Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post - note from that other forum
You'll have to be more specific; that could apply to dozens of hobby parasites.
As for Blowout, the owner folded in the face of an obvious bluff. They should have told whoever sent the demand letter to go f^< k themselves. A case against Blowout for something a poster wrote has no merit because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives interactive online services of all types broad immunity from defamation claims stemming from content created by others:
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
The threat is so lacking in legal justification that after the lawsuit is thrown out of Federal court, BO could sue the attorney stupid enough to file the case for malicious prosecution. In state courts in Cali and some other states with anti-SLAPP laws (laws that punish the use of frivolous lawsuits to stifle debates about issues relevant to a segment of the public), the case would be disposed of in the initial pleading stages as well, with sanctions against the plaintiff for bringing it in the first place.
All BO has now done is to geld the board: anyone who is angry at anything posted just needs to send a lawyer letter and it will be censored.
|
I think that letter mostly shows PWCC/Brent’s desperation. It makes them look weak and pouty.