Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt

from the first-test-of-the-SPEECH-Act? dept

Here at Techdirt, unfortunately, we get an average of about one legal threat per month. The threats are almost always frivolous — and often made in anger without the individual realizing why the threats are frivolous. While some sites take the position that they will publish any and all legal threats, we have always tried to give the threatening party the benefit of the doubt, and to recognize that they made their demands in a moment of excess anger and misunderstanding. As such, we generally explain our position as to why any legal action would be a mistake — and in nearly every case, we never hear back from the person who threatened us.

However, we have recently received a legal threat that we feel deserves attention and airing for a variety of reasons.

  1. Unlike most threats, this one came directly from lawyers representing the individual, rather than from the individual directly.
  2. The threats are quite incredible, demanding that we shut down the entire site of Techdirt, due to a comment (or, potentially, comments) that the client did not like.
  3. The lawyer fails to identify, other than a single snippet and a date, what post or specific comments are objectionable and why (beyond a suggestion of anti-semitism, which while despicable, is not illegal). I guess, since they are demanding we shut down the entire site or be sued, such details are not considered pertinent.
  4. As we detail on this site on a somewhat regular basis, sites like ours are protected by Section 230 of the CDA from libel charges against statements made by users of the site. So any legal action against us is entirely pointless.
  5. Most importantly, this threat is coming from the UK, and the lawyers insist that they will take it to court in the UK. This makes it rather timely and newsworthy for an entirely different reason. Just a few weeks ago we wrote about the new SPEECH Act that was passed into law to protect against libel tourism. As the Congressional record shows, the law was specifically designed to protect US businesses from libel judgments that violate Section 230 — and the bill’s backers explicitly call out libel judgments made in the UK. In other words, the SPEECH Act explicitly protects us from exactly the sort of threat that these lawyers and their client are making against us:


    The purpose of this provision is to ensure that libel tourists do not attempt to chill speech by suing a third-party interactive computer service, rather than the actual author of the offending statement.

    In such circumstances, the service provider would likely take down the allegedly offending material rather than face a lawsuit. Providing immunity removes this unhealthy incentive to take down material under improper pressure.

  6. Separate from the Section 230 defenses, we are also protected due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, which, again, is supported by the recently passed SPEECH Act. It is entirely possible that the lawyers were unaware of the SPEECH Act, but it does seem like a law firm making legal threats in a foreign country should be expected to have researched the legal barriers to making such a claim before using billable hours to make threats they cannot back up.
  7. Finally, it’s important to note that a part of the SPEECH Act allows sites protected under this law to seek attorneys’ fees should they be targeted in such a lawsuit. Rest assured that we would explore the option to the fullest, if need be.

Separately, I will note that on the same day that I received the legal threat letter from this law firm of Addlestone Keane, I also received an email from someone claiming to be both a regular Techdirt reader and a friend of the client, Jeffrey Morris, saying that he was contacting me to ask if I could, out of the kindness of my heart, remove the comments that are bothering Mr. Morris. Of course, the paper threat letter sent by Mr. Morris’ lawyers was sent five days prior to this email from Mr. Morris’ friend. Our policy at Techdirt is that we do not remove comments on such requests, other than comments that we judge to be spam, so we would not have removed the comments, anyway. However, it is odd that Mr. Morris would first have his lawyers pull out the “nuclear option” and demand that we shut down our entire site, and then days later have a friend reach out to make a personal plea.

As such, given the newsworthy nature of an example of where the brand new law (thankfully) protects us, as well as the fact that we do not feel it is decent or right for anyone to demand we shut down our entire site or be sued halfway around the world, because he does not appreciate a comment someone made about him, we are publishing the letter that was sent to us. Thanks in part to the new law, we have no obligation to respond to Mr. Morris, his friend or the lawyers at Addlestone Keane, who (one would hope) will better advise their clients not to pursue such fruitless legal threats in the future. Should Mr. Morris and his solicitors decide that they wish to proceed with such a pointless and wasteful lawsuit against us, which will only serve to cost Mr. Morris significant legal sums with no hope of recovery, we will continue to report on it, safe in the knowledge that it has no bearing on us. The only potential issue I could foresee would be that any UK judgment against us could prevent me from traveling to the UK in the future, which would be unfortunate, as I have quite enjoyed past visits to the UK. But perhaps such ridiculous outcomes will help the UK realize that it’s really about time to update its incredibly outdated libel laws and begin respecting free speech rights.




While I don’t think it’s all that relevant to this discussion, for those who do want to see it, this is the post that the story is about. Even though the law firm failed to point it out, the friend’s email did link to it. You will note that the post is from 2004, though there are more recent comments on it, purporting to be from disgruntled former employees of Mr. Morris, which seem to be the concern. There are also, as noted in the legal threat letter, a series of bizarre, nonsensical comments in the same thread, which mostly make the thread somewhat unreadable. Frankly, I am always somewhat amazed when people get upset about situations like this. It seems quite unlikely that random, semi-coherent, anti-semitic comments, buried in a thread on a random blog post from six years ago are going to have any actual impact on your business. People say mean things, it’s true, but when put into context, who is actually likely to believe any such comments? People seem to think that if someone says something bad about you online, others will automatically believe it.

Instead of worrying about how people might view such marginal, buried, angry comments on an ancient blog post, it might make more sense to first consider how people might view an excessive legal threat that has no weight against a site based in another country.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: addlestone keane

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Legal Threat Demands We Shut Down Techdirt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
234 Comments

Re: Re: Streisand Effect

“Mr. Morris; you might want to sue your legal team, they are obviously uneducated.”

Who would he hire to sue his own legal team? That same team? That’d be priceless….

But seriously, that whole thread was an abortion. Two things stood out to me:

1. There are a shit ton of mindless dolts who think that posting Christian scripture randomly to blog posts is apparently doing God’s work spreading the word. They are wrong. God hates them. He told me so while we were watching The Shield together. He also hates marshmellows and people who use the word, “Dude”. Damn God is picky….

2. The anti-semetic remarks in that thread were some of the most benign I’ve ever seen referred to as anti-semetic. I hate bigotry as much as the next person, but you don’t attack it by finding the mot weak examples and attacking them. Hell, go after Nazi websites if you think you can get away with this. Some guy saying you take care of your Jewish workers before the other? What boss hasn’t been accused of favoritism before?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect

“So you hate mindless dolt Christians and you also hate bigotry. Oh the irony.”

