaplan steals..." and "Kaplan physically threatens..." This is libel if not handled properly. I look at the Kaplan Watch site's scans of the court docs, and it alleges Salahi leveled threats at third parties. Something is going on here, but we MeFites can't say exactly what. But bloggers are still subject to laws, are they not? If anyone is lacking critical thinking here...

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:20:32 -0800

critical thinking and Mr President Dr. Steve Elvis America are apparently only loosely acquainted. How is that? I'm not just going to take the losing defendant at his word, and none of the links seem to indicate just which statements Kaplan was objecting to. According to your first link, the suit was for libel. There's no mention of "business interference". It's in the complaint, which is posted on the second link.

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:22:25 -0800

According to your first link, the suit was for libel. There's no mention of "business interference". In this scan, the claim is "tortious business interference libel and slander against me as a journalist. Threatened to ruin employer's business if they didn't sever me. cost me at least $40,000."

By: empath

empath — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:38:50 -0800

Impossible to make a judgement about this without more information.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 18:57:31 -0800

Only the guilty plead the fifth anymore. Uh, why would you plead the fifth if you weren't guilty?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:03:40 -0800

Is the blogger appealing? Can you appeal small claims court decisions at all? This seems like a terrible precedent to be setting.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:04:25 -0800

Uh, why would you plead the fifth if you weren't guilty? Because you're innocent but have a past criminal record that would look bad on cross-examination? Because you're innocent but a terrible witness? Because you're innocent and the state doesn't have enough evidence to prove its case? Because it's your constitutional right?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:06:09 -0800

Strange, since frontpagemag seems to push "academic freedom" and "freedom of speech" so hard. How is that strange? This guy is part of a movement fueled delusional hypocrisy. It's exactly the kind of thing you would expect. Here in Iowa, a defendant can request a small claims case be moved from small claims to a real court, and small claims are appealed to real courts. It sucks that that's not how it works in California.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:07:51 -0800

Why would you plead anything at all if you've already been found guilty? Isn't it too late by then?

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:09:09 -0800

I see brain_drain beat me to it.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:10:22 -0800

Because you're innocent but have a past criminal record that would look bad on cross-examination? Because you're innocent but a terrible witness? Well you're talking about people not testifying on their own behalf. Presumably your own lawyers wouldn't bring up your own criminal record on cross examination.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:14:46 -0800

Why would you plead anything at all if you've already been found guilty? Isn't it too late by then? I was talking about guilt as in, having actually done the crime or not. Does taking the 5th mean you can avoid testifying entirely? I always thought it applied to specific questions.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:17:56 -0800

Uh, why would you plead the fifth if you weren't guilty? brain_drain is right. In many jurisdictions, the prosecution is potentially allowed to talk a lot more about the defendant's criminal record if the defendant testifies. Plus, it's not the defendant's job to prove he's innocent. If the prosecution isn't proving their case, and you're a unsympathetic, ill-spoken defendant, it just might be better to keep your mouth shut. No sense in needlessly risking prejudicing yourself with the jury.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:18:38 -0800

I was talking about guilt as in, having actually done the crime or not. Does taking the 5th mean you can avoid testifying entirely? I always thought it applied to specific questions. The 5th Amendment allows a criminal defendant to decline to testify at his own trial.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:22:43 -0800

the problem as i see is is that the defendant couldn't demand a hearing in another court without countersuing ... in michigan, either party can demand to have the case heard in regular court and a libel case ... or a tortuous interference with business case wouldn't even be allowed in small claims but california has different rules of course, mr kaplan now has the fun of trying to collect ... good luck with that

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:24:42 -0800

Cross examination is when the other guy's lawyer gets to ask you some questions. If you want to be a witness, you gotta be a witness for both sides.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:33:08 -0800

The 5th Amendment allows a criminal defendant to decline to testify at his own trial. I knew defendants could choose not to testify, I didn't know that came from the 5th. I'd always thought of it as refusing specific questions. of course, mr kaplan now has the fun of trying to collect ... good luck with that It wouldn't be any harder then collecting credit card debt. In theory the guy could sell the debt to a collection agency, or work with a lawyer to garnish his wages or even his bank account. Collection shouldn't be too difficult.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:34:06 -0800

Cross examination is when the other guy's lawyer gets to ask you some questions. If you want to be a witness, you gotta be a witness for both sides. Right but if you were a witness against yourself you would be a prosecution witness, right?

