Conspiracy theorist filmmaker sues online forum for defamation

[Magenta]

From today's online edition of the Sydney Morning Herald:

An online slanging match over a 9/11 conspiracy book that quickly degenerated into a vitriolic war of words is now the subject of a $42.5-million defamation case.

The case could be a landmark case as it may set a precedent around the responsibilities of website owners to police the comments published by readers.

Greg Smith, a small Sydney film producer specialising in conspiracy theories, claims he is now millions of dollars out of pocket after he was defamed on the forums of Australian community website zGeek.com.

[...]

The attacks on Smith began after he entered a discussion on the zGeek site about the book The Third Truth, which claims the destruction of the World Trade Centre towers in New York was the result of nuclear weapons installed by Israeli intelligence service Mossad.

Smith wrote that "the arguments and evidence presented are very convincing", but the forum community quickly turned on him, claiming he was connected with the publisher.

Link (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/online-forum-trolls-cost-me-millions-filmmaker-20090715-dl4t.html?page=-1)

I'll be interested to see how far this gets and how someone who believes the WTC was nuked by Mossad will explain how his reputation was harmed.

The article further comments on the free speech issues:

Colin Jacobs, spokesman for the online user's lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said the case highlighted the cloud of uncertainty that hovers over forum moderators in Australia.

"In countries such as the US, specific exemptions exist to shield website owners from defamation claims such as this," Jacobs said.

"We wouldn't say it should just be open slather, but if a forum owner goes so far as to take down potentially defamatory statements when asked, they probably shouldn't then be liable for massive damages. Bankrupting forum owners who operate in good faith doesn't encourage healthy discussion in Australia."

In September 2007, 2Clix, a software company, sued community website Whirlpool over comments published on its message board, asking for $150,000 in damages and an injunction requiring Whirlpool to remove forum threads highly critical of 2Clix's accounting software.

2Clix withdrew the case a few days later following significant bad press and claims that it was bringing the lawsuit in order to silence its critics.

Also, in light of the shortcomings of other 9/11-linked litigation that have been reported here by LashL and others, I laughed when I read this:

Smith and Brisciani's lawyer appeared briefly in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday, where the judge ordered Smith to refile his application as it was not in the correct format.

[Foolmewunz]

Publicity stunt?

[Magenta]

Surely not! I'm shocked that someone would waste the Court's time like that.

Actually, yeah, the thought crossed my mind too. There's probably no such thing as bad publicity for someone with a conspiracy theory to flog.

[Alareth]

The NWO would never allow him to win the lawsuit, why even try?

[Horatius]

I'll be interested to see how far this gets and how someone who believes the WTC was nuked by Mossad will explain how his reputation was harmed.[....]




...to the tune of $42.5 million. Yet another delusional truther.

[Cuddles]

...to the tune of $42.5 million. Yet another delusional truther.

This is what always gets me with cases like this. Even assuming that the nut was completely in the right and would win the case, how could $42.5 million possibly be a realistic number? He obviously wouldn't have made that kind of money anyway, so why would he claim for it? If he'd claimed for something like a few thousand it wouldn't be a problem. Just because he's both wrong and insane doesn't mean he wasn't also defamed. So why ask for an amount that he so clearly doesn't deserve?

[~enigma~]

This is what always gets me with cases like this. Even assuming that the nut was completely in the right and would win the case, how could $42.5 million possibly be a realistic number? He obviously wouldn't have made that kind of money anyway, so why would he claim for it? If he'd claimed for something like a few thousand it wouldn't be a problem. Just because he's both wrong and insane doesn't mean he wasn't also defamed. So why ask for an amount that he so clearly doesn't deserve?
Think about it. Why do people always ask for ridiculous amounts in court cases? If you ask for 1000 in damages and you win you get 1000 dollars. If you ask for 50 million and you win you get something between 1000 and 50 million.

[Lisa Simpson]

Ah...doesn't this just bring back memories of Corndog George.