Nice try, but a fail. I said I hated mindless dolts who randomly post Christian scripture to blogs. I do NOT hate Christians as a rule (here’s a hint, I’m Christian by tradition….), therefore, not bigoted.

Or are you actually trying to defend these scripture posters?

John Doesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect

I am not defending them but I won’t criticize them either. I am sure most of their posts fall on deaf ears or eyes as the case may be, but so what?

If you are a Christian, why do you care if they do it or not? You should understand that you cannot save anyone and you also cannot send anyone to hell.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect

” I am sure most of their posts fall on deaf ears or eyes as the case may be, but so what?”

So it’s annoying and of no use to anyone at all. I was trying for a funny way to point out my distaste. Why bother taking false offense at it?

“If you are a Christian, why do you care if they do it or not?”

Er, BECAUSE I’m Christian I don’t like them putting those of us that are reasonable in our faith (which, in my experience, is the vast majority of Christians and other religious groups) in a negative light by being spammy pole-smokers. I’m not trying to save anyone and I generally don’t offer my views on faith w/o the subject already being open or unless I’m asked.

Not sure exactly what the problem is here….

TtfnJohnsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect

I care, as a Christian, for the simple reason that yarding a quote from the Bible to make a point, completely out of context, is a dangerous caricature of our faith. It’s the context, in the vast majority of cases, that matters and defines the quotation.

It’s not far wrong to say that you can make any point you want, no matter how wrong it is, by grabbing an isolated quote out of the Bible.

That’s also true of any faith’s holy works, by the way. Or any philosopher worth quoting.

As you say, with most of them it falls on deaf ears when pointed out to the offenders but it’s others I’d like to educate that what is being said, and justified, is simply and purely wrong.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect

Your point was “My belief/book is precious and you shouldn’t take it out of context.”

The reality: “Few take it out of context, because there are entire chapters that are downright silly banter babbletalk. You always have the New Testament to fall back on!”

Or did you think you were enlightening us with something novel in the way the bible teaches us? Hell, I see preachers CONSTANTLY cite a line or two out of their own book and then lecture from that single line on how to act from it.

intervalsays:

Re: Re: Re: Streisand Effect

@Our Dark Helmet: “The anti-semetic remarks in that thread were some of the most benign I’ve ever seen referred to as anti-semetic.”

No kidding. I had to read the passage twice, and that was after wading through some Xtian spammer post that looked like he’s using TechDirt buffer space to store an online bible. It looks like an attempt at some kind of goofy smear job because the offending remarks are actually praising Morris for treating his Jewish workers better than his (presumably) gentile ones, or something…

I started laughing though when I read the part where the lawyers are saying something about (I paraphrase) “as soon as we get a judgment then the almighty legal forces of the United States will be set upon you so you had best tremble with fear…”

Haw! That’s comedy gold right there.

caksays:

Re: Streisand Effect

I don’t think they are at all concerned about what you or anyone else here thinks about Jackass Morris.

However, they are worried about anyone searching his name. That is why they want the comment removed, so that his name is no longer linked to this article. Perhaps he has gone legit now, perhaps he is having trouble conning other people.

This is obvious, is it not?

Hephaestussays:

Re:

I was thinking the same thing. RIAA for pointing out how useless they were, or ASCAP for defending the EFF, or that Australian collection agency for pointing out people had choices in CC and the like, or …

(20 minutes and 50 acronyms later)

… but it ends up being some dumbass brit with his panties in a bunch. Go figure.

Lawyers are what clueless rich people resort to

…because they think they’ll get results. And also because they don’t understand the internet. I’m sure whatever just-out-of-lawschool associate they forced to draft that letter was cringing the whole time.

I received a letter like this once. My own lawyer bounced it back with a “see you in court.” Then the sending lawyer said to my lawyer “look, between you and me, please just send me a response in order to satisfy the person who is threatening you.” That’s when I realized what a charade it all was…

Of course it never went to court.

JCsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You must be German, they all say that.

When I was in high school we had a German foreign exchange student. We were discussing WW2 when out of no where she starts yelling about Hitler being Austrian. She got so worked up that the teacher had to take her out of the classroom and the only thing I could think was “if she can be that crazy in a history lesson no wonder the Germans were crazy enough to …”

cradesays:

Re: Re:

Dude, I totally did this! (Well, I used ‘/’ instead of ctrl-F, but you get the point)
All I saw was someone claiming this Morris dude is prejudiced and is biased towards jewish people. Not exactly anti-semetic since it’s just about this Morris guy being a dick, not generalizing or anything. And also a bunch of copy and pasted spam messages.

Morons rather than Machiavelli

At least it looks like it’s morons demanding your lighthouse move out of their way rather than Machiavellian manoeuvres to extinguish your light.

Then again, who knows? The ‘libel’ could have been deliberately planted as a future option for plug-pulling (without raising suspicion it was on behalf of an unrelated party).

Either way, anachronistic privileges such as copyright and patent must be abolished, and laws designed for the wealthy and famous such as libel and trademark need major reform. There is no right to a reputation, only not to be deceived or defrauded.

Anonymoussays:

“As such, given the newsworthy nature of an example of where the brand new law (thankfully) protects us, as well as the fact that we do not feel it is decent or right for anyone to demand we shut down our entire site or be sued halfway around the world, because he does not appreciate a comment someone made about him, we are publishing the letter that was sent to us.”

You mean you’re not selling it on eBay?

BearGriz72says:

Re: Re: Um...

What surprised me (along with the wholesale spamification of the bible passages and other book long ‘comments’ having nothing to do with the article), is why the hell is a 6 year old article that has little to do with anything current getting all this attention (comments) in the last few months?

Unless as was previously suggested, somebody is trying to hijack the space/bandwidth to store an online bible. Seems like kind of a stupid way to go about it though, jacking old blog posts.

Re: Re: Re: Um...

It’s those old comments turning up in Google that someone doesn’t want to turn up in Google.

Consider it a crude attempt at ‘reverse SEO’.

1) Post some libel in order to take it down.
2) Threaten litigation.
3) Try asking nicely.
4) Post some copyright infringing material
5) Report a DMCA violation to the ISP for instant takedown
6) Post something from WikiLeaks that the CIA wishes to stamp out
7) What next?

These tactics are from the Al Capone school of diplomacy: “You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.?

cradesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...