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:36:09 -0800

the problem as i see is is that the defendant couldn't demand a hearing in another court without countersuing Or maybe the problem is that the blogger libeled the guy. The blog is pretty vicious, and says a whole lot that the blogger might have trouble proving true if Kaplan went to court with evidence that it wasn't.

By: Postroad

Postroad — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:40:23 -0800

The fifth amendment states that no person should have to testify against himself. The idea is that if a person can be made to testify against himself, then torturing hi m for a confession will have him "admit his guilt." In sum: the state should not be allowed to force you to testify against yourself. It is only in our odd times, dating back,perhaps, to the McCarthy years, that the assumption has been made that by taking the 5h, a guilty person is really implying his guilt.

By: buggzzee23

buggzzee23 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:40:37 -0800

California small claims cases can be appealed in Superior Court by filing this form (pdf).

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:48:41 -0800

Do you see what you've done, Alberto Gonzales? This is all your fault, asshole! <shakes fist> But if you're not the Justice Dept's liason to the White House, angling for immunity, then you generally have to answer the damn questions. The opposing side would probably bring up your previous criminal convictions in order to cast doubt on your trustworthiness as a witness. They'll also ask questions to highlight any inconsistencies in your story, etc. Cross examination is a counterpoint of sorts to all the easy questions your own lawyer got to ask.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:52:29 -0800

...But if you don't personally testify as part of your defense, then your credibility as a witness is moot. That's why the 5^th is all-or-nothing, for the most part.

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:57:48 -0800

Right but if you were a witness against yourself you would be a prosecution witness, right? The answer is "it depends." "Prosecution witnesses" are those called to testify by the prosecution. They are then cross-examined by the defense, and then questioned again on redirect by the prosecution. "Defense witnesses" are those called by the defense, and then all the reverse of the above is true for cross and redirect. In rare cases, you can call a witness and then declare them to be a "hostile witness," which changes the rules a bit. The prosecution will rarely call the defendant to testify, usually because of the likelihood of the guy sinking the prosecution all by himself, but more likely because he can just take the Fifth and refuse all questioning. By the way, if you take the Fifth for anything, you generally have to take the Fifth for it all. You can't selectively answer or not answer questions. This last part is what really sunk Mark Fuhrman in the O.J. case. Once the McKinny tapes surfaced, he had to take the Fifth to save himself from a perjury charge about using the N-word, which led to him taking the Fifth about charges he falsified evidence and all sorts of other questions. So you had the spectacle of this guy taking the Fifth to question after question after question, all in front of the jury (and all of it unrelated to the trial itself)...

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:01:20 -0800

Uh, why would you plead the fifth if you weren't guilty? You're right: You have nothing to hide from the state, so give me all your bank account numbers and passwords, comrade.

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:02:59 -0800

all in front of the jury Ack. My memory fails. A quick re-read shows that the jury wasn't there to see him take the Fifth.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:11:53 -0800

The fifth amendment states that no person should have to testify against himself. in a criminal case ... this was a civil case and you CAN be made to testify against yourself in a civil case ... the 5th only applies if your testimony would be an admission of criminal wrongdoing No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. It wouldn't be any harder then collecting credit card debt. if he's working at a steady job, it's easy to collect ... i just get the feeling this blogger might quit a job just to spite someone Or maybe the problem is that the blogger libeled the guy. actually, in my opinion, the real problem is that people are able to file libel laws in a court where lawyers aren't allowed ... which means that anyone and everyone with a petty grievance ... or a middling one that still may not translate into real damages ... can file a suit for 75 bucks instead of having to pay a lawyer a couple of thousand and having to think whether this sort of pissing contest is really worth it and if it IS really worth it in this case, the plaintiff should have been willing to pony up the cost of a lawyer to fight it he's have HAD to in my state ... and that's a good thing ... it keeps the courts from being clogged up with pissants suing each other ... and i strongly suspect that may be the case here