[Donal]

OK, let me see if I have this straight:

This person goes on a forum to push his film and gets flamed for it. Some of it debunking, a good chunk nasty flaming (I'll admit posting his address and threatening to "visit him" are far beyond reasonable). The forum owner banned some of the particularly nasty people, but let the discussion go on freely otherwise. Seems to me the forum owner has met his obligations. He even took all of the negative posts down when the legal threat came through.

A time later, the person in question is contracted by a studio to make a documentary about a Russian arms dealer. The person claims the studio pulled out after seeing the negative comments on the message boards.

Am I the only one who seems to think it far fetched that a bunch of nasty comments on a message board cost this guy his film?

[dudalb]

ALthough I know it is in Australia and she practices law in the US, I would love to get Lash L, our goddess of legaltainment's opinion on this.

[grmcdorman]

Actually, LashL practices in Canada. We haven't been annexed yet (unless They did it secretly).

[Brainster]

What I'm having trouble getting my arms around is this little tidbit:

But the film deal was axed after the overseas party that contracted Smith to make the film allegedly stumbled across the comments on the zGeek forum and decided Smith's reputation was too damaged to continue.

Yes, you see, they were Googling "Greg Smith" and they came across some tiny internet forum? Really? I mean, that's not exactly an uncommon name; Googling it comes up with 620,000 hits. Googling "Greg Smith" filmmaker delivers 3700 hits, many of which are not related to this guy and the ones that are appear to be discussing this lawsuit.

When I ran it through IMDB to get film professionals, I got 52 different Greg Smiths (http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=Greg+Smith&x=18&y=11) (none of whom appear to be our man in Oz).

So I smell BS all over this story; I think it's a typical nutbar who got ticked off at being called a nutbar.

[Tricky]

This is what always gets me with cases like this. Even assuming that the nut was completely in the right and would win the case, how could $42.5 million possibly be a realistic number? He obviously wouldn't have made that kind of money anyway, so why would he claim for it? If he'd claimed for something like a few thousand it wouldn't be a problem. Just because he's both wrong and insane doesn't mean he wasn't also defamed. So why ask for an amount that he so clearly doesn't deserve?
Yeah, but he'll settle for half that amount. Okay, let's just make it a cool mill. Um... how about you just pay for my lawyer and we'll call it even? What? Cheap bastards!!!:mad:

[boloboffin]

It appears to me the Russians dropped the guy because they found out he thinks nukes brought down the towers. That's his own fault - he published a book saying so! The forum needs to subpoena the Russians, I'd say.

[johnny karate]

I would like to publicly proclaim that Greg Smith is a raving lunatic with questionable hygiene practices. I look forward to being included in his next asinine lawsuit.

[T.A.M.]

I will wager good money the suit will go nowhere. Can you imagine the implications on freedom of speech that a ruling in his favor would have. Just not going to happen.

Any takers on a wager?

TAM:)

[Lisa Simpson]

I will wager good money the suit will go nowhere. Can you imagine the implications on freedom of speech that a ruling in his favor would have. Just not going to happen.

Any takers on a wager?

TAM:)

Since I know nothing about Australia's free speech laws, I will not take that wager.

[~enigma~]

I will wager good money the suit will go nowhere. Can you imagine the implications on freedom of speech that a ruling in his favor would have. Just not going to happen.

Any takers on a wager?

TAM:)
If nowhere includes the judges chambers where a hearty laugh will be heard OR the round file in the clerks office, I will gladly take your money.

[NoZed Avenger]

Think about it. Why do people always ask for ridiculous amounts in court cases? If you ask for 1000 in damages and you win you get 1000 dollars. If you ask for 50 million and you win you get something between 1000 and 50 million.

Well, to add another data point: how many $1,000 lawsuits do you see written up in the press?

If you don't allege the big numbers, it gets shuffled out of the paper very quickly.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, LashL practices in Canada. We haven't been annexed yet (unless They did it secretly).

