If you haven’t heard about the blogger who’s been sued for criticizing the state of Maine’s tourism promotion efforts (among other things, the state’s advertising agency created draft advertisement that included a phone sex number which, frankly, deserves to be criticized). The plaintiff is the advertising agency. The defendant is a blogger named Lance Dunston.
Here’s Lance’s side of the story (more here). Here’s information on the ad in question. This is the complaint that was filed. This is the Plaintiff.
Scott Johnson, founder of Feedster and Ookles, defends the plaintiff but provides few details as to why (he spoke to the ad agency and came away impressed). James Robertson and Robert Scoble disagree with Scott. Lots of chatter on Memeorandum about this from other bloggers.
John Palfrey has a paticularly intelligent writeup on this:
My view is that a lawsuit of this sort should have to clear a very high bar before a court awards damages to the design firm, especially where the core discussion is a matter of political speech in which a citizen is commenting on the activities of a state agency of his home state.
I’m an attorney, and I say this: Our legal system is not an appropriate venue to handle disputes between deep pocketed plaintiffs and one-man defendants. The lawsuit itself is generally enough to destroy a person because they cannot affort proper legal representation. Warren Kremer Paino, the plaintiff, should be ashamed of itself for taking this to court, and their reputation, as well as that of their client, the state of Maine, will certainly take a hit for this.
Based on the facts as I understand them right now, this lawsuit is ridiculous. I’ve cancelled my plans to attend Pop!Tech this year, and I will not do business with any of the advertising agency’s clients or write about them. I will also contribute to a legal defense fund if Lance sets one up. All of these opinions are subject to change if different facts come to light (if for example, Scott Johnson posts additional details supporting his position), but as of right now, I will do everything I can to support this blogger’s first amendment right to speak his mind.
All,
Trust me on this one I believe in free speech but I wanted to see both sides to it. Here’s a link to everything I blogged on the issue:
http://tinyurl.com/nk45u
Thanks Mike. Hope all is well with you and yours.
*Scott runs back to VIM and coding and rues the day I decided to get involved; kicks self*
He’s being sued by the advertising agency, not the state of Maine. I agree it’s a stupid lawsuit.
What I don’t understand is why you’re bailing out of Poptech. Best I can tell the agency isn’t a sponsor of Poptech. Nor is the state of Maine a sponsor. Nor is the state of Maine is not a party to the suit.
There are however, a lot of Maine companies that are involved with Poptech that have nothing to do with this suit.
If everyone bailed out of California conferences every time a contractor to the state of California was involved in an idiotic lawsuit, the California conference industry would die in a week.
Erik Schwartz
Bath, Maine
(after spending 15 years in Silicon Valley)
Hi Erik,
Yeah, I’m bailing out of Poptech. I’m just voicing what tons of people are thinking and doing silently. Why would I lend any kind of support to a state that allows this to happen to one of its citizens? Absurd.
How exactly do you mean “state that allows”? How exactly would the state of Maine stop it?
The suit (between to private entities) was filed two weeks ago. I doubt if the state has even had the opportunity to throw it out yet. Having read the complaint I’d guess that as soon as it gets before “the state” (in the form of a Judge) it will go away.
Now if the state continues to do business with Warren Kramer Paino (which is, just for the record based in New York, not in Maine) beyond the contracts that they are already obligated to, then you might have a point.
For the sake of argument let’s sat WKP sued you for talking about this, the suit would have to be filed in California court. Now, by your logic we should ban third party California events (like say the MacWorld or Web 2.0 conference) because the county of Santa Clara court is required to adjudicate disputes where the defendant resides in the county?
Poptech has nothing to do with the Maine judicial system.
I meant “two” not “to”.
This case is an such an interesting cautionary tale, whatever happens. Hopefully the defendant Lance Dunston is innocent and survives. I can’t comfortably form an opinion but one can’t go around libeling people/entities that damage reputations/businesses. If the defendant is wiped out by a plaintiff corporation because he is hit with a justifiable verdict, that is very unfortunate, probably for both parties, but corporations also have rights. Libel laws protect 800 pound gorillas too.
Mike:
Pop!Tech has nothing to do with this litigation. And no ties to either of the litigants as far as I know. We both know that to file a lawsuit, all you need is some kind of complaint and a filing fee.
Whether the complaint will survive motions or ever get to trail is a matter for the trial court to determine. But the fact that Pop!Tech is in Camden, and Dunston is getting sued in Maine are Apples and Oranges.
Pop!Tech is a brilliant event, absolutely of the highest quality. I think if you choose not to go to Pop!Tech it will be your lose, as they will sell out, and everyone will have a great time.
FWIW, the lawsuit has been dropped.
http://www.mainewebreport.com/2006/05/05/warren-kremer-paino-withdraws-lawsuit/