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:22:18 -0800

You're right: You have nothing to hide from the state, so give me all your bank account numbers and passwords, comrade. Funny but, 1. You're not the state 2. The state already has them, thanks to the three letter triad

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:23:55 -0800

actually, in my opinion, the real problem is that people are able to file libel laws in a court where lawyers aren't allowed ... which means that anyone and everyone with a petty grievance ... or a middling one that still may not translate into real damages ... can file a suit for 75 bucks instead of having to pay a lawyer a couple of thousand and having to think whether this sort of pissing contest is really worth it I don't know where you get this idea that aggrieved persons don't deserve legal redress for minor grievances. I agree that people shouldn't be suing over $50, but $7500 is a lot of money, if you think you're entitled to it, but it would be easy to burn through the whole amount on legal fees. We don't want to put high bars for people seeking relief in the courts for simple disputes. That's the whole point. Anyway, the losing defendant can appeal, if he's so sure that he only lost because the small claims court judge was a nutter.

By: CitrusFreak12

CitrusFreak12 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:29:01 -0800

Christ guys, I said "I plead the fifth" as a joke, as I didn't want to comment on something I didn't feel I had enough information about. I didn't mean to open up a can of worms. Conversation back on topic please?

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:36:53 -0800

I don't know where you get this idea that aggrieved persons don't deserve legal redress for minor grievances. I agree that people shouldn't be suing over $50, but $7500 is a lot of money, if it represented the cost of a boat or some furniture or whatever, sure ... but this represents the "cost" of having some comments make about mr kaplan ... a "cost" which by some odd coincidence is exactly the maximum amount he could have sued for in small claims he chose what the damages were ... again, it's not like he had a $7500 kitchen that was ruined i think the courts should demand a little higher bar for suits dealing with intangables ... and in fact, they do in most states he couldn't have filed this suit in small claims in my state ... period ... and i think it's a bad idea to have libel and slander cases in small claims

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:39:42 -0800

The fifth amendment states that no person should have to testify against himself. Just to clarify things, that's not what it says. The relevant portion of it is this:

...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself;

The reason that wording is interesting is because you can be compelled to be a witness against yourself in civil trials, such as a lawsuit for libel. It would be interesting to know if Mr. Salahi was forced to testify, and if so what he said.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:41:40 -0800

It wouldn't be any harder then collecting credit card debt. In theory the guy could sell the debt to a collection agency, or work with a lawyer to garnish his wages or even his bank account. Collection shouldn't be too difficult. Collection efforts would probably cost way more than the $7500 the plaintiff was awarded.

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:45:32 -0800

Christ guys, I said "I plead the fifth" as a joke, Yeah, and I was just trying to joke that you were guilty of something. See what we did? I suppose there had to be something to talk about, since there's not enough information and the guy also lost the appeal. Cases like this could be pretty important for independent publishers to study if we could see the damned evidence/articles. Collection efforts would probably cost way more than the $7500 the plaintiff was awarded. They work on a percentage/commission basis. If he doesn't pay, his credit will be trash for 10 years. Setting up wage garnishment in states that allow it is also not as difficult as you seem to think. It's done for less all the time.

By: uri

uri — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:45:56 -0800

Given the way that Horowitz operates, I am not surprised in the slightest that one of his employees would both champion "free speech" while suing his critics. Horowitz is the guy who attempts to take out ads in college newspapers with titles like "Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Slavery is a Bad Idea - and Racist too." then if/when some papers choose not to run the ads, he accuses them of censorship. The fact that this is a gross perversion of the word censorship is entirely besides the point. I was on a college editorial board in 2002 when he submitted an ad entitled "The Middle East Struggle Is Not About Right Against Right." A vociferous little polemic that contained such gems as "the root cause of the Middle East conflict is Arab and Islamic Jew hatred. It is the Nazi virus revived." There was a long discussion both over whether it was appropriate and within our editorial standards. Though virtually everyone was disgusted with the content, we decided to print the ad. The reaction was immediate and intense. Every member of the editorial board found him or herself having to explain and justify the decision to friends and classmates. Numerous letters to the editor were submitted, petitions were circulated and the next week's editorial was a strained attempt to stem some of the damage to the paper's reputation. After two weeks of argument, the editorial board met with the leaders of the college's Minority Coalition, where it was decided that paper would use the money received for printing the ad to fund a forum for students and faculty to discuss the issues raised by the ad and the paper's choice to run it. Frontpagemag is a stain on academic discourse. By posing the false dichotomy between "hate speech" and "censorship" Horowitz is simply extracting fuel for his academic-bias-witch-hunt. The fact that he poisons college communities and actual discussion of the issues is entirely besides the point.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:49:07 -0800