No, I remember distinctly, Canada was hanging around minding our own business, and someone invaded, causing us to go to war to defend against the invasion.

Britain was off doin whatever brits like to do over there in Europe (trying to stop Napolean I think), so they basically said “yeah your on your own with that whole U.S. invasion thing”, and we were like “wtf, you guys suck, if we manage to fend off the U.S., we are gunny be looking make our own country”

TtfnJohnsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Um...

Also some attrative girl with an anglo name saw poorly dressed Yankee tourists come across the border heading for Montreal. All packing heat.

One of the few things the anglos and French of that time agreed on is that neither wanted to join the United States.

The girl in question went on to establish a fantastically successful chocolate company. Laura Secord. πŸ™‚

Jessicasays:

Re: Um...

The comment specifically mentioned in the take down letter was posted in April of 2010. So more like 4 months. He seems to be basically peeved that when people Google him… they don’t get the pretty picture he commissioned to be painted. Instead they get this… which he has no control over. Whiner….

Anonymoussays:

Ok, all those comments are tl;dr (specially when they start putting songs and weird christian stuff). Someone here that actually read the antisemitic comments care to repost (or link to the comments directly)? Also, who in their right mind will mind about that discussion? It gets really difficult to follow really fast.

BearGriz72says:

Re:

In regards to your request to repost/link to the comments, I am just guessing here, but I think it is this one.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20041001/0941211#c1102
I get paid 30k a year to get slapped about like a whore by jeffery. Who only looks after his own ‘jewish’ workers. the rest treated like shite.

Possibly this one as well, but I’m not sure.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20041001/0941211#c1653
As an aside, there was a report of an event which one of his siblings attended in London for the well to do Jewish fraternity. 1000 people attended and raised a grand total of ?3000 for charity! wow very generous- they probably spent more on parking than that.

Honestly like DH saidThe anti-semetic remarks in that thread were some of the most benign I’ve ever seen referred to as anti-semetic.” so I could see how they would be hard to find.

DearMrMillersays:

UK Libel Laws.

Sock it to ’em Mike.

The libels laws here in the UK suck ass preventing any form of factual criticism of entities and corporations such as this for fear of unfounded reprisals and lawsuits. Even completely unemotional and factual presentation of information could potentially force one into court where you have to prove your innocence. A woeful situation for anyone wanting to speak out.

Re:

The blog post and all the comments were made before the SPEECH Act was signed into law. Are you sure the Act protects you?

The law concerns legal judgments. Any legal judgment on this would occur after the law was passed. Thus, we are protected. Of course, even without the law, there would be a problem enforcing this due to lack of jurisdiction, but the new law just makes it that much clearer.

FYI, we also had two well regarded lawyers in this particular field review this response before posting it, and both were emphatic that we are clearly protected, and this is exactly what the new law protects.

Davesays:

Streisand Effect

Wow, what you seem to be getting is standard lawyer procedure. Issue a threat intended to scare you, and then get the “good cop” to ask politely. They hope to have softened you up into capitulating. Then they don’t have to spend any more time or money, and they will have won. How transparent, and how totally stupid.

These shysters are the same, whatever country they come from.

Maybe everybody here should reprint the “offensive” part elsewhere, that would be quite amusing, and give them the Streisand Effect that they richly deserve!

darrylsays:

New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

what about “the crime’ being committed before this new “yanks are allowed to say what they like” laws that have recently been introduced.

Im sure that new law will not be retroactive..

BTW: do you know how stupid that new law sounds to anyone who is not American. What are you saying ? if you are in America you can say what you like about anyone else, or anything else because of your “free speech” thing ?

WOW, talk about ego’s !!

The US is internationally on the nose anyway, I suppose this could not make things much worse..

Also the US being able to say what they like to other countries or people, is a US LAW.

If your web page is available in the UK, you are acting under UK law, so you might only get blocked to the UK.

But it would be fun, and interesting to see it tested in court. Under UK law !!

You refused to take down this post, and you wonder why he took it further !!. What is there to wonder about, what other choices did he have.

As for racist comments, you should be able to remove offending material, and take a little responsibility for your posts. And you would be surprised at what some people will believe, or mabey not, as you say some ‘off the wall’ stuff yourself, that is often ‘believed’ by your followers.

Those who do not wish to think and enquire for themselves.

And allthough you say you will not remover posts when asked, you will certainly remove posts that you dont like yourself. Double standards ?

(or will this post also be removed because you dont agree?).

But using the Constitution as your took to be an international bully and mouth, is not a good look for the US. Considering their (your) track record over the past 10 or so years.

So its ok to use the constatution for your own gains, but when it comes to Muslum community centre near the 911 site, you quickly want to forget that prized constatution to get your own way..

US law is not internation law, and the US are not the police governing system for the planet.

So why expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws, if you will not abide by their laws.

And if you are in the WEB in the UK are ARE IN THE UK, and subject to UK law.
(they might extradite you for a freebee trip the london!!,, but not to see the Queen..).. πŸ™‚

RadialSkidsays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

Mike didn’t break the laws of the country he operated in, so therefore he can’t be punished in a nation that he doesn’t operate in. What’s so hard to comprehend?

Do you think anyone who operates a pornographic site should be prosecuted in Iran, since such material likely breaks the law there?

DanGsays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

“And if you are in the WEB in the UK are ARE IN THE UK, and subject to UK law.”

Do you even know how the Internet works? He’s (presumably) hosting this page on a webserver in the US. Why should he have to conform to dumb laws in other countries? If other countries don’t like what they see on the web then they should stop accessing outside servers (like China — not that I endorse that option at all, it’s just the only one that makes sense).

TtfnJohnsays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

I know this is utterly pointless BUT do you know a damned thing about International Law, English Common Law (not the same as Scottish Common Law by the way), the legislative process in the United States, the UK or anywhere else?

There are many things that this Canuck finds uncomfortable about things like US Foreign policy, over reaction to any number of things, it’s belief that it’s blessed about all states and so on. That doesn’t blind me to the fact that the United States Constitution is a seminal document in the development of freedom and liberty not only in the USA but in Canada, England, Scotland and globally on a par with Magna Charta and the battle that established that the legislature (Commons) not the government controlled the purse strings of a nation.

I hear your nurse coming in to put your straight jacket on now so we’ll get some rest from your lunacy.

'lanthirassays:

Re: Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

“OK asshole. We invented the internet and we can take it back. See where that gets you!”

