The occasional scrivener

Sued

Update 2005-11-04: this post has been edited in accordance to the wishes of H & N Consulting.

[Note: I’m posting this during my lunch hour.]

A mail today [2005-11-02] from H & N Consulting:

Dear Mr. Erikson,

We regret to inform you that our company today has decided to take legal actions against you and your employer.

You have not lived up to the agreement you sent us yesterday. You are still slandering our company and CEO. We have proof that we did not spam any web blogs. These proofs will now be used against you in a court of law.

Unfortunately, we will also sue your employer since you have posted these accusations during regular business hours.

[…]

Sincerely,

H & N Consulting

[This email did not have a confidentiality agreement attached.]

This is my reply:

These accusations are absurd.

The are no references to the name “XXX” in my posts.

You have crossed a line. Go ahead with your lawsuit. When I have been served, I will comment on the situation in accordance to the rights of free speech. You may be assured that the name “XXX” will, in the future, be associated with suppression of free speech and legal posturing.

Good luck in trying to build a business with a reputation like that.

[The referenced name has been altered to “XXX”.]

Update 2005-11-03: after the first white heat of anger, I’m feeling much more sanguine about the whole affair.

I have contacted my hosting provider, and he suggested (but did not require) that I remove all references that may give cause for offence. I have now done so.

I have contacted my employer and explained the situation to them. By the way, this website is covered by a disclaimer.

The fact that the legal threats were not delivered by a legal representative gives rise to the suspicion that no-one within the profession will touch this with a ten-foot pole. That, or financial constraints.

I have uncovered some interesting facts about the Swedish data protection law, PuL. Specifically the Ramsbro case, where a man was acquitted for publishing the names of bank presidents and financiers on the internet.

Basically, you can publish personal facts (including names) if you do so in a “journalistic manner”, to inform, critizise, and cause debate. I feel that the fact that a 2-bit “search engine optimisation” company can use vague legal threats to shut down free speech on the internet to be cause for debate.

As to the accusations of slander, I cannot see how that applies, as slander is “defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form such as speech”.

Thanks to the good people in #mobitopia for their support and advice.

Updated on Friday, 2005-11-04. Posted at 13:27, in the scrivener category. Comments [0]
Submit this story to: » del.icio.us » digg » reddit. Search for it on technorati.