[Imc-cleveland] court decision

[andypie]

Dismissed, Denied.                  may 29. 2006

philadelphia inquirer


  Tucker Max may be a lout, but he's no libeler, says a federal court in 
Philadelphia.
A federal judge has tossed the case against Max, whose popular Web site 
celebrates his boozy carousing. On Friday, U.S. District Court Stewart 
Dalzell dismissed the claim by local publicist and event planner 
Anthony DiMeo III, who had contended his reputation suffered from 
comments made on TuckerMax.com after his New Year Eve party went awry. 
(For more background, see The Blueberry Heir v The Web's Bad Boy.)
DiMeo said Monday he is likely to appeal and pursue those who commented 
on Max's site.
The judge's decision reaffirms that a Web site proprietor is protected 
from libel actions based on comments visitors make, either by name or 
anonymously. And it provides for more lively reading than one will  
encounter in a year of reading such things.
The decision begins, "Tucker Max describes himself as an aspiring 
celebrity 'drunk' and 'asshole' who uses his Web site, tuckermax.com, 
to 'share (his) adventures with the world.' Anthony DiMeo III, who says 
he is an heir and co-owner of a large New Jersey blueberry farm, threw 
a New  Year's Eve party this past December that, apparently, ended in a 
shambles."
The event, organized by DiMeo's publicity firm, Renamity, turned out to 
be the "party from hell," the judge wrote. The four-hour event with 
food and open bar at Le Jardin, located in the Philadelphia Art 
Alliance gallery, ended early -- and after more than twice the 325 
invitees showed, the liquor ran out, and revelers turned unruly, 
stealing two artworks, tearing sconces, trying to  make off with a 
donations box.
Commenters on Max's site were relentless. DiMeo sued Max for six posts 
that commenters made on his site's message board. The posters wrote 
things like "I hope you die soon" and wished he met the end of a 
Magnum. They mocked DiMeo's manhood and disparaged him professionally, 
the suit contended. In addition to defamation, DiMeo sued under a 
criminal statue that bars people from anonymously using a 
telecommunications device to harass someone. The judge ruled that a Web 
site's message board was not covered by latter, which was a recent 
amendment to the Communications Decency Act of 1934.
DiMeo conceded that Max did not write the offensive comments, but 
contended that by having the ability to edit or censor them, he is 
legally responsible for any libels they express. Dalzell rejected that 
argument, saying by punishing a Web proprietor for monitoring comments 
would "deter the very behavior that Congress sought to encourage."
While Dalzell wrote that "there is no question that tuckermax.com could 
be a poster child for ... vulgarity," he found the law must protect 
"the coarse conversation that, it appears, never ends.
Read Myelectionanalysis for the reaction of a blogger who, like Max, 
went to Duke Law School, and mines the judge's decision for "one of the 
best smackdowns I’ve ever seen in a judicial order."
That blogger writes: I honestly laughed out loud twice while reading 
the opinion, which is twice more than I’ve ever laughed while reading a 
judicial opinion. My favorite line has to be "after viewing the 
tuckermax.com message boards, which are read by people using screen 
names like 'Jerkoff,' 'Drunken DJ,' and 'footinmouth,' the intended 
audience could not mistake the site for the New York Times. In short, 
it palpably is not serious."
Max, reached by phone in Los Angeles, was characteristically charming 
in victory:
"It was the legal equivalent of a bitch slap I think it's fair to say. 
The judge made sure these sorts of cases won't be brought again in his 
district. DiMeo will think twice before he slaps a frivolous suit on a 
legitimate expression of free speech."
DiMeo said the case is not over. By email, he wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the judge's decision and feel this matter 
will be taken to the next level....Tucker Max should not only expect a 
possible appeal to this one judges decision, but select members of his 
TuckerMax.com following should expect individual lawsuits to be filed 
against them for the countless false, inaccurate and misleading 
statements they have clearly posted on Mr. Max's web site. Without a 
doubt, these type of legal battles are very, very costly... but, to me, 
it's most certainly worth it to make people like Tucker Max pay for 
their wrongful actions. Tucker Max demeans women and promotes character 
assassinations; and this is something we must not allow in our society.
This is not an issue of free speech, as Mr. Max and his following would 
characterize it. The material on Tucker Max's website is offensive, 
non-newsworthy, and disseminated with reckless disregard. It's time for 
Tucker Max and his following to accept the consequences of their 
illegal actions. Tucker Max has exploited my good name, character and 
solid reputation for his own personal gain.