He may be an asshole and yes, americans invented the iwebs but what I am curious about is how you’re planning to ‘take’ internet back? Sure, you can shut it down but that will only shut it down for the US and leave the other 96% of the world mostly unaffected. And ofc there are a few vital functions that the iwebs need that are located in the US and it’ll take a few days for the backups to get online during witch time the world might experience some slowdowns but that’s about it πŸ™‚

Anonymoussays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

Is it really that difficult to understand that us “yanks” and our “free speech thing” is an integral part of why America was founded?

You go ahead and keep being proud of your society that takes away your freedoms. I’ll take my U.S. Constitution any day over the Tyranny that you so happily accept.

Damiansays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

So Mike doesn’t have to bother with you, I’m gonna respond for him.

“or will this post also be removed because you dont agree?).”
Techdirt only remove spam posts. There have been countless comments that Masnick doesn’t agree with, but he doesn’t delete them: instead, he’ll more than likely respond.

“You refused to take down this post, and you wonder why he took it further !!. What is there to wonder about, what other choices did he have.” Mike has already stated why he didn’t take it down, he has no legal obligation to do so.

“And allthough you say you will not remover posts when asked, you will certainly remove posts that you dont like yourself. Double standards ?” Again, Techdirt only remove spam and he doesn’t remove posts he doesn’t like.

“So its ok to use the constatution for your own gains, but when it comes to Muslum community centre near the 911 site, you quickly want to forget that prized constatution to get your own way.. ” Emm, what are you talking about? As far I know, Techdirt haven’t done an article on that topic, and I don’t think it will, since it has nothing to do with technology, law or any of the other pertinent topics Techdirt like to write about.

“US law is not internation law, and the US are not the police governing system for the planet.

So why expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws, if you will not abide by their laws.” Look up ACTA on this site, and read Masnick’s many posts on it. It’s basically an attempt to extend US copyright law around the world, which Masnick is against. So I don’t know why you’re complaining about this.

“And if you are in the WEB in the UK are ARE IN THE UK, and subject to UK law.” By your logic, if I write the following sentence ‘Islam is a shite religion and all who follow it are idiots’ and someone in Saudi Arabia reads it online, then I must be subject to Saudi law, and be put to death, for dishonouring Islam. Masnick and Techdirt are based in the US. Techdirt is served from a US server. Sure, Britain can block it, if the site is deemed illegal, (which it hasn’t) and again, as Masnick quoted, he is protected by both US and UK laws against cases such as this. So either UK law doesn’t apply, and he’s protected, or UK law does apply, and he’s protected again anyway.

“As for racist comments, you should be able to remove offending material, and take a little responsibility for your posts.” Masnick has no responsibility for posts here. Technically, he doesn’t even have to remove spam, but does so. Racist comments are the fault of whoever writes them. Oh, and watch this clip of Penn and Teller
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPhje8wepyg&feature=related

You do not have a right not to be offended. As P & T, say, if material offends you, get away from it. As a non-theist, I’m offended by religions claimning to be the One Truth, and the path to God. But I don’t go out and say they can’t write about it anymore.

Anonymoussays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

The Crime in question is a fraudulent lawsuit in a foreign country.

Jeff the Morris Dancer had better develop a thicker skin or a deeper pocket to pay all those legal types unprincipled enough to take his money for a suit they know they can’t possibly recover anything from.

romeosidvicioussays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

what about “the crime’ being committed before this new “yanks are allowed to say what they like” laws that have recently been introduced.

Im sure that new law will not be retroactive..

BTW: do you know how stupid that new law sounds to anyone who is not American. What are you saying ? if you are in America you can say what you like about anyone else, or anything else because of your “free speech” thing ?

WOW, talk about ego’s !!

Firstly the new law applies to lawsuits and not content so it covers this threat of a lawsuit regardless of the age of the post or comment in question.

Secondly you apparently do not understand U.S. law regarding free speech. You can say anything at any time about anything with few restrictions. If the things you are saying could be damaging, and the offended party must be able to prove damages, then you may cross the line into libel or slander depending on the medium however if the statements made are true then you have a defense. If what you say is opinion and not represented as fact you also have a defense against lawsuits. There are other situations but they don’t apply here. In fact the two situations mentioned don’t apply here because Mike did not say the things that have offended Mr. Morris. The things in question were said by posters on this website and Mike is protected from liability for comments made on the site by U.S. law which is one thing that makes this lawsuit laughable. The new law to which Mike refers only aims to keep U.S. citizens from having their rights violated by foreign laws.

The US is internationally on the nose anyway, I suppose this could not make things much worse..

Also the US being able to say what they like to other countries or people, is a US LAW.

If your web page is available in the UK, you are acting under UK law, so you might only get blocked to the UK.

But it would be fun, and interesting to see it tested in court. Under UK law !!

You are dead wrong on your statement that if your webpage is available in the UK then you are subject to UK law. Jurisdiction depends on where the server is physically located which, in this case, is in the U.S. so British law does not apply to Mike’s site. The only enforceable judgement, provided Mike doesn’t travel to the UK, is the site being blocked in the UK which I am not sure happens anyway. The UK has absolutely no right to try and apply its laws to citizens of the United States who are operating legally and physically inside of the U.S. and you speak of the arrogance of Americans? For the UK to think they can apply their laws to citizens outside of their country is much more arrogant than US citizens practicing their right to free speech.

You refused to take down this post, and you wonder why he took it further !!. What is there to wonder about, what other choices did he have.

He could have gone after the actual culpable parties which are the people that made the posts. Mike is not legally responsible for the posts made by others on Techdirt. You may be used to living without freedom or protection of speech but here in the US we take that sort of thing seriously. Attempts could have been made prior to the threat of a lawsuit which Mike clearly states was the first action. Mr. Morris’s attorneys decided that attempting to file suit without any way to enforcement a judgement would be a good first step. There were other options.

As for racist comments, you should be able to remove offending material, and take a little responsibility for your posts. And you would be surprised at what some people will believe, or mabey not, as you say some ‘off the wall’ stuff yourself, that is often ‘believed’ by your followers.

Those who do not wish to think and enquire for themselves.

And allthough you say you will not remover posts when asked, you will certainly remove posts that you dont like yourself. Double standards ?

