Ellora’s Cave: Courtney Milan Pwns the Preposterous Peanut

[deirdre]

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/545585693854937089

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/547908089106931712

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/547769673631412224

Meanwhile, Pubnt Ignores the Question and Spouts The Following…

Here are some posts in between those where pubnt claimed to know the law:

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/545822568029380608

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546045446242967552

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546146352078802944

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546146540210114561

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546146788999458816

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546147511849988096

Note that Pubnt’s commenting about what Ellora’s Cave’s legal strategy on the DA case will be.

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546184797513871361

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546235731426172928

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546772476962037761

::cough::

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546774924250345473

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546779269834498049

“…the US constitutionalized the previously English libel law…”? That is a serious misreading of New York Times v. Sullivan. Courtney Milan talks about the case in this post on the EC lawsuit.

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546779462390788097

Again, a serious misreading of New York Times v. Sullivan. In the US, the person making the claim (i.e., the Plaintiff) has the burden of proof. Instead, what Sullivan did was change the standard of proof required. As the NY Times published on the 50th anniversary of the decision:

The ruling was revolutionary, because the court for the first time rejected virtually any attempt to squelch criticism of public officials—even if false—as antithetical to “the central meaning of the First Amendment.” Today, our understanding of freedom of the press comes in large part from the Sullivan case. Its core observations and principles remain unchallenged, even as the Internet has turned everyone into a worldwide publisher—capable of calling public officials instantly to account for their actions, and also of ruining reputations with the click of a mouse.

Pubnt’s Claim About When DA’s Article Was Published

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546777758853267457

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546778135858253824

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546778506206924800

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546780038398763008

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546780835635265538

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546785346957369344

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546786017421041664

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/546786435614113792

Pubnt’s claiming that EC had a bad transition period and DA’s article hit at the worst of that time, and unfairly exaggerated the situation. But that’s not what “reckless disregard” actually means in this context. From Sullivan:

Factual error, content defamatory of official reputation, or both, are insufficient to warrant an award of damages for false statements unless “actual malice”–knowledge that statements are false or in reckless disregard of the truth–is alleged and proved.

Let’s see:

1. Those editors who said they weren’t paid still say they’re not paid. Here’s one.

2. Authors are still claiming not to receive timely royalties. Here’s one. Here’s another.

Doesn’t look like either conscious falsity or reckless disregard of the truth from here.

Back to Pubnt’s Legal “Qualifications”

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/547767378726359040

Legal bloggers, huh? Sans blog.

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/547797856707686400

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/547798070562680832

And, my personal favorite, TinaNut’s fascination with dissing hybrid authors (including myself) and self-published people as “slush pilers,” especially given that Tina Engler was basically only self-published for years. In this tweet, Pubnt’s dissing Courtney Milan, who not only went to law school, she’s clerked with some pretty amazing people. Also, Courtney’s been on the New York Times Bestseller list, where Jaid Black/Tina Engler has not.

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/547907822147878913

Pubnt Finally Answers Courtney’s Question

http://twitter.com/pubnt/status/548688804736139264

Bzzt. Admittedly, I know more than the average person about that area of law, but even if I hadn’t, I’d have guessed it related to probate law (which isn’t entirely accurate, but it’s at least in the ballpark).

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/548692056684888064

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/548692301758103554

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/548692803573002240

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/548693248995524608

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/548693663782817793

http://twitter.com/courtneymilan/status/548694089420791808

Deirdre Surveys the Husband

Rick just woke up from a nap when I was starting to write this post, so I asked him Courtney’s question.

He gestured at the air a couple of times, and, within thirty seconds came up with “Rule Against Perpetuities.” Which is correct. Also, not bad for someone still half-asleep. Here’s the Wikipedia page about the scenario.

Oh, and Rick hasn’t gone to law school either.

Originally published at deirdre.net. You can comment here or there.