The annexation of Canada doesn't begin until 2067, 200 years after Canadas independence from England. The annexation isn't formally finalized until 2076 (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Canada) near the end of the Oil War with China and the start of the 2 hour "Great War".

[T.A.M.]

Well, to add another data point: how many $1,000 lawsuits do you see written up in the press?

If you don't allege the big numbers, it gets shuffled out of the paper very quickly.

Yes and for that reason, SETTLING does not count as a win. For him to win, and for me to pony up TEN prized Canadian Loonies, He must make it to court.

TAM;)

[Magenta]

Some more on this case, or rather cases, with comment by a media lawyer.

Indie Defamation War: Nolan's discovery allowed, Smith's deferred (http://www.screenhub.com.au/news/shownewsarticleG.asp?newsID=28062)

A series of court decisions has created an Australian first, with independent filmmaker Jonathan [Nolan] (Pisces All Media) being granted permission to view ISP records that could identify the people who made allegedly defamatory posts on the ZGeek and Filmnet websites.

[...]

Sonia Borella, IT and Media partner with Holding Redlich (who is not involved in the case) confirmed that Jonathan Nolan's ... discovery order, which will force the Internet Service Providers hosting the two websites to hand over records that could identify the individuals posting the comments, was an Australian (and possibly world) first. "I'm not aware of any case where that's happened in terms of the internet in Australia, the action is usually taken against the person with the deepest pockets," she said.

A similar case in the UK, in 2006, forced Yahoo! to disclose the identity of Tracey Williams, who was being sued by Michael Keith Smith. Smith won his case, making it the first time that a British court had awarded damages for comments posted on an internet bulletin board, Borella said.

The Nolan case is more extensive, because it is seeking to discover multiple identities, in addition to suing the publishers.

[...]

Sonia Borella said that general publication law distinguishes between "who is the publisher and who is the author," and allowed plaintiffs to sue both. "The same principle applies to traditional media and new media, and that's where we're heading," she said.

The role of internet service providers was unclear, however. "The liability of ISPs in relation to infringements of law are unclear at the moment," she said, noting that the copyright case against iiNet was also doing discovery at the moment, although not in a defamation context, with the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft seeking to establish the identity of users under pseudonyms.

While the iiNet case is being fought out between behemoths (Telstra is supporting iiNet with legal advice), the Filmnet and ZGeek cases involve minnows, but could be equally important in setting legal precedent on whether ISP's can protect customer's identities, and the legal responsibilities of forum moderators.

[Brainache]

Since I know nothing about Australia's free speech laws, I will not take that wager.

I think we don't actually have any laws regarding free speech here. It is taken for granted that we have a right to free speech, but as far as I know (not very far really) it isn't enshrined in law.

I await correction.

[Travis]

I propose we sue 4chan for just about every insipid internet meme we have to deal with.

[psikeyhackr]

I'll be interested to see how far this gets and how someone who believes the WTC was nuked by Mossad will explain how his reputation was harmed.

Ditto

ROFL

psik

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I propose we sue 4chan for...


...the lulz. :p

:boxedin:

[Obviousman]

It seems the same person has been involved in a questionable attempt to have an "astronaut contest"

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/waste-of-space-how-astronaut-reality-show-hit-black-hole-20100412-s2z6.html

Edited to add:

Please be very careful what you say. As we have seen, this person has sued others for making statements on the internet regarding his activities.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the following link, but those interested may care to follow up on it:

http://echoesofapollo.com/2010/04/04/starwalker-show-the-international-scam/

[Zep]

Should have been fairly obvious it was a scam attempt (and a bad one at that). My BOGOSITY! alarm started clanging immediately I read about the Facebook stuff and the frivolous law suit. It stayed on solid when "the Russians" and "Russian astronaut trip" appeared.

I suspect this chap has now fled Australia just steps ahead of someone nabbing him for attempted fraud.

[KDLarsen]

Incidently, didn't the guy behind The Third Truth sign up on JREF recently?