Have you read any of the comments on the years old post to which this threat is related. The “racist” comments are comments accusing Mr. Morris of giving preference to Jewish employees. The only racism in the thread is accusations thereof. And furthermore why should Mike take them down? Isn’t it better to address filth like racism, or accusations of racism, in public where refutation can occur or is it preferable to sweep it under the rug? Mike is taking responsibility for his posts he is just not, nor is he required to, take responsibility for other’s comments on his posts. And Mike doesn’t remove posts he doesn’t like he removes spam which is another matter entirely. There are tons of posts which disagree with Mike all over this site and some of them are quite well thought out and well reasoned but they still stand. It’s just a guess but I predict your idiotic post will stay just like all the rest all over the site.

But using the Constitution as your took to be an international bully and mouth, is not a good look for the US. Considering their (your) track record over the past 10 or so years.

Constitutional freedoms are why the US has a less than stellar international reputation. In fact some of the reasons can be argued to be a violation of the very same. We have had some bad leaders and that’s not debatable but whatever the idiots in Washington do or look like no foreign government is allowed to trample on the rights of US citizens and we just passed another law to make sure of it. Sorry if that offends you. Ok I am not sorry but it sounded good at the time.

So its ok to use the constatution for your own gains, but when it comes to Muslum community centre near the 911 site, you quickly want to forget that prized constatution to get your own way..

I don’t see anyone in the US government threatening to pass laws to prevent the mosque from being built. What you see if public outcry which is well within the rights of the people. You can say what you want but I have the right call you on your bullshit. Just like the folks wanting to build a mosque have a right to build it anywhere they own land, depending on zoning which I think is stupid anyway, I have the right to tell them they are being inconsiderate assholes for building it where they are. Neither of us has violated the rights of the other. They offend me by building where they want to build but I would take up arms if the federal government told them they couldn’t but until that happens I’ll keep calling them assholes and hoping they build somewhere else. You apparently have no grasp of how freedom actually works.

US law is not internation law, and the US are not the police governing system for the planet.

You are right. And British law is not international law and the British are not the governing system for the planet which is why the US passed laws protecting its citizens from being subject to oppressive laws from other countries. The British don’t get to come and enforce their laws on Americans. If you think they can and can get away with just look at the history of the United States. They did it once and we are still making sure no-one else can do it again. Of course our own leaders are whittling away our rights but that’s another story.

So why expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws, if you will not abide by their laws.

We don’t expect the rest of the world to abide by our laws. We expect them to respect our laws on our soil which is all this hoopla is about. Some British twat has threatened an American with British law to which he is not subject and now we are laughing at the British twat.

(they might extradite you for a freebee trip the london!!,, but not to see the Queen..).. πŸ™‚

You are wrong about jurisdiction here. Mike is US citizen and the server is in the US which makes him subject only to US law. The US government wouldn’t allow British laws to be enforced in the US for something that is perfectly legal in the US and happened in US jurisdiction and to even think for a second they would allow an extradition based on a case like this is lunacy.

I know I am not supposed to feed the trolls but I couldn’t help it this time…

Niallsays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

This is nothing to do with US law/arrogance taking over the world. That’s a whole ‘nother world of arguments (ACTA?). What it is, is about a stupid over-reaching British law that is massively abused within the UK and stupendously abused outside it. You’ve got it so backward – here is about BRITISH law being over-reaching and arrogant “OMGZ someone in Britain MIGHT have read this drivel, quick let’s sue them no matter where in the world they are!”

Whilst I despise the US’s cowardly avoidance of international norms (minefield treaties, international criminal responsibility), this law makes complete sense given the stupid, biased laws and countries out there. It’s embarrassing that the UK is one of the causes of this law being necessary, rather than some tinpot dictatorship.

There is also the over-reaction idiocy – why remove the entire site? That’s like blocking the entire News of the World because they ‘libel’ one person…. waiiiiit πŸ˜‰

Ceseuronsays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

TechDirt is based in the United States and is NOT subject to UK Law. Furthermore, I think it will be unlikely in the most extreme sense of the word that the UK will extradite any of TechDirt’s owners, members, or affiliates over what amounts to nothing more than one ignorant blowhard getting his feathers ruffled over a six year old blog post.

Your asinine conclusion that TechDirt is subject to UK law because it’s accessible via the Web shows you have absolutely no education in any form of law, UK or US or otherwise. I recommend you at least make some feeble attempt at even the most minimal research on the subject of law in both your own country and the US before you open your mouth and make a fool out of yourself. Thus far, all you’ve managed to prove is that you’re basically a European version of Jack Thompson, without the law degree…

Anonymoussays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

You have absolutely zero knowledge of international law, right?

“If your web page is available in the UK, you are acting under UK law,”

No—— There is actually no consent to jurisdiction when citizens of another country reach out into the US to access a US based server, but why spoil a good anti-US rant with legal realities?

aukxsonasays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

LMAO LMAO this is funny. Do you seriously believe this crap you type? Using our Constitution doesn’t look good for the US considering our track record?

1.) THIS is a US based business. Sure they can block it and may be prevent him from entering the country (UK)… that’s it. Our courts would laugh at the very idea of this suit. I think we went to war to not have to deal with British arse holes. It would be well received to snub UK courts in this fashion over a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. Then they would fine the bringer for “spurious” law suits. They did that recently to another panty waste here in the US over a similar whiny ass problem.

2.) As far as extradition… you’re funny. We have not extradited over an internet libel case EVER. Keep dreaming. He is not a subject of the Queen, nor subject to UK law. HE pays US taxes, and as such has only the expectation to follow US law. As such, suck it up…you’re getting jack. I know people that would lay down their life to ensure it too. Our ancestors did, and we sure as fuck will too.

As far as the Mosque, our government fought FOR the Mosque, but our people are not for it. That is not a legal question, but rather a moral one. Legally the Mosque has the right, morally and sensitivities wise…yeah not gonna make friends anytime soon. In fact, I think it’s pissing the people off frankly. That doesn’t mean we are wrong, in fact the system is WORKING as the government is protecting the rights of the Mosque to build. But I can’t guarantee the owners will be happy once they succeed, because well violence is already happening. My personal opinion, they are jerks… and once we have a Memorial to ALL that fell regardless of religion, no religion should be represented.

That’s right, US is NOT international law, and neither is the fucking UK. Since it’s our home boy, having a site on our soil, it’s our fucking law. Deal with it.

