BLOIS' GOAL WAS TO OUT AN ANONYMOUS BLOGGER
Blois was on before me and if anybody listened to his interview it should be clear what this lawsuit is about.
Blois is suing me for damages in excess of $50,000, but he couldn't offer any specifics about how he has been damaged.
According to Blois, he filed this lawsuit so he could have a dialogue with me. I tried to have a dialogue with Blois via email, but he was rude and threatening. I have refrained from posting his emails, but I may change my mind.
The goal of Blois' lawsuit was to out an anonymous blogger.
Remember it was Politics in Minnesota, co-published by Blois Olson, that first took a shot at anonymous blogs:
"Anonymous Bloggers Need To Get A Life Okay
The Blogs of the world have had some impact on politics in the past few cycles, but it's time that someone begins outing all of the anonymous bloggers. Both sides have them, but it seems as though they have decided to pop-up as the most cost effective (free) ways to anonymously attack candidates. We value free speech, just have the guts to attach your name to your comments." Source: Politics in Minnesota, December 9, 2005
Blois had the opportunity to have a dialoge with me outside the studio, but we shook hands and he walked away.
Blois didn't want a dialoge when he sent me threatning emails and he doesn't want a dialoge know. He wanted to out an anonymous blogger.
If you are an anonymous blogger, watch out! Blois Olson may come after you next.
11 Comments:
Before any of you lefty bloggers out there accuse MDE of hyperbole, I heard the interview and Blois said exactly that in the last 5 minutes of the interview. The quote was "it was all about finding out who was behind MDE"
Michael, it was nice meeting you at your party. I did NOT go to the party to show support for one side or the other in the lawsuit. I went to the party because I was curious to meet the blogger behind the mysterious MDE. I very much enjoyed meeting you.
I am willing to let the courts settle the question of who is telling the truth between you and Blois. I don't think the media is the place to settle these types of disputes.
You have presented no evidence here that Blois's intention was to out an anonymous blogger. Blois was suing you for defamation - and it will be heard in court. I didn't hear Blois's complete interview.
You are a hardball political operative - and that's ok. But the real issue with the lawsuit is whether your claim that New School Communications was hustling work with Colleen Rowley.
This is great drama - and will play in the press - but this isn't a first amendment issue regarding the rights of bloggers. It's a defamation lawsuit. If you have evidence that Blois knew that Buck Humphrey tried to get consulting work with the Rowley campaign, then you should present that.
You should be out there contacting other bloggers. They will rally to your cause. They will support you.
If Blois wins, all bloggers lose.
Rally the blogosphere!
Rally the bloggers - they will support you.
If Blois wins, all bloggers lose.
Spend the weekend contacting every blogger and asking for support and coverage.
Eva,
This IS a First Amendment issue. In general, the First Amendment trumps tort law. So when the Star Tribune is negligent (tort) in erroneously posting John Derus' photograph next to a crime story -- possibly costing him the election -- the newspaper would still win a lawsuit in the absence of actual malice.
In the case of purposeful defamation, the courts balance First Amendment concerns against the rights of public and private citizens. If someone is a public figure (e.g., they write a newsletter and appear on public television), they are entitled to less protection from defamation, since the courts favor the free exchange of ideas on public issues and about public figures. So, the only way for a public figure to win a defamation case is to prove that the defendant knew a statement was untrue, or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.
If the public figure gets over that hurdle, then the legal system determines damages. Blois Olson was allowed to post a comment in response, so the same audience that allegedly saw the allegedly defamatory words about Blois (his company, really) were made aware of the rebuttal. The main publicity in this case came from Blois' own actions, namely filing a lawsuit. So how is he damaged?
As it is implied above, the First Amendment protects publishing truthful things. So truth is always a defense to defamation. The dispute, as I understand it, is not about the fact of Buck Humphrey seeking work with the Rowley campaign, but what connection, if any, it had to Humphrey's employer and their later criticism of Rowley. So we have a true fact (Buck applies for job) coupled with a disputed interpretation (this influenced coverage of Rowley by Buck's employer). This kind of guilt by association is somewhat of a cheap shot, but it is done all the time with Republican connections to Halliburton, etc. Is this really legally actionable? In a world where "appearance of impropriety" is used to cover everything where impropriety cannot be proved, is the Rowley/Humphrey/Olson story really unusual?
As I read it, the only person who published untrue facts was Blois Olson, saying that Humphrey approached the Rowley campaign BEFORE he worked for Blois.
I should also say that Brodkorb's lawyer may be able to make a counterclaim for abuse of process. Here's what is apparent from the coverage of this story and basic knowledge of the political scene:
1. Politics in Minnesota was slow to respond to the Internet explosion. Blogs now have much of the audience and the influence that PIM once had.
2. Brodkorb is, on some level, a competitor to Blois Olson.
3. Olson sends an e-mail saying that he does not know who Minnesota Democrats Exposed is.
4. At some later point, Brodkorb is personally served with court papers, meaning that Olson found out who MDE was relatively recently.
5. There was an ongoing fight over a proxy domain company and whether they had to reveal the owner of MDE.
6. MDE was/is a thorn in the side of Democrats.
So, if I were deposing Blois Olson, I would want to confirm all of the above points, and the confirm the timeline of his learning the identity of Brodkorb, and whom he contacted to do so. I would probe whether there was a connection to the proxy domain lawsuit, and depending on the answers, depose those people, too.
There may very well be prominent people behind this lawsuit. In the absence of a Vulcan mind meld, we can never know 100% what someone's motivations are (either in filing the lawsuit or criticizing Colleen Rowley), but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence in this case.
America has a long history of anonymous speech. One that should continue and be protected, not attacked.
Heavens, the Federalist Papers were written anonymously!
It is what we say, not who we are, that matters in the marketplace of ideas.
"I am willing to let the courts settle the question of who is telling the truth between you and Blois."
Well thank GOD for that......The entire world was suffering a nervous apoplexy wondering where Eva Young would come down on this!
Curious, will Eva be posting another press release that will never see the light of day on her blog?
Rediculous!
Peter, you raise excellent points - which will be useful in the court case.
I just think the case is about defamation of character - and that will be addressed in the courts. (As was Derus's case - and that's an interesting point - the Derus case will be a good precident.)
Yes, Swiftee, I know that I chronically misspell ridiculous - and that is truly rediculous [sic]. What Press Release are you talking about?
Peter, you raise excellent points - which will be useful in the court case.
I just think the case is about defamation of character - and that will be addressed in the courts. (As was Derus's case - and that's an interesting point - the Derus case will be a good precident.)
Yes, Swiftee, I know that I chronically misspell ridiculous - and that is truly rediculous [sic]. What Press Release are you talking about?
Eva,
Defamation is a legal term with a legal definition. And it cannot be separated from its free speech component. Now, if you want to say that this is a case about "gossip" or "guilt by association," I would agree with you.
Also, the differences in the Derus case were:
1. It was accidental, not on purpose (helps Olson)
2. Derus had significant actual damages if he could prove that it cost him the election (helps MDE)
3. The impression that it left was untrue. Derus was not a criminal, while Humphrey actually contacted the Rowley campaign (helps MDE)
4. No opportunity for rebuttal or retraction, whereas Olson got to post a comment (helps MDE)
5. No ulterior motives (helps MDE)
Post a Comment
<< Home