Regular readers would be aware that I have being harrassed by a mad cow, her mad father and now by her mad lawyer (all honestly held beliefs) all because I dared draw attention to the fantasy that is She Who Must Not Be Named.
Her lawyer is prize numpty and fool Steven Price (honestly held belief), who coincidentally advised Tricky Nicky Hager about how he should present his stolen emails without being sued.
Steven also conveniently has a website and it is to that site we now go to find out just how much of a hypocrite this numpty is.
On his site he blogs about another blogger who had to put up an apology after being heavied by a media outlets lawyer…..hmmmthis is sounding familiar.
Â He then sets about reproducing the link to the alleged defamation just in case it is taken down.
“In the comments section of the correction and apology, someone has
helpfully posted a link to a copy of HotTopicâ€™s original post. Donâ€™t
you just love the internet? On the off-chance that the link is removed
in the near future, let me take the liberty of reproducing it here.
By all means, pay a visit, and encourage others to do likewise. I hope
that the post receives exponentially greater attention as a result of
this legal threat.
I donâ€™t say that because Iâ€™m a free speech absolutist, or because I
think the internet ought to be a law-free zone. In general, I think
people who defame others online deserve all they get. I doubt this is
the first time internet material has been removed in NZ as a result of
a legal threat, and Iâ€™m sure it wonâ€™t be the last. Nope, I object to
this because I think the Listener has used a tenuous legal claim to
bully a blogger into retracting some moderate and reasonable
criticisms. I donâ€™t like it when anyone does this, but itâ€™s
particularly ugly when the heavies are acting for the media.”
Well, well, well, isn’t Steven Price just a hypocrite. He goes further though and I think you will find this, dear readers, highly ironic considering he is the lawyer that is currently harrassing me and my hosting company.
“Those familiar with the laws of defamation will see where Iâ€™m going.Â It
looks to me as if thereâ€™sÂ an honest opinion defence available here. The
law lets people air their opinions, as long as theyâ€™re clearly
expressed as opinions, honestly held, and based on facts accurately set
out or referred to. Those elements seem to be present. (A caveat: I
donâ€™t know whether there were significant inaccuracies in the post, and
thereâ€™s an interesting legal question about whether facts can be said
to be accurate if something important is left out……”
The numpty Price also lets the reader know that the other defence to a defamation case is truth. But I will leave the last words of this post on the honestly held belief that I hold that Steven Price is a first class numpty and a hypocrite to boot to Steven Price himself.
“The proper response would have been a one-line letter politely telling
the Listener to sit on its thumb. I doubt that any further action would
have been taken. But bloggers, and those who host their blogs, canâ€™t
always be that brave. Thatâ€™s what makes leaning on assertions of legal
rights in situations like this reprehensible, I think. I would have
been much more persuaded by a thoughtful and factual response from the
Listenerâ€™s editor on the blog itself setting out the magazineâ€™s version
of the story. It would have been much cheaper. And much more in keeping
with the Listenerâ€™s commitment to open inquiry. And it wouldnâ€™t have
produced whatâ€™s likely to be an explosion of interest in the criticismsâ€¦”
Yes, well quite, how about Steven you go sit on your thumb and reap the whirlwind you and your client who must not be named have sown.