As far as the web operation in the UK etc… we have laws against selling prescription drugs, but we bend it for your British sites that sell them to US customers without prescription, so STFU. Should we start extraditing every pharmacy in the UK that doesn’t have a script from a US doctor for their US patients? Oh this could get uglier actually. May be we should round up your extremists and GITMO them, since we aren’t at war with the UK it isn’t a “prisoner of war” issue…and it will get rid of some radical elements in the world.

Anonymoussays:

Re: New law but old crime.. its not going to protect you..

  1. At first I thought that you were just ignorant but I’ve come to another conclusion and won’t make any statements on your intelligence.
  2. They, as Americans, can say what whatever they like in their country.
  3. While it is true that this website is available in the UK, it is still a US website and subject to US law.
  4. As for him not taking down the post… thank goodness he doesn’t have to answer to the whim of every person he’s annoyed over the years.
  5. If you have shady business practices and a website points them out, try changing your business practices, not suing them so others don’t find out about it. (Yay for free speech).
  6. You say they use the constitution to their own gains, and point out the plight of the Muslims building a center in NY near the terrorists attacks. What you fail to realize is that it is a minority of people making a stink, and it is gaining as much media attention in the US in favor of building the center. Such is the beauty of the American process — some people might object to something, but it will be found without merit, and the few religious/old/backwards people that are making a stink will have to shut up and color.
  7. As far as thinking people of the US “expect the rest of the world to abide by your laws” once again you clearly misunderstand the law. The law forces no one to abide by theirs, but protects US citizens from the laws of other countries. If you don’t like the website avoid it, or if there is a legitimate problem a government can blacklist it.
  8. The more I read this the more baffled I get over your reasoning. If make a website that offends an English businessman I will not be sent to England to face charges. Likewise if I make a website that offends a Muslim government (pictures of Mohamed anyone?) I will not have to face such a silly charge.

    If you are a troll, then you are a troll of epic proportion and I bid you good day.

Free Capitalistsays:

Jeffrey Morris, The Loser

Jeffrey Morris, The Almighty has a message he wants you to deliver to the people of the Internet:

Thou Shalt Not Google Thyself
(nor thy neighbor’s wife, nor his oxen, nor his neighbor’s smart-phone)

Vanity, not curiosity, killed the cat.

I have no idea who Jeffrey Morris is, but all the readings I’m getting point to “Jeffrey Morris is a fucking tosser”.

Re: Jeffrey Morris, The Loser

I googled myself once. I found some cool stuff: my own blog, my old high school volleyball statistics/records, some old articles covering my team.

But then there were a bunch of links claiming (ironically in this thread) that I was part of a Jewish banker conspiracy aimed at overthrowing sovereign governments and installing a world government plutocracy.

It took me a while to figure out that my name and pronunciation is close to Timothy Geithner….

Simonsays:

Response...

Dear Addlestone Keane

We are very excited that your client wishes to participate in our CwF+RtB program.

Unfortunately we are unable to process the order at this time as you appear to omitted payment.

Please review the details at http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=100000000 and send a cheque for $1M USD. Upon clearance of the funds, we will happily proceed with closing techdirt.com for a year.

Sincerely

MM

TtfnJohnsays:

I went to the original post linked to have a quick look at the comments that so upset Morris and decided not to when met with a number in the hundreds.

No wonder it took six years to find them!

Any bets that within a day or two all I’ll have to look for on Google are Jeffery Morris and Techdirt and every one of them will be linked?

Quite beyond the painfully obvious stupidity as noted by Mike it seems libel trolls are about as stupid as the copyright/patent trolls we encounter here. Maybe more so.

Anonymoussays:

is this the Addlestone Keane that raped his children and then sold or traded them to carpet dealers for CHILD PORN? Or is this the Addlestone Keane that killed 20 nuns in a fit of cocaine rage? Or is this the Addlestone Keane that was rated the worst lawyer in modern times? I’m not sure, but someone told me never ever to use something called an Addlestone Keane ever. Is this the same Addlestone Keane? I will have to ask my friend Streisand to see if this is true, especially about the Jews!!!

Dlang123says:

Good thing they don't have Reputation Defender

If he had Reputation Defender, they remove unflattering info from the internet….

Is this the dumbest company you have ever heard of or what? Constant commercials on satellite radio.. my first thoughts were are people dumb enough to fall for this? Then I realized, heck, I’m paying for radio.. so I guess yes.

ECAsays:

Lets see.

As with TV in the past, it was a suggestion..IF you dont like whats ON, turn the channel.
I wonder HOW he found it? He looked up his own name randomly? And found it?
This is as bad as Channel changing, and finding a SHOW you dont like. CHANGE the channel.

I would also suggest an IDEA..
Send a request for a Flight ticket to goto the Judgment. Make it 2 way. Or at least request it from the Judge.
It should not be on YOUR HEAD, to get to England.
Get a free trip.

Anonymoussays:

I think more interesting is this law firm now has a permanent record of “false accusation” on its hands. Eventually this may end up as the #1 hit for a google search for this firm’s name, which may have long-term ramifications for future clients, even current clients may reconsider.

Clients, if you are reading this, seriously think hard if you want a firm that ruined their clients reputation representing you in the future.

DMCA coming soon

Given this “Post anti-Semitic comments, then sue” shot has failed to remove the defamatory material that is the real objective, I suspect that the Tom Jones lyrics may well be used as the subject of a DMCA take down – as the next strategy.

Perhaps it’s already been tried and failed? I suppose it’s a simple matter to delete the comment.

Of course, there is a strategy that even Mike will agree has a good chance of shutting TechDirt down for at least a year, and that’s the CwF+RtB sanction. No-one’s had deep enough pockets to go for it yet…

Tannersays:

I feel bad for you poor people

I feel very bad for those in other countries. I didn’t realize that in Australia it is illegal to speak again the queen. Serious that is such crap. I really do value the first amendment and the constitution as it specifically allows you to speak against the government. In the UK you can’t speak against a persons religion. I really do feel bad for you guys. I would have been in jail like 8 times just today. Whooopse.

johnsays:

The UK is free to do what it wants in the UK; the SPEECH Act means that the US doesn’t have to help them–that is, it won’t enforce UK judgments.

The issue of whether a country has jurisdiction over something is up to that country to decide. There are principles of international law, but national courts and legislatures decide in the end the extent of their own jurisdiction.

Even operating under the fiction that international law is “real,” while international law hasn’t kept up with the web, but I’m pretty sure that every county does have “jurisdiction” over a website to the extent that a website is accessible in its country, and it can even issue jail sentences to the operators of websites that are located in foreign countries. This is what Italy just did to the Google execs.