if it represented the cost of a boat or some furniture or whatever, sure ... but this represents the "cost" of having some comments make about mr kaplan ... a "cost" which by some odd coincidence is exactly the maximum amount he could have sued for in small claims That's not necessarily "odd" at all. You're right that damages in a libel case may be difficult to pin down precisely, but Kaplan might have been able to show, say, that damages were pretty clearly at least $10,000 and quite possible $20,000. In such a situation, a risk averse plaintiff might just forgo hiring a lawyer and ask for $7500 in small claims court. For one thing, the plaintiff is less likely to come out substantially poorer following that route. You're obviously hostile to libel and slander suits, but the blogger was pretty obviously waging a campaign to destroy Kaplan's professional reputation. If some of his claims weren't true, it's not impossible to put a dollar value on that, and I don't see why, if it's a small amount at issue, dragging it into Superior Court is necessary.

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:52:07 -0800

It would be interesting to know if Mr. Salahi was forced to testify, and if so what he said. Oh, this is hysterical. Read the appeal motions. On Page 5 of the first one, it contains Salahi's version of what happened in small claims. According to this doc, Kaplan claimed he couldn't get a job with sportsblogger.com because the company saw what was written about Kaplan on Salahi's site. If true, and if it were libelous, that'd be a clear damage. This is among the bigger nerd fights I've ever seen. Salahi says Kaplan knows nothing about sports, and that's why he couldn't get the job. NERDS! NERDS! NERDS WITH BLOGS AND BIG EGOS!

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:55:32 -0800

After two weeks of argument, the editorial board met with the leaders of the college's Minority Coalition, where it was decided that paper would use the money received for printing the ad to fund a forum for students and faculty to discuss the issues raised by the ad and the paper's choice to run it. When I was a college newspaper editor in chief, I had a similar run-in with angry people about an angry editorial. I told everyone to fuck off. Indeed, off they fucked. Times have changed.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:06:54 -0800

You're right that damages in a libel case may be difficult to pin down precisely, but Kaplan might have been able to show, say, that damages were pretty clearly at least $10,000 and quite possible $20,000. i think such things are better debated by a jury ... and in this case, that wasn't happening due to the venue You're obviously hostile to libel and slander suits how many times have you ever heard someone rattle on about something someone has said about them and talk about "i could sue her for slander" ... well, for every 100 who talk about it, and that's plenty, there's probably one who calls a lawyer about it and they're quickly educated about what an expensive procedure a lawsuit is compared to just ignoring the person who's doing the badmouthing so i don't look upon too many of these suits as having much merit ... and furthermore, it would seem that in my state, the legal establishment and the legislature agrees with me This is among the bigger nerd fights I've ever seen. oh, yeah ... and seeing as the defendant is a 2nd year college student, what the hell does mr kaplan think he's going to get ... $7500 bucks worth of ramen noodles and cds full of rap mp3s?

By: uri

uri — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:13:27 -0800

When I was a college newspaper editor in chief, I had a similar run-in with angry people about an angry editorial. I told everyone to fuck off. Indeed, off they fucked. Times have changed. This wasn't an editorial, it was an ad. We didn't cave to pressure (as you seem to be implying). The paper is financially independent and could have weathered the controversy. By funding the forum we were able to put to rest the sticking point for all involved: that the Record had profited from printing Horowitz' vitriol. postscript: sorry for repetition in earlier post, tired

