Vadersloot and Larry Craig rumor: the takedown order

Here's the takedown letter. You've gotta clickit to see it, though.

When Tom Paine gets on a righteous tear, his opinions and mine start to diverge. However, I've reread his posting and (and other writers' comments) and I don't see anything wrong here.

Vader's takedown letter is too vague. If anyone from Vadersloot's lawyer pool reads this, I ask that Mr. Sheppard assist me in bringing light to this as best we both can by being more specific on what (of 4 posts and half a dozen or more issues) was 'knowingly and intentionally false'. Otherwise, its just another Chilling Effect. But being wrong and throwing his weight around like that's why we call him Vader, i'nnit?

I'm travelling for the Easter weekend, so this is the best way to reach me...

Tom Paine also *DID* help 43sb 'scoop' everyone with the news that Larry LaRocco was running in '08 last week. Oh, and kudos again to TomP for that, BTW

So, given the intentionally-misleading, muckraking, partisan, notorious dirty-politics habits of Vader and Sheppard, why should I trust them over TomP?

While I agree the whole thing is Chilling Effectish, I did and do think your original post lacked substantiation.

#1. You should probably take down the post (my opinion) as it is still unconfirmed, and the bulk of these unsealed documents are yet to come out. Even though I/we have made every indication this is "unconfirmed".
#2. I wonder if he is trying to muscle KIDK-TV3, as their post is still up, and has a great deal more information(??)

I am more concerned with the long-term viability of 43SB as a venue for those who use it to share information which ordinarily would not see the light of day, given the current Idaho political environment. BUT, their takedown letter is certainly news, and maybe--who knows---anecdotal evidence of much more to come(?).

Kids, impending summer, my birthday party tonight and the consent of Tom Paine matter.

Pyrrhic victories over a post that So Obviously Stated (tm) that it was rumor... not so much.

My own pet lawsuit when Vader's other lawsuit is just starting... not so much.

I've deleted the post from the site.

Very frustrating. Its a bluff. He may use his economic superiority to file the suit in an effort to intimidate but he likely won't prevail(SLAPP suit). And they have to show you harmed their reputation making their reputation directly relevant in a very public forum and handing you the tools of discovery in a legal proceeding to review their files in order flesh out that reputation and their own contribution to it. They do not want that. And if the Judge thinks he is filing the lawsuit just to intimidate your constitutional right to free speech he'll be paying your fees as well as his own.

And the retraction accomplishes nothing. The rumor is still right there in your post. Even still, if they were indeed damaged they can still sue you. But they won't for the reasons cited above and because the fact of the lawsuit will do more to spread the rumor than if they just shut up about it.

As I recall Tom was reporting from an anonymous source indicating the possible connection. This fact was stated. It had a heading indicating rumor when in fact it was sourced just not confirmed. Basically the post was nothing more than a heads up and if Tom's source was wrong its Tom's reputation that suffers.

A general but fair recitiation of the law on defamation exists here:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi#QID537

Chilling effect is an understatement. Vandersloot is a bully. Like any bully until you stand up to him he will continue to intimidate.

I know there are a lot of things that go into decisions like this. I just wanted to provide my two cents. As you guys pointed out there is plenty of bright side. But everyone is soooooo tired of Ds taking it on the chin. The fact of the matter is both Vandersloot, his family members, Melaleuca and its affiliated legal entities donate a significant amount of money to candidates in political races in this state some of whom have won office and now have direct oversight in the businesses in which Vandersloot and Melalueca are engaged. The donations may all be "legal" but the ethical nature of the purpose of those donations are highly questionable.

Sisyphus, I take your points and stand firmly against censorship. But I'm in favor of libel and slander laws. The original post may have been legally passable, but morally? True, there are other moral transgressions around this issue which are far worse, but that doesn't mean it's okay for us to act without a moral outlook.

Consider this: suppose a blogger posted a "rumor" that Bob Crachit is a pedophile. Comments escalate and keep mentioning Bob's name. Bob, who is not a pedophile or anywhere near it, hires a lawyer, but loses the lawsuit. Those words remain out there on the internet, and when one Googles "Bob Crachit" the hits are a slew of slander with the word "pedophile" in the headline. Bob applies for a job. He's toast. His life may be ruined.

Now, imagine YOU are Bob.