But no other country has to pay any attention to that. It’s like declaring yourself emperor of your cubicle.

NullOpsays:

Opinion

Much to the dislike of the small minded people in the world, people have and, by law, are allowed to have opinions. In some countries it is even legal to state your opinion in writing. I guess some would like to live in a country much like old Iraq where stating an opinion could easily get you jailed if not killed. Mostly the mini-minds just want THEIR opinions honored because yours are obviously wrong. I suspect whoever threatened TechDirt wanted to throw out their concern and instantly have TechDirt comply with their wishes as they have a lawyer to speak for them. Obviously this person has NO awareness of the law! Laws are often enacted to keep the frivolous among us contained!

Anonymoussays:

Let’s assume this lawsuit has an ulterior motive. Anyone who reads Techdirt knows of the streisand effect (in fact, if you start to type in ‘streisand’ in google, it suggest the effect before it even suggests her). This lawsuit obviously has zero chance of succeeding in any respect. But it very obviously was going to result in a post and draw a lot of attention to the individual, or more importantly to the brand new law.

But sadly, Occam’s razor usually helps dumb people cut themselves so face value it is!

Anonymoussays:

what about “the crime’ being committed before this new “yanks are allowed to say what they like” laws that have recently been introduced.

Im sure that new law will not be retroactive..

BTW: do you know how stupid that new law sounds to anyone who is not American. What are you saying ? if you are in America you can say what you like about anyone else, or anything else because of your “free speech” thing ?

WOW, talk about ego’s !!

I’m pretty sure most of the comments in question were posted by Brits.

But thanks for playing.

John Collinssays:

Addlestone Keane

They don’t have a website or one that works anyhow. If you look at their offices on Google Earth it’s clearly a tiny firm in rented offices alongside several other firms without even their nameplate on the door.

The libel lawyers all hang out in London.

These people aren’t worth any time being spent on them as far as I can see.

Mattsays:

UK Libel Laws

As a resident of the UK, can I just take a moment to apologise for our absolutely preposterous libel laws. They are, frankly, a joke, and I commend the fact you’ve passed laws to protect yourselves from them. They’re simply an unruly beast the government after government has failed to curb. Good luck with giving this particular complaint the finger.

Annoyed Readersays:

The world is full of stupid people

It’s always amusing when people pitch a bitch fit about something someone said on the internet. Especially when it’s something few people have seen and/or know about. Getting your knickers all in a bunch and demanding the shut down of a website or you’ll sue only draws attention, All you are doing Mr. Morris is bringing attention to an otherwise hardly noticed comment on a 6 year old thread, Happy now?

Not sure about this, but if they initiate legal proceedings in the UK.. no matter how misguided and unattainable under the new SPEECH Act, since they think they can do whatever they normally anyway, could you perchance have a counter claim under the Californian Anti-SLAP act?

Could be one of those “short sharp shock” (or “slap up the backside of the head”) moments for the UK libel solicitors/industry that they so surely need at the moment.

Though looking at what Mr J Morris allegedly does you might leave yourself open for a whole lot of SPAM, that is unless you have the secure Leak proof and Spam proof [tries not to laugh] email system they were flogging off years ago that even got talked about in the Grokster case

freddy b chopssays:

this site is just like slapshod slasdot

Really this site is ALMOST as dumb assed as Slashdot itself it is full of biggoted yanks that spend all day playing five knuckle shuffle without the first idea .
That so called SPEECH act is a load of baloney designed to allow loud mouthed yanks to say what the hell they want and THINK they can get away with it , Well i got news for ya open your gob wide and step outside the usa see how long you last before you are rotting in some deep dark crap hole i can guarentee it wont be long that goes for all of you right up to the pres super power my aunt fanny micro dick more like that why all the viagra adds are yank based you need them

Anonymoussays:

Those here who choose to post comments that mock the plaintiff using potentially defamatory statements should bear in mind that they do not enjoy the protection of Section 230. This protection extends to the service provider, and not commenters. They would be wise to more carefully measure their words, and techdirt is wise not commenting on their comments. Otherwise, it could place techdirt is a position that could deny it 230’s safe harbor.

The so-called Speech Act does not give me much comfort since it has no track history before the courts. It is ripe for challenge on various consitutional grounds where the likely outcome is anything but certain, not the least of which are principles of Federalism and the associated doctrine of “federal preemption” of state action.

The same can be said of personal and subject matter jurisdiction by UK courts. Clearly such courts have subject matter jurisdiction, but the scope of personal jurisdiction over a foreign party outside is unclear. Jurisdiction of courts in situations such as yours are much more nuanced that merely saying “I live in the US and the action, if filed, would be before a UK court…so I am home free.”

Frankly, if I was techdirt at the very least I would be in contact with a UK solicitor to discuss the law and options on how best to respond, if at all. After all, this does involve UK law, and reliance on the opinions of US attorneys who are likely not conversant in UK law is, in my view, a roll or the dice and of no moment before a UK tribunal.

Free Capitalistsays:

Re:

Those here who choose to post comments that mock the plaintiff using potentially defamatory statements should bear in mind that they do not enjoy the protection of Section 230. This protection extends to the service provider, and not commenters. They would be wise to more carefully measure their words, and techdirt is wise not commenting on their comments. Otherwise, it could place techdirt is a position that could deny it 230’s safe harbor.

That doesn’t make Jeffrey Morris of Jeftel any less of a fucking twat for all the world to see for having filed the suit in the first place. That’s my honest opinion.

Hooray!

Golly. I’m a lawyer. I’ve litigated defamation cases. I’ve won anti-SLAPP motions in the trial court and on appeal. And I’m not clear exactly how “principles of federalism” and the “associated doctrine of federal preemption of state action” would prevent application of the SPEECH Act if the bumptious Brits are foolish enough to try to enforce a judgment in the U.S.

If they try in federal court, then those concerns are moot. If they try in state court, then (1) they’d face similar state statutes in an increasing number of states — like California, New York, Illinois, and Florida, and (2) they’d have to come up with some actual authority, not catchphrases. Can the critics of the SPEECH Act point to any cases interpreting prior federal statutes governing recognition of foreign judgments that support the view that the SPEECH Act is subject to attack?

Re: Re: Hooray!

