First off, I think the responding people were not being intelligent nor cautious(obviously).
HOWEVER, taking e-mails sent to a person (not to an e-mail list) and then publishing them may very well be breaking laws that will land Jason in a lot of hot water:
To quote one source:
=======================
The second, more relevant claim, is "public disclosure of private facts." This Findlaw article on the Washingtonienne scandal sums it up nicely:
The disclosure must be public. The facts must be private. The plaintiff must be identified. The publication must be "highly offensive." And there must be an "absence of legitimate concern to the public" with respect to the publication.
=======================
If I were these guys, the last thing I would do is hunt him down and hurt him. I would however organize everyone and run him through litigation. And I would want it to be bad enough that he loses what he has and even much of what he will get in the future.
Jason said on his blog (to one of the people): "Life isn't Fair"
I hope he remembers that as he sells off his possessions and has his future wages garnisheed.
If the mass media gets hold of this, his employer may feel his services are no longer needed as they will not want the bad press. I sure would not want to deal with a company with him as an employee.
"Life isn't fair Jason." Just remember that.
And the funny part - he is writing his own evidence against him.
His site suggests pretty strongly that the guy isn't worth suing, and litigation is a piss-poor way of obtaining vindication anyway. I'm thinking either he gets away with it (other than whatever reputational damage he's done himself) or somebody beats the ever-loving shit out of him.
First off, I think the responding people were not being intelligent nor cautious(obviously).
HOWEVER, taking e-mails sent to a person (not to an e-mail list) and then publishing them may very well be breaking laws that will land Jason in a lot of hot water:
To quote one source:
=======================
The second, more relevant claim, is "public disclosure of private facts." This Findlaw article on the Washingtonienne scandal sums it up nicely:
The disclosure must be public. The facts must be private. The plaintiff must be identified. The publication must be "highly offensive." And there must be an "absence of legitimate concern to the public" with respect to the publication.
=======================
If I were these guys, the last thing I would do is hunt him down and hurt him. I would however organize everyone and run him through litigation. And I would want it to be bad enough that he loses what he has and even much of what he will get in the future.
Jason said on his blog (to one of the people): "Life isn't Fair"
I hope he remembers that as he sells off his possessions and has his future wages garnisheed.
If the mass media gets hold of this, his employer may feel his services are no longer needed as they will not want the bad press. I sure would not want to deal with a company with him as an employee.
"Life isn't fair Jason." Just remember that.
And the funny part - he is writing his own evidence against him.
Posted by Hawk | Link to this comment | 09-11-06 5:14 PM
His site suggests pretty strongly that the guy isn't worth suing, and litigation is a piss-poor way of obtaining vindication anyway. I'm thinking either he gets away with it (other than whatever reputational damage he's done himself) or somebody beats the ever-loving shit out of him.
Posted by DaveL | Link to this comment | 09-11-06 6:12 PM
You can sue someone and win a judgement but collecting is a whole different issue.
Posted by Lori | Link to this comment | 09-12-06 10:36 AM
Couldn't you sell the rights to collect to a collection agency? You wouldn't get the full amount but they're supposed to be pretty thorough.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 09-12-06 10:51 AM