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:14:26 -0800

All this stuff about amendments, cross examination, hostile witness, etc., fails to really capture the essence of small claims court. Small claims court is actually pretty simple. Both parties present two types of evidence to bolster their position: Written Stuff and Spoken Stuff. Written Stuff includes things like photos of the damaged vehicle or receipts for the applicance that had to be replaced. These items tend to be either simple and direct or completely irrelevant. The other half, or more likely 3/4 of the evidence consists of Spoken Stuff. This Spoken Stuff includes accusations, rambling narratives, shameless fabrications, and whatever else exits the mouths of the opposing parties. When both sides are through, the judge looks through the Written Stuff, noting if one side's writings are more relevant, or barring that, more voluminous. If the no substantial difference is apparent, then some consideration is given to the side who presented the more coherent spoken testimony. Finally some percentage of the alledged damages are awarded to the plantiff, generally in proportion to the relative strength of the evidence presented. Or, should the plantiff's evidence be found generally lacking, they may recieve nothing more than an admonishment to stop wasting the court's time. (IANAL, so I may have missed some technical details. But that's a pretty good overview of the process.)

By: dirigibleman

dirigibleman — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 21:56:07 -0800

David Horowitz runs Frontpagemag? Now I know why the Mefi Libertarian contingent is so vociferously defending Kaplan.

By: IronWolve

IronWolve — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:10:22 -0800

Whats more interesting is wikipedia has blocked Lee Kaplan's page and wont allow it to be created. Why has wikipedia locked the page?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:14:12 -0800

I don't know where you get this idea that aggrieved persons don't deserve legal redress for minor grievances. I don't think anyone is saying that, but it seems fucked up that you can be taken to court and not be allowed to use a lawyer, or appeal to a real state. That's certainly not how it works in my state.

By: ryanrs

ryanrs — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:22:52 -0800

Really? So who shows up when I sue a corp in small claims? I suppose that's probably not allowed.

By: buggzzee23

buggzzee23 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:26:56 -0800

I don't think anyone is saying that, but it seems fucked up that you can be taken to court and not be allowed to use a lawyer, or appeal to a real state. A losing small claims defendant in California is certainly allowed to appeal the verdict in a higher court where he/she can be represented by an attorney.

By: frogan

frogan — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 22:54:54 -0800

Really? So who shows up when I sue a corp in small claims? I suppose that's probably not allowed. Yes, you can sue a corporation in small claims. The corporation is represented by an appointed representative or corporation officer, or perhaps an attorney -- lawyers can appear in small claims with the permission of the judge.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:06:33 -0800

A losing small claims defendant in California is certainly allowed to appeal the verdict in a higher court where he/she can be represented by an attorney. Odd. This is what Salahi said on his blog:

Furthermore, I will never know why I lost the initial hearing, or why I lost the appeal, because small claims judges are not obligated to release written opinions with their rulings. I will also never have recourse to object to the second ruling because small claims cases, when they are appealed, are simply heard before another judge in small claims court. It is more of a re-trial than an appeal. Having exhausted that route, I will never have the opportunity to take this to a real appellate court where my first amendment rights might be protected.

By: buggzzee23

buggzzee23 — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 23:35:13 -0800

Salahi is either misinformed or lying. See this info re appeals from the small claims page of the California courts self-help center

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:32:28 -0800

He says, Having exhausted that route, I will never have the opportunity to take this to a real appellate court where my first amendment rights might be protected. Libel is not protected speech under the First Amendment. (The court apparently found that he committed libel.)

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 02:15:25 -0800

Whats more interesting is wikipedia has blocked Lee Kaplan's page and wont allow it to be created. Why has wikipedia locked the page? Haven't you heard? They want to be an encyclopedia. So they need to act like space is short.

By: caddis

caddis — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:47:59 -0800

The moral of this story is, if you ever get sued by some conservative nitwit contact your insurer, who will be obligated to provide a lawyer and have the case removed from small claims court to district court where it will cost the nitwit far more to pursue the case, you will have real rules of evidence, and a record for appeal. Of course, if you really have slandered them the cap on damages is lost in district court.

