No one likes a bully

My friend, Kat Coble of Nashville, recently posted her experience with the company JL Kirk & Associates.   She received a response in the comments, which she then copied into its own post.

Today her doorbell rang.

She was given a certified letter ordering her to remove all blog posts "defaming" JL Kirk and associates.  They threatened to sue for "tortuous [sic] interference and other damages" if she does not comply.

She posted about the letter and Nashville is Talking picked up the story.

Nashville bloggers created a firestorm that was picked up by Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Stand your ground, Kat.  Bloggers are rooting for you.

Comments

[Vera]

Wow. It seems that this firm created more bad press for themselves by going after the blogger.

Even if she takes down her posts, this has story taken on life of its own in cyperspace.

[Daniel]

Thanks for pointing everybody to this one, Heather.

My first thought was, "Well, if bloggers have the same rights as journalists, they also have the same responsibilities." So I went to her site expecting to find some terrible example of libelous behavior.

Instead, I found a cease-and-desist order that alleges several ticky-tacky factual offenses, none of which speak to the blogger's point, which is that the employment agency uses emotionally manipulative techniques to get potential clients to pay for job placement services in advance.

The blogger is still responsible for the factual content of her posts, but hanging a libel claim on the errors cited in the letter is kinda weak. The letter even acknowledges this in a round-about way, asserting that even if her claims are accurate, they're still libelous. The lawyer also asserts that the blogger is responsible for any libelous statements made in comments on her site, a claim that runs counter to evolved legal theory on unmoderated comments.

The thing I want to bear in mind is that we're still waiting for the REAL courtroom precedents to be set on some of these questions. And I don't want to play lawyer to this woman. After all, they're after her assets, not mine.

But this has the looks of a good test case for First Amendment rights in the 21st century, and it occurs to me that a really bright young media attorney could make a name for herself by taking this one on pro bono. Nothing like a landmark decision and the eternal good will of the writing public to boost your career.