On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:

An actual lawyer! Where were you in the CloudFlare booters thread, though?

Key legal skills are knowing when to stay out of fights and when to keep one's mouth shut (i.e. most of the time.) -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 207-602-1134 www.gwi.net

For the record: Extortion(n) Law. *the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one's office or authority.* Not sure if (according to the provided account) a service provider threatening to disable a critical business service unless rendered a sum of money the service provider cannot prove they are owed qualifies as extortion, but from the definition I found at dictionary.com, it is certainly seems to be in that general neighborhood. On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:24 PM, Mel Beckman <mel@beckman.org> wrote:

Jon,

You're mistaken. This has nothing to do with being or not being an FCC-controlled medium. It has to do with published statements that may not be true -- which are classified as libel, not slander (slander is spoken, libel is written). If you post it in a mailing list, or on Facebook, it's legally considered published, as long as one other person not party to the matter can view it.

You're also mistaken about how the law works. The person making the assertion has the burden of proof. If you say someone is an extortionist, you'd better be able to prove it. All the plaintiff has to do is say "Your honor, I've been libeled, and here are my damages. Please make the defendant compensate me." You will be subpoenaed, and at court the judge will turn to you and say "Where is the proof of your claims?" If you can't deliver, the judgement will go against you.

The plaintiff doesn't have to prove a thing. In fact, his claim will automatically be accepted and processed by the legal system up until you appear in court. The cost for you before that point could be thousands of dollars. If you don't show up for court, you automatically lose.

-mel beckman

-mel beckman

On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us<mailto:j hall@futuresouth.us>> wrote:

Excuse me for chiming in, here… But, if I’m not mistaken (don’t worry, I’m not) - this doesn’t count as ‘slander’ in any way, shape or form. This mail thread is not any kind of valid FCC controlled or public communications device, as the internet was actually excluded from the public communications device list under the Freedom of Speech Act in… Was it, 1996? Which means, ‘slander’ can’t be called in this case. You could argue that it can, but you’d lose in court in the long run.

If you’re aiming for the defamation card? That’s a very difficult one to prove. I’d counter the argument in a court room by asking the judge to prove the plaintiff is NOT an extortionist scum bag. It certainly works both ways. And either way, defamation requires some form of punitive damage be proven in order to actually win that case. Are you saying that the company he is referencing has some way to claim and directly correlate a loss of income or potential loss of income, either present and/or future, due to the comment made on a mail group? I’d love to see that quantification on paper...

None the less, regardless of what one accuses or says on the internet, the usage of the word ‘extortion’ is quite open for interpretation with regards to context, and making such a statement does not qualify for slander nor defamation. He could feel he’s being extorted, in which case exasperating his opinion publicly is no less legal than me telling you that I don’t really think you’re a good lawyer.

Good luck trying to play that card in a courtroom.

Short and simple: One could threaten to sue over it, and one could even try. Personally, I’d turn that court room in to a circus act if someone tried. I’d most likely get fined in contempt a few times, but at least even the judge will go home laughing. :)

J

On 16 Aug 2016, at 16:45, Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com<mailto:am itchell@isipp.com>> wrote:

to say "our accounting system does not track invoice details -- it only shows the total amount due so your numbers mean nothing to us." All the while they relentlessly levied disconnect threats with short timelines such as: "if you don't pay us $128,000 by this Friday, we will shut your operation down." [...] At one point their lawyers and accounting people had the nerve to say "our accounting system does not track invoice details

Are you talking with your SP's lawyers without your a legal team of your own present and advising you? I think one of the first things they should tell you is not to discuss pending disputes in public. Time to get a consultation with your own Lawyers to assist with billing dispute resolution, ASAP.

Not to mention that accusing someone of a crime (extortion), in public (in this context I would argue that this is public, especially as the term 'community' was used in the allegation) is a pretty serious thing.

Anne P. Mitchell, Attorney at Law Legislative Consultant CEO/President, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance http://www.SuretyMail.com/<http://www.suretymail.com/> http://www.SuretyMail.eu/<http://www.suretymail.eu/>

Available for consultations by special arrangement.

Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law) Member, California Bar Cyberspace Law Committee Member, Colorado Cybersecurity Consortium Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Committee Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop amitchell@isipp.com<mailto:amitchell@isipp.com> | @AnnePMitchell Facebook/AnnePMitchell | LinkedIn/in/annemitchell

-- To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy

On 8/16/2016 21:13, William Herrin wrote:

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us> wrote:

...

if I’m not mistaken (don’t worry, I’m not) - this doesn’t count as ‘slander’ in any way, shape or form.

Jonathan,

Technically you're right, but not for the reason you think. Slander is verbal defamation. Libel is written defamation. The original poster has potentially exposed himself to a libel suit.

But what are the BGP implications? -- "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid." --Albert Einstein From Larry's Cox account.

Guys, Actually, thank you for the responses. I was hoping you wouldn’t take my attempt at friendly and humorous conversation the wrong way. I appreciate the education on the topic, as well. :) However, I’d like to ask a few questions on it, if you don’t mind? (Also - you’re right, it’s not the freedom of speech act I’m thinking, wasn’t it some form of ‘decency act’ ? I digress, though…) For something to actually be considered libel, isn’t it required that the statement be untrue, damaging in a way that must be proven and actually knowingly false? Proving damages would be hard… But putting that aside, proving what he is saying is not true (unless it’s just 100% false and they have recorded evidence of it) might be even harder if they don’t have proper records of past due balances, or properly recorded communications (i.e. email). And where is the line drawn with regards to him/her knowingly making statements that are not true? And wouldn’t it still alsol require a general purpose public figure, or a limited purpose public figure, to prove malice in the instance? I don’t think the company would qualify as a general or limited purpose public figure. That would pretty much apply to actors, performer and/or social activist types - or politicians. Not a service provider… If he perceives it to be extortion, then it would be difficult to say that him claiming extortion is libel. The definition of extortion is the general practice of obtaining something, especially money, through the use of force or threats. In this case, the company is using the threat of disconnection as the force, and they are indeed attempting to collect money. So, if we take it from a literal definitive view of ‘extortion,’ the word, by definition, fits the scenario. It doesn’t imply wrong doing, really, and could be applicable to any and every service provider in existence today - even the pharmaceutical companies with regards to withholding medication that can save lives unless absurd amounts of money is paid. I’d say the entire world could be classified as extortionists if we go by the actual definition. J

On 17 Aug 2016, at 15:01, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 01:11:09 +0200, Jonathan Hall said:

...

And either way, defamation requires some form of punitive damage be proven in order to act ually win that case.

In addition to the other things already pointed out, punitive damage doesn't need to be proven.

*Actual* damages have to be proven. Punitive damages are damages added as punishment, to make sure the responsible party learned their lesson.

So fir instance, if a corporation's negligence results in a worker's death, his family may be awarded $5M in actual damages for the loss of their loved one - and then another $20 million in punitive damages, to make the corporation (and possibly the industry segment as a whole) take notice that sort of negligent behavior will not be tolerated....