CALIFORNIA — A student blogger at the University of California
at Berkeley lost a small claims libel lawsuit filed against him by a
FrontPageMag.com columnist whose articles the student's
blog scrutinized.
While exploring his remaining legal options following the June 13
decision, the student, Yaman Salahi, is asking for donations on his blog to help
pay the $7,500 that the judge awarded to the columnist, Lee
Kaplan.
Salahi started the blog in May 2006 to "take a critical look at
[Kaplan's] articles and point out inaccuracies or falsifications," he said.
Salahi said Kaplan is a local figure involved in covering student activism.
After repeatedly threatening litigation, Kaplan sued in September for
libel and tortious business interference.
"Instead of criticizing my
politics, he tried to go after my personal reputation as a journalist," Kaplan
said. "He put up things saying I've been sued for libel, that I've engaged in
criminal activity, that I've violated contracts," Kaplan said.
In the
lawsuit, Kaplan alleged that Salahi called him a "douche bag," but Salahi said
the phrase never appeared on his blog. "He's completely lying," Kaplan
said.
Second, Kaplan claimed Salahi threatened to ruin his employer's
business if Kaplan was not fired, costing Kaplan at least $40,000.
Salahi refuted the claim, explaining that he once contacted Kaplan's Web
host to complain that Kaplan had accused Salahi of membership in the American
Nazi party. Kaplan also claimed the Web host was a potential employer and
Salahi's complaint lost him the job, Salahi said.
Kaplan said in a phone
interview that he never called Salahi a Nazi.
"The courts don't protect
speech that's defamatory, but I don't think that I've done anything defamatory,"
Salahi said. "I think this poses a serious danger for other people's First
Amendment rights and mine. I've basically been punished for writing things I
didn’t actually write."
But Kaplan refuted those
claims.
"This was not a case of someone depriving him or bloggers of
their First Amendment rights," Kaplan said. "The First Amendment does not permit
someone to engage in libel and defamation, and it doesn’t permit you to
contact and make threats to people who you do business with."
Because no
written opinions are given in small claims court, the judge did not rule on the
specifics of the case. "Nothing stipulates that I have to take the Web site
down," Salahi said.
Salahi said he will continue blogging. "If I did
take the Web site down, that would only encourage [Kaplan] and others to
continue to abuse small claims courts with this kind of lawsuit," he
said.
While California law protects defendants from Strategic Lawsuits
Against Public Participation, in which powerful individuals or organizations try
to intimidate weaker entities through the burdensome costs of legal defense, the
judge dismissed Salahi's anti-SLAPP motion as inappropriate for small claims
court.
Small claims courts in California have lenient standards of
evidence and procedural rules. Salahi said the judge never called the three
witnesses he brought to testify.
Kaplan said he chose to bring the suit
to small claims court "because it was the easiest and cheapest route to go. If I
had pursued this in superior court my legal fees would have probably eaten up
everything I would have made," he said. "Plus it would have taken years to
accomplish the case. As it is, in small claims court, it took over a
year."
Salahi's appeal of the ruling was rejected in superior court.
"He had two separate trials, he had legal representation, he was in
superior court, there was plenty of evidence, and all he's doing is being a
crybaby," Kaplan said.
By Isaac Arnsdorf, SPLC staff writer