I’m ready to accept it as a “valid” exercise of power under Article I as defined by all pertinent caselaw existing before United States courts, which have expanded Congress’ power to the point that growing your own wheat in your backyard implicates the Commerce Clause.

I am familiar with, and sympathetic to, arguments that such laws exceed Congressional power under Article I. But as a practitioner, rather than a theoretician, I know that those arguments have approaching zero relevance to actual law practice in actual courts, and will be of no use whatsoever to our Bumptious Brits if they wander over here to challenge the SPEECH Act.

The argument that the SPEECH Act exceeds Congressional power, however appealing as a matter of philosophy, was lost as a matter of practice more than a half-century ago.

It would be fascinating to see a Tea Party/British Libel Lawyer axis emerge, though.

Re: Re: Hooray!

I will take you at your word, in which case I am a bit surprised you seem prepared to accept the Speech Act almost at face value as being a valid and enforceable exercise of federal power under Article 1.

At this point, I’ve spoken to numerous experts in First Amendment Law, international law, and defamation law… and you are the only person who seems to think the SPEECH Act is not valid. I can’t find anyone else who has a problem with it.

So who do we believe? The well respected experts in the field who have actually done stuff, or an anonymous commenter?

Tough one…

Re: Re: Re: Hooray!

Mike, ultimately what will determine a court’s approach to the SPEECH Act is not what people on the internet say, or what experts say, but what precedent says.

If AC is correct, that the SPEECH Act exceeds Congress’ power, then there must be cases that stand for that proposition that AC (or someone who agrees with him) can cite.

G Thompsonsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Hooray!

Exactly.. Like any Statutes it is Valid until at such time that a court makes it Invalid and the appeal process validates the invalidation..

Being a non-US citizen I actually applaud the US lawmakers for creating the SPEECH Act and acknowledging that there are jurisdictional problems with international venues and laws when dealing with the insanity that is the internet in regards to other laws. Especially when this Speech Act affects another common Law jurisdiction (UK).

I myself come across this insanity nearly every week though luckily not in a civil role like Defamation, instead to do with CyberCrime etc. One day we might have a real and binding International Criminal Code, though I think Satan will be wearing Ice Skates first sigh

In regards to this C&D legal nasty, I suspect someone like David Green aka Jack of Kent [http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/] would be highly interested if this went any further within the UK.

Anonymoussays:

Importantly, I believe I did not make any statement of opinion on the constitutionality of the Sspeech Act. What I did state is that it is not clear to me that the act is constitutional (and, yes, the federal government in large measure has made a mockery of federalism).

One aspect of the statute that piques my interest is a congressional mandate that “ties the hands” of state courts.

Another is the “just like the First Amendment” and “well, not ‘just like’ but good enough” provisions in the statute.

There are some others that come to mind, but these are the two that initially caught my attention.

fairusesays:

My page down key melted

The academy presents this award; “having the most popular word/phrase in this comment stream”.

streisand = 42

speech act = 29

christian = 14

jewish = 11

free speech 10

hitler = 3

THE WINNER is streisand !! Jane Fonda would be so proud of her.

Note: Nothing in this comment should be considered peer reviewed. All text can be found in the post if one wishes to verify counts.
-f

P.S. No, I was not trying to change the subject. Just looking at key points in the subject matter. πŸ˜‰

TheRealNewssays:

Mr Morris

If Mr Morris expects sympathy for his business ethics being posted online, he’s sorely mistaken. I haven’t had time to read all the comments here but I’m quite sure most people know the real score when it comes to his issues. There is still a legal battle in full swing with Morris and his company for the payout of, I believe 13 individuals who haven’t been paid various amounts for full months worked at his last company.

It’s a tiring process going through the legal system to try and get money from an ex employer, and when they are as devious as Morris with his little team of legal boffins it only gets worse. All this talk of libel- surely it’s only libel if the comments aren’t true? Morris is a business gangster who uses regular people as his own personal bank account. I’ve kept my silence for as long as I’ve felt I can but I think its disgraceful that he gets away with setting up any number of shell companies (IMJack PLC is the ‘parent’ company of IMJack Secure Communications) so that when push comes to shove, no one even knows who it is they should be claiming the money from. Worse still, it’s quite clear that Secure Communications is going to be wound up which means seeking payment from the National Redundancy Office. But if they find out Morris has set up YET ANOTHER company in the same building and using the same ‘private’ information obtained by the IMJack workers, the redundancy office will most likely say the grievance lies with his new company.

It’s about time something bigger was done to expose conmen like Morris, the economy is ridiculously skewed as it is without morally bankrupt fools taking liberties with people who just want to earn a living.

El Bandidosays:

Life In New Mexico!

Hey,

Whilst researching the above threads I found the following;

Jeffrey Morris/Bees in Action
Edugeek Limited has published comments defamatory of Mr Jeffrey Morris and his business Bees In Action on this website. Edugeek Ltd has also posted a link to the Techdirt website which contains substantial material defamatory of Mr Morris, members of his family and his businesses.

Edugeek Ltd accepts that as a responsible business providing a valuable service to the education sector, it was entirely wrong to post the comments and the link to Techdirt and has removed all the offending material from its website which it undertakes not to publish further. Edugeek Ltd apologies unreservedly to Mr Morris and his family for all distress, damage and embarrassment they have been caused as a result of its actions which it deeply regrets.

Please note this apology is not to be discussed further on Edugeek, hence this thread is locked. Any new threads created about this issue will be removed.

It would appear that this Morris cat has got cause for redress, and I support him!

Lots of love,

The Bandit

no way fellasays:

Plenty of substance

Dear Mr. Bandit

Edugeek chose the path of least resistance here. Take it from those that know (and that admittedly still remain anonymous) that this guy is a real piece of work. It’s scary what he and his lackies have gotten away with. I wouldnt have believed that a business owner and employer of hundreds of staff could get away with physically refusing to pay workers and then having the cheek to issue payslips.

In addition to this, he’s refused to pay every single supplier he’s had at their first, second, third and fourth attempts with them having to threaten court action as the final measure in getting this guy to pay. He’s as dodgy as they come. His day-to-day treatment of staff was worse and this guy governed by fear and the mockery of his work-force.

There’s some unfair shouting and name calling but thats it. He’s scammed fellow entrepreneurs, suppliers, staff, friends..you name it. No morals whatsoever this chap.

Lots of love,

An old old employee

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, usesΒ cookies. For more information, see our privacyΒ policy. Got it