Legalese and Threats

     Noted: There's quite a bit of people threatening to sue critics, bloggers, book reviewers and others these days. It appears that within the troubled teen troubled industry, Scott Chandler, who owns Tierra Blanca Ranch is suing people: https://www.kob.com/article/stories/s3591656.shtml#.VFr1dPnF98F  and Diamond Ranch is also suing people: https://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/10/diamond-ranch-academy-vs-schofields.html
and https://jilliestake.blogspot.com/2014/11/diamond-ranch-academy-doubles-down-with.html .

     Suing or threatening to sue seems to be a popular notion these days. It is a way of getting people to shut up. That, and telling a critic that files have been forwarded to the F.B.I. 

     As popehat has indicated with a blog post about being threatened with a defamation suit, this particular post is not legal advice. It is not to be construed or imagined to be legal advice. I am a blogger, not an attorney. Period.

     In scouring the Interwebz, I found bunches of sites willing to tell me in simple terms what all the legalese means. First, under defamation of character, I learned that libel refers to written or published material and slander is spoken. I also learned that the material or statement has to be a pack of lies that hurts the plaintiff in some way. If the action concerns alleged defamation of character, standing will also depend upon what states the plaintiff and the defendant live in and whether or not the plaintiff knows people or does business in the state where the defendant lives. 

     Having a bad opinion about a plaintiff or a plaintiff's alleged actions or behavior and publishing one's bad opinion is not equivalent to defamation of character. The criticism in the form of a book review is actually a valid defense to a defamation of character lawsuit. On the other hand, prefacing any statement with "this is my opinion" may not protect the defendant from legal action, especially if the defendant is lying about the plaintiff on purpose and being a big meanie poop-head in the process. Further, if the plaintiff is famous in some way and exposed to the public eye, that plaintiff must prove actual malice in court. The standard is thus higher for plaintiffs who are public figures than for regular folks.

     A demand letter-- so-called because the plaintiff is demanding stuff near as I can figure-- must lay out the facts of the alleged defamation of character, quote relevant laws, state what the plaintiff intends to do and how much money the plaintiff wants. There are sample demand letters to be had on the Interwebz, although one would think that a fancy attorney would do that for his or her plaintifficating client.

     The area of the law referring to trademarks versus trade-names requires close reading. What I got from the sites I checked is that trademarks can involve logos and stuff like that but trade-names cannot. (And a trademark or TM refers to goods like sneakers. A service mark or SM refers to services such as coaching).

     The swoosh on a sneaker is a trademark, the name of the company involved with said sneakers is a trade-name. I cannot reproduce a trademark because a company does have complete control over their logos, slogans, and symbols. This is as it should be.

     A trade-name may be one's legal name or it may be an assumed name. It is the name under which someone is doing business as or d.b.a. One may register a trade-name as limited liability corporation but ought not to use the trade-name in the way that a trademark is used.  An application to register a trade-name that is common may very well be rejected. Thus, wanting to register "John Smith" may be tough to pull off. Wanting to register "John Smith Marijuana Brownie Company" may be more in the realm of probability.

     People such as singers may actually trade-name their own name but it is best to apply for this on the federal level and not just in the state of primary residence. The trade-name of a performer (for example) represents the brand (his or her performing). 

     What is most interesting to me about trade-names is that legally the registrant of a trade-name DOES NOT control all appearances of that name. Thus, it is legal for me-- according to how I read the laws regulating trade-names-- to mention someone's name, even if a registered trade-name, on my blog site. The idea that I am violating copyright law by mentioning the name of an author in the course of a book review is a false idea. Period.

     Furthermore, there is a search engine that will tell me whether or not a specific word or group of words has been registered as either a trademark or a trade-name.

radical sapphoq says: These days, knowledge is power. Or at the very least it can relieve anxiety. Just saying. So who's being a bully? It ain't me.