By: flarbuse

flarbuse — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 06:29:35 -0800

Not really sure that bloggers have much to beware of. A small claims court decision has about as much impact on other bloggers as a parent's decision about a sibling controversy in his/her family does on your own family.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:11:00 -0800

Libel is not protected speech under the First Amendment. (The court apparently found that he committed libel.) posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:32 AM on June 17 Even you should know better than to trust fucking small claims court with intrepreting the Constitution, Steve.

By: Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America

Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 19:41:00 -0800

Even you should know better than to trust fucking small claims court with intrepreting the Constitution, Steve. It's a pretty simple matter of constitutional interpretation. Libel isn't protected speech. If it's libel, it's not protected. Easy! That's all the constitutional interpretation that the court had to do.

By: Optimus Chyme

Optimus Chyme — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:59:34 -0800

It's a pretty simple matter of constitutional interpretation. Libel isn't protected speech. If it's libel, it's not protected. Easy! That's all the constitutional interpretation that the court had to do. posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 7:41 PM on June 17 I wouldn't trust most small claims or JPs with getting me extra cheese on my Big Mac, dude. Anything a JP or small claims judge gets right is usually by accident.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:45:29 -0800

I think I know a little bit more background on this case than the other people on this thread. I've never met Yaman Salahi and can't vouch for him, but when I was a grad student at Berkeley, I knew Ehud Appel, the other co-founder of the Lee Kaplan Watch blog. The first thing you have to understand is that Lee Kaplan is an extreme far-right Zionist, even farther right than AIPAC. The second thing is that Kaplan harasses a lot of people if he thinks it can be justified in the name of "defending Israel." I can understand Kaplan's motives, because he believes that he is protecting Israel's very existence by what he does, but that doesn't make any less ruthless or morally problematic. Lee Kaplan first showed up on people's radar screens in Berkeley when he founded this group called DAFKA. There are several Hebrew translations of the word "DAFKA," but Kaplan's preferred translation is "in your face." In other words, he started the group to get "in the face" of people he deems anti-Zionist or insufficiently pro-Zionist. Back in 2003, the Jewish Student Union at Berkeley, which runs the Berkeley Hillel, voted to disaffiliate from DAFKA because the JSU said the group didn't meet their guidelines as a student-run organization. In response, Kaplan posted an essay on his website urging benefactors to stop donating money to the Berkeley Hillel. Kaplan claimed the Hillel was systematically silencing pro-Israel voices, even though the Hillel at Berkeley housed a very active campus chapter of AIPAC at the time. Anyhow, if you want to know more about Kaplan, you should take a look at some of the following links: Lee Kaplan's SourceWatch page, which documents his links to the Northeast Intelligence Network, where he's listed as a "senior intelligence analyst." An article in the SF Weekly, subtitled "The local conversation between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian activists is getting less civil every day. And Lee Kaplan's tactics aren't helping." An account of an incident at Duke University where Kaplan got tossed out of a conference by the university's senior vice president after Kaplan tried to "infiltrate" a pro-Palestinian conference by posing as a Pakistani. (In a related story, Kaplan was exposed for creating a fake Arab "sock puppet" named Abu Abubu that he used to post on Lee Kaplan Watch. You can't make this shit up.) A Berkeley campus news blog that reported on Kaplan's attempts to harass a Berkeley student's family members in Israel. Kaplan also might have something to do with placing the name of at least two friends of mine (Ehud Appel and another colleague from grad school) on a right-wing web site, formerly called the S.H.I.T (Self-Hating Israel-Threatening) Jews list. There's also the time Kaplan disrupted a conference call between two peace groups and a Congresswoman by impersonating a Congressional staffer. And that's mostly the stuff I could find in local San Francisco Bay Area media. If you're not averse to looking at Indymedia links (even if you take them with a grain of salt), you can find even more about how Kaplan is a real piece of work. In short, the guy is a massive tool, and he has harassed several friends of mine. There are some scary-assed militant Muslims in the Berkeley area who probably do want to eradicate Israel (for example, Cody's Books in Berkeley was once bombed for carrying the Satanic Verses), but Kaplan's antics are most definitely not helping matters. The fact that Kaplan was able to do some "venue shopping" that got him a favorable verdict does not make him any less wrong.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:38:20 -0800

He's some nasty piece of work-of the Savage variety, i'd say.