Posted by Daniel Rubin at 10:40 AM in Law
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/4985820
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dismissed, Denied.:
  » How could I have missed this? from CrApLiFe
  I must admit to having wasted some hours reading Tucker Maxs stories 
when I was working at Apple, but as new stories were rarely posted, Ive 
forgotten about the site again. By conincidence I fall over a link to a 
post on his message board... [Read More]

Tracked on May 29, 2006 5:53:01 PM
  » A Victory For Free Speech, And Hilarity from Philadelphia Will Do
  Most legal decisions don't begin with the words "Tucker Max describes 
himself as an aspiring celebrity 'drunk' and 'asshole,'" -- well, at 
least not since Marbury v. Madison's similar opening -- but then again 
most lawsuits aren't as hilarious... [Read More]

Tracked on May 30, 2006 9:55:33 AM
Comments

Justice served. This guy threatens free speech on the internet by 
recklessly sueing people so he can he get away with doing a terrible 
job running a terrible company. Philly needs to give dimeo and renamity 
the cold shoulder.

Posted by: Joe | May 29, 2006 5:47:50 PM

Based on DiMeo's statements and reactionary lawsuits—and NOT by 
anything said by Tucker Max posters—I would never want to do business 
with this guy DiMeo. Does he run a PR firm? He's giving himself the 
worst PR ever. Nobody is going to herald him for this.
Stop attacking my freedom of expression, you bastard.

Posted by: Lyman | May 29, 2006 8:19:40 PM

I'd like to know what Anthony considers to be, as he puts it, "... 
false, inaccurate [or] misleading?" Comparing the posters' comments 
with articles about Anthony, the party and his PR firm, the comments on 
TMMB are most certainly true. As with everything in life, people put 
their own spin on things, but that's LIFE. Anthony needs to get over 
himself. If he can't deal with negative feedback he shouldn't be 
running a PR firm in the first place.

Posted by: Sarah | May 29, 2006 10:51:42 PM

Hopefully Tucker gets his legal fees paid for. This sort of "stifle 
speecy via litigation" tactic is too common.

Posted by: JD | May 30, 2006 1:38:29 PM

Sigh. It is hard to give free speech a smack down, but smackdown I must.
Sure, there should be protection of speech, but there should also be 
protection of character. No one should have to suffer libel in the form 
of death threats, lies, or insults from people who will suffer no 
consequence from their harming actions.
If people had the decency to censor themselves from inappropriate 
comments, this wouldn't be an issue. But yes, after being the victim of 
internet libel myself, I must posit that there has to be limitations on 
what people can post on the 'World Wide Web.'
This isn't just chalking a riddle on the sidewalk. Anyone's mother, 
brother, father, boss, assistant, girlfriend, friend, teacher, student, 
etc. can see these things. And who is the arbiter for what is true and 
false there?
Standards people, standards. We can't protect the right of one man to 
harm another.

Posted by: Sam | May 30, 2006 5:26:10 PM

So wait, "Sam"; are you saying anyone's mother, brother, father, boss, 
assistant, girlfriend, friend, teacher, or student is going to do 
research on PR firms by going to the forums of tuckermax.com?

Posted by: Lyman | May 30, 2006 8:01:44 PM

This is all being taken far too personally. The law is the law. By 
definition, a statement cannot be defamatory if it is made satirically 
- which is precisely what the judge and anyone with two functioning 
brain cells would conclude by a visit to Max's website. Also, the First 
Amendment's guarantee of free speech clearly bars prosecution of an 
individual simply because the RECIPIENT of a statement believed it to 
be offensive. There is no right not to be offended by speech, and such 
rights cannot be created by statute without violating the First 
Amendment (generally).
  To paraphrase Justice Holmes, the cure for stupidity is more 
discussion, and more speech, not censorship. Personally, I think Mr. 
Max's site resemble's the situation of Henry Miller's book "Tropic of 
Cancer." It was banned in its day, and read mostly by WWII veterans 
returning from Europe, but it became the rallying point for a Supreme 
Court case affirming the proposition that speech cannot be banned 
merely because it upsets someone. I have no sympathy for people who 
anonymously generate death wishes - if they had any wit at all, they 
could do much better. But, Mr. Max does not fall into that category, 
and above all, his writing has a great deal of merit in its own right. 
It's always sad to see a unique talent being attacked - fortunately Mr. 
Max is not deterred. Nor should he be - despite his vulgarity, his 
viewpoint has a lot to offer.