References:

https://www.chillingeffects.org/topics/1   [*wonderful site]

http://www.popehat.com/2013/09/26/so-youve-been-threatened-with-a-defamation-suit/  [*personal favorite]


https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation  [*I love the 

E.F.F.].


https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/defamation


https://www.bmartin.cc/dissent/documents/defamation.html



defamation of character

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-law-made-simple-29718.html 

 https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-slander-libel

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/social-media-online-defamation.html

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/privileges-defenses-defamation-cases.html  

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Defamation+of+character
definitions

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/defamation-character-lawsuit-proving-harm.html  

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/defamation-character-free-speech.html  

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/defamation-character.html

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/demand-letter-defamation-case.html 

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/sample-demand-letters.html  

https://www.wikihow.com/Sue-for-Defamation 



fair criticism

http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4043&context=ndlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fcse%3Fq%3Ddefamation%2Bof%2Bcharacter%26cref%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.thesocialsearcher.com%252Fcse%252Fv1.xml#search=%22defamation%20character%22 
examples of authors suing critics page 4



registered trademark trade-name

https://www.sba.gov/blogs/difference-between-trade-name-and-trademark-and-why-you-cant-overlook-either


https://www.veritrademark.com/articles/difference-trademark-tradename

https://www.invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/Legal_Name_Trade_Name_Trademark.html

https://biznik.com/articles/the-difference-between-a-trade-name-and-a-trademark-and-why-you-should-care

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/difference-between-trade-name-trademark-3219.html


https://smallbusiness.chron.com/trademark-performers-name-56300.html

https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4810:zn482m.1.1

https://smallbusiness.chron.com/file-trademark-name-government-60979.html

Cyber-Bullying Versus Being Fauxfended

"1. Bullying is not okay. Period.

 2. Freedom of religion does not give you the right to 

     physically or verbally assault people.

 3. If your sincerely-held religious beliefs require you to 

      bully children, then your beliefs are fucked up.”


                                                                                                                                                        ~ Jim C. Hines


Jim C. Hines is on twitter as @jimchines.

His most excellent blog can be found 

at http://www.jimchines.com/blog/

An excellent article on cyber-harassment written by him:

http://www.jimchines.com/2014/01/online-harassment/


Other articles of note:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/01/10/lets-just-call-it-talking/

         
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/let-s-be-real-online-

harassment-isn-t-virtual-for-women


http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/women-
arent-welcome-internet-72170/



Experiencing abusive behavior from others online?
Received threats due to stuff posted online?
Or, want to be part of the solution instead of the problem?

http://www.haltabuse.org/



Being fauxfended on the other hand is not the same thing at all. If you tell me that I am a big meanie poopy head because I happen to not agree with you, I can shrug that off easily enough.
If you accuse me of being stupid or racist or an anti-feminist or full of false ego or something, I can blow those comments off also.

A good solid definition can be found in The Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fauxfended

Here are some articles and things that talk about people who were fauxfended:

http://thegraph.com/2012/09/personalities-vs-facts/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/04/HuffPo-No-Apology-For-Pearl-Harbor-Insult-Is-Perfect-Response

http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2013/01/08/class-act-katherine-webb-says-musburger-not-creepy-for-gushing-about-her-on-natl-tv/

http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/2012/09/blaming-victims.html



What no one should blow off are threats such as "I'm going to rape you, kill you, or otherwise ef you up." That sort of thing ought to require the attention of the nearest law enforcement agency. [And hopefully, the nearest law enforcement agency will be better informed than the one here is and more equipped to skillfully handle a complaint of cyber-bullying than the one 'round here is].

radical sapphoq says: Some people use cyber-bullying as a convenient argument for using one's wallet name on the internet. I've seen people on Fakeboo, FedBoo, SpaceCase [using one of my fake socks because I will not help the government to collect info or meta-data on me], I mean that website-- you know the one I mean-- using their "real names" and making vicious comments about other people. 
People are people whether using their legal names on the internet or not.

Those who are in the public eye tend to use their names online. The rest of us don't. Some of the rest of us have had problems with people stalking us [either online or in 'real' life F2F] or threatening us. Some of us may be hiding from a past domestic violence situation or other troublesome history and thus we cannot safely enjoy the internet using our wallet info. Some of us prefer that our bosses and our elderly relatives not be able to find us on the internet. Some of us value our privacy and refuse to give out our real names and locations. Some of us have more than one of the above listed reasons for a decision to use socks or pseudonyms online. Some of us may have solid reasons that I have not listed here.

I am against laws that require us to use our wallet information online and against laws that would assign each of us some sort of internet 'number' that a government can use to trace back to us. Period. The dark net has its uses. Hopefully, an alter-net will become a reality for those of us who refuse to succumb to the line of thinking that starts with the dreaded words "It's for your own good that we are...".

               ~ LESS GOVERNMENT MORE FUN ~