If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Dear Mr. Given:
I am writing in response to the letter you sent me, dated March 9, 2004, regarding a November 17, 2003 post I made on my weblog that referenced information on another website regarding John Gray (”the post”). In the letter, you stated that my post was libelous and demanded that I publish a correction on my website, pursuant to Section 48a of the California Civil Code. I decline your request, because I do not believe that my statements were libelous, based on my review of your letter and of California case law.
As a preliminary matter, I am astounded by your suggestion that you might initiate legal action against me in California. I live in Ireland, and I publish a noncommercial, passive website that is hosted on servers located in the United Kingdom. Legal proceedings in California would pose an undue and unreasonable burden on me, and a California state court would have no personal jurisdiction over me, under well-established law. See, e.g., Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc., 130 F.3d 414, 419 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that there was no personal jurisdiction over a Florida corporation that conducted “no commercial activity” on “an essentially passive home page on the web”).
Even if a California court had jurisdiction, it is clear that my statements were not libelous. It is indisputable that John Gray is a public figure under U.S. law. According to his own website (http://www.marsvenus.com/detailedbiography.php), Gray is “the best-selling relationship author of all time,” and the author of “the number one best-selling book of the last decade,” having sold “30 million Mars and Venus books.” As a public figure, Gray could not prevail in a suit unless he showed that I acted with “actual malice,” that is “knowledge that [the weblog post] was false” or with “reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964). It is highly unlikely that you could meet this burden, given that my post quoted a web page containing information about John Gray that I believed to be true.
Based on the information on your letter, I cannot conclude that my post was false, much less libelous. Despite your blanket statements that my post was “false” and “libelous,” you did not dispute the specific information in the post regarding Gray’s biographical information, such as the claim that John Gray received his undergraduate degree from an unaccredited institution. Additional research I have undertaken has not revealed information that suggests that my post was false, and the post was an accurate quotation of a source (buzz.weblogs.com) upon which I relied. You complain of only five words of which I was the original author—”John Gray is a fraud”—which are “classic rhetorical hyperbole which cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts.” Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp., 119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 108, 117 (1999) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Such statements are not libelous under California law. Id.
Given that my post was not libelous, I decline your request for removal of the post and the posting of a correction on my website. I assume that you will not pursue this frivolous claim any further.
Sincerely,
Gavin Sheridan
27 comments
3/11/2005 at 3:07 am
Pingback from Gavin’s Blog » Top science adviser faces fresh claims over doctorate
30/3/2004 at 4:47 am
Antonin "the Devil" Scalia
Excellent letter, Gavin!
Gavin gives it to Given! Gavin Gives Given and Gray A Black Eye with Golden Glove!
30/3/2004 at 2:54 pm
Keith Gaughan
Go Gav!
30/3/2004 at 4:03 pm
Greg
Nice one.
30/3/2004 at 5:54 pm
Dann Sheridan
Whoa!
30/3/2004 at 11:15 pm
A friend who fought and won
Very nice. Shorter Gavin letter: “Dear Shameless Bloodsucker: Your legal argument was total horseshit. Now fugg off and don’t make me smack you around with California’s anti-SLAPP law.”
Game, set, match to Gavin.
If Gray and his flying monkey decide to file a suit against you anyway, ask your legal adviser to tell you about the Good Thing known as Rule 11. It scared the pants off the attorneys for the corporation that tried to sue me.
31/3/2004 at 1:06 am
JasonY
freaking awesome Gavin! Chalk one up for the little guy. Please be sure to share their return letter (if they have the stones to send one after that thrashing)
Jason
31/3/2004 at 3:13 am
Cyrus Farivar
Damn. What can they say to that? You’ve got support from California!
31/3/2004 at 3:46 am
jerry
Well done, can I hire you to represent me?
31/3/2004 at 4:24 am
Jordon Cooper
Ok, I am impressed. That post rocked.
31/3/2004 at 5:31 am
John Sands
I can’t believe I’m the first person to say that John Gray is from Uranus! Great post.
31/3/2004 at 6:58 am
Alec Trebec
Note to John Sands, Owen beat you to it:
“Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. John Gray may be from Uranus.”
Posted by Owen at March 22, 2004 04:53 PM
(see thread accompanying Gavin’s March 17 post)
31/3/2004 at 7:17 am
Mike Harris
Damn fine job, sir!
31/3/2004 at 10:54 am
Lance Knobel
Wonderful letter.
31/3/2004 at 2:14 pm
Eric Hancock
Bravo. Good luck with all this silliness.
31/3/2004 at 4:13 pm
K.G. Schneider
Excellent job.
31/3/2004 at 5:49 pm
Rob wallace
Brilliant! Nail the bastards.
31/3/2004 at 6:13 pm
mhking
Impressive, sir!
31/3/2004 at 8:42 pm
Dave Weeden
Well done from me too!
31/3/2004 at 9:51 pm
Adin
Outstanding!
Well formed/thought out legal argument. I would be surprised to hear anything back from them.
31/3/2004 at 10:47 pm
Scott
Very nice. Very thorough.
1/4/2004 at 4:11 am
Scott Johnson
Excellent response. It’s always nice to see the little man standing up against big corporate American lawyers.
1/4/2004 at 10:04 am
Scott Whittaker
Greetings,
With that response, I expect to hear the Law And Order “Gavel” sound.
Fight the good fight bro.
2/4/2004 at 4:21 pm
Dave Collins
Excellent. Well done Gavin.
Libel terrorism of this kind needs to be stood up to within the responsible blogging community. Although all bloggers, particularly those in plaintiff friendly defamation jurisdictions such as the UK and (I assume) Eire, need to take care to ensure that they do not post comments that are genuinely libellous.
I haven’t seen any references to it elsewhere on your site, but Marcus from Harry’s Place kicked off some discussion on the problems of defamation, in particular the dangers of it being diseminated “unintentionally” on the part of the blog’s owner via comments pages, a couple of months ago which you might find of interest.
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/02/16/a_further_cautionary_tale.php#comments
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2004/02/16/a_cautionary_tale.php
As far as responsible bloggers are concerned (especially those with assets to protect), I fear this is not an issue that is likely to go away.
6/4/2004 at 1:04 pm
santana
Dear Mr./Mrs.
We saw that your web-site gets a good amount of visitors and a positive
ranking on alexa.com.
Due to this and other advanced features that we found on your website, we
want to establish
a lasting partnership with you, that could bring high revenue to both
parties.
Seek99.com is a search engine that pays its affiliates on the amount of
searches or clicks
generated from their websites. By placing one or more of the features
listed bellow,
you will be able to gain revenue from every visitor that comes to your
website.
And finally the thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the industry
is
that we offer Daily Payments via wire transfer, paypal or check.
Banners at 2 – 8 CPC
Search box
XML or HTML feeds that pay up to 60% of the gross revenue
Text links
Direct Click Box
Toolbar Downloads
Referral program at 10% from total earnings
We can set-up for you a test account.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Kind regards
Santana
6/4/2004 at 11:40 pm
Tony
Well done, Gavin, an excellent letter that will make those attorneys squirm.
But you make me nervous when you point out that part of your “immunity” from California law is because your host server is in the UK. My own blog server is located within California. Hmmmm !
6/4/2004 at 11:45 pm
Tony
Link provided with “Tony” in my above post has somehow ended up incorrect. It’s been automatically repeated in this post.
I think you have a fault in your Comments software.
T o n y (again)
http://www.tallrite.com/blog.htm