This is not a comment on the truth or falsehood of the rumor, only on the practice of posting rumors. I'm against it, and worry a bit abou the the inflammatory reputation that is once more applied to blogs by internet skeptics. But one more thing - the blogosphere is a crucial part of New Journalism, and dampening the zeal of bloggers would be a Very Bad Thing indeed. I simply think that the single issue of rumors should be handled differently.

Jill, I appreciate your stance on posting rumors and even agree with it. While the other post labelled the information as a rumor I recall that Tom had something more than a rumor, he had a CI. Its Tom's call on that source's relability. He is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of his source and if it didn't meet his standards then he did right in retracting it. Confirmation would have been ideal but its not an ideal world. I merely pointed out that the letter was a bluff not that the retraction shouldn't have happened.

If you're going to lecture me on morality you should really pick a better example. I don't really need to consider your example for very long because your example is hardly the circumstance we have here. Save it for your children. For someone who often criticizes others on their civility you sure are condescending.

And what's up with your moral hand-wringing in the comment section? Do you work for Melaleuca? I can hear Ken Sheppard laughing from here.

Sisyphus! Holy cats, I really wasn't lecturing you - just posting my stance on what's right or wrong. I thought my post was civil, but perhaps I am missing something. I'm certainly willing to be wrong about that. Honestly, I didn't feel condescending as I wrote it. Very sorry.

I agree that as moral issues go, it's not big on the Enormity Scale. I wrote: "True, there are other moral transgressions around this issue which are far worse, but that doesn't mean it's okay for us to act without a moral outlook."

Oh heavens; me work for/support Melaleuca? I'd sooner fork my eyeballs. All I am trying to do is to point out that if one is going to protest when one's political opposite posts something possibly slanderous/libelous about one (I'm talking about the Collective One, not anyone in particular) one has to apply the same standard even when one disagrees with the politics.

You may be right about this particular case. My comments are more on the overall issue of rumors.

J & S;

Thanks for managing to voice so many valid perspectives that I've chewed thru regarding this. You left out a favorite old sig of mine ("Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked thru jet engines") and a few others that aren't printable here for a couple reasons.

Sisyphus, you're the only involved party I hadn't heard from by the time I made my decision. That bothered me most of all when I sat down to zap the article. Since I didn't have your input, I'm relieved that your comments mirror discussions I had to the n'th decimal. And Jill, I'd love a chance to sit down in Boise and go over this with you with a fine-toothed comb, starting with the changing journalistic standards thru history, touching on tangents (Drudge and Concerned Citizens for Family Values) and ending on armchair-lawyerly stuff like SLAPP and Brown v Board of Ed. I've chewed on them all the last few days.

Vader's nice (cough!!) lawyers called again today. Thanked my answering machine and alluded that there were further changes they sought. Aside from being conflicted about whether the AM can only be rehabilitated by a deep clorox purge and rinse (like floating a witch, poor AM is damned either way), my strongest reaction is to get them a succinct message outlining how they need to submit future site suggestions -- as with all nabobs and wingnuts, requests must be submitted in writing, using soy-based inks and on 4.5" perforated scrolls. Two ply, preferably.

The best way to avoid Chilling Effect here will be sunshine. Lots and LOTS of sunshine.

Maybe that'll be my compromise for poor li'l AM. A perfunctory dismantling and a day or two of April's rejuvenating, searing, wind-sparged Idaho sunshine. Nah, that still seems too much like floating a witch.

I think we need a timely resolution of this rumor. Either a statement by the Idaho AG or something similar. Of course, I think I already know what that statement would be, given Vader's stance in this state (Simplotesque).

There have only been a handful of Idahoans that have been as twisted and as illegal as the Simplot/Vader style. Simplot made his rise on the backs of hardworking Idahoan farmers and shady/illegal land deals that were made legal by his crack ability to pay off the right people later.

Vader seems to be about the same. Teflon but evil to the core. Able to pay or buy the right people at the right times to make rumors and innuendo but nothing much more than that.

Federal investigation would be the only possible way to bring these guys out, shine the light of truth on them and actually get to see their shadows. Unfortunately, the National AG gets to fire anyone that starts an investigation they don't like, so there is that chilling effect to deal with.

And now I'm done rambling. I just thought I'd like to weigh in on this, I was feeling left out :)

d2, love to sit down and talk anytime, and I can assure you that you will know far more than I will about this issue. V. interesting discussion going on.