FC: Query about what to do when an auction seller lies about you

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

From: "Chuck Hammill" <weaponsrus () earthlink net>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: cyber-libel subtleties -- OK to post if you deem worthwhile
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 21:26:35 -0700

As an admitted extremist about the First Amendment and a long-time Politech 
subscriber, I find myself in a bit of a difficult situation, and one in 
which I want to make quite certain not to appear as a "bad guy" from a 
freedom standpoint:

I have purchased, lifetime, exactly one item via Yahoo:  a set of 4 size 5 
1/4" floppy drives which came to less than twenty bucks, including 
shipping.  I paid in advance, and the guy insisted on waiting for my 
check--checks,
actually, as he upped the shipping charges a buck over what was 
advertised--to clear before he sent them.  I have the cancelled checks with 
his signature in front of me now.

I happen to notice while poking around on the site that he has rated me 
"bad" and specifically claimed that I never paid him for the order.  You 
must understand that my screen name is not something like "Spaceman23" but 
"chuck_hammill", my actual name; that I have spent fifty years acquiring a 
reputation for personal integrity; and that I routinely transact thousands 
of dollars in business on a phone call, mouse click, or handshake.

I offer him a chance to apologize and correct the Yahoo rating, but he 
e-mails me, while I am holding his cancelled checks in my hand, that I am 
probably mistaken (!) so it is now my intention (in a purely metaphorical 
legal sense, while respecting all his legal rights) to see he gets stomped 
like a narc at a biker rally, and so does anybody who assists him.  My 
personal problem is just how much I can hold Yahoo responsible without 
looking evil in the eyes of Politechers.

I understand (and agree with) the fact that Yahoo has a safe harbor against 
claims of vicarious or contributory liability for defamation they don't 
know about; anything else would pretty much destroy 'blogs and open 
discussion on the net.

But I want to take the position that on a Yahoo-maintained ratings board 
they are obligated to promptly delete a libelous allegation after they have 
received proof of its falsity, rather than waiting for the concurrence of 
the original poster.  In particular, I can demonstrate malice (willful 
falsity, or reckless disregard whether false) since the vendor cashed in 
March the checks he accuses me of never sending. This does not seem 
unreasonable to me, and for that reason alone I would make Yahoo a 
co-defendant to the lawsuit.

I of course realize that it would be easier/cheaper/less stressful to deal 
with this in other ways like maybe send him a Xerox of the checks and 
perhaps a freakin' box of chocolates as well, but this is not at 
issue.  Also, I have not even heard a final answer from Yahoo yet, so I'm 
still contemplating my options.  I'm basically looking for a "letter of 
marque" or at least a "no action on our radar" response so I don't end up 
looking like the Scientologists or RIAA or some other enemy of 
cyber-liberties who is improperly targeting innocent civilians.

Or, if anybody thinks I'm out of line, I'd like to hear that too; please 
put "LAWSUIT" in the subject line.

Chuck Hammill
<mailto:weaponsrus () earthlink net>weaponsrus () earthlink net

---

From: "Chuck Hammill" <weaponsrus () earthlink net>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: cyber-libel issue w/Yahoo now moot
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 03:54:20 -0700

Kinda spooky, but the issue of just how much I can legitimately lean on 
Yahoo about a libelous post has become moot within hours of my addressing 
Politech about the topic.  Not given to un-Randian mysticism, I tend to 
credit the day's e-screaming to the individual himself about "actual 
malice" (known falsehoods) and punitive damages and wire fraud; and perhaps 
even to the discreet mention to Yahoo that the guy's "save and hold 
harmless" indemnity to them won't be worth much if my judgment puts him 
into bankruptcy first.

Still an important question though:  How much "collateral damage" to 
"innocent civilians" is legitimate in pursuing a just action against a 
wrongdoer?  If the guy had stonewalled, I would have brought Yahoo in as 
co-defendant only if they continued to leave up an allegation AFTER I had 
proven to them that it was libelous (false, defamatory, damaging to 
reputation) and uttered with malice.  I still think that would have been 
legitimate.

Cheers,
Chuck Hammill
<mailto:weaponsrus () earthlink net>weaponsrus () earthlink net






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------