Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:32 PM

john89 (11 posts)

prostitute review site sues blogger!!??!

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:37 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

The following story really threw me for a loop when I read about in on the dallas observer and the ft. worth star telegram. So much for free speech over the internet.

Apparently a prostitute review is coming out in the open to sue a blogger for calling the site a criminal organization and stating that the website in question is "pimp owned". The company behind Eccie Worldwide, KCN Infosys, LLC, has subpoened Google, Inc to uncover the identity of the blogger Google , Inc objected to the subpoena, which will lead into a hearing on July 11th. This case sounds about as bad as that woman who sued McDonald's over a coffee spill and was awarded 12 million.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/escort_review_website_is_suing.php

http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/24/4055340/escort-review-website-with-ties.html

The defiant blogger is now trying to raise money for a defense fund to defend his 1st amendment rights. I wonder why the aclu or the eff don't take the case?

the blogger's legal defense fund: http://eccie1.blogspot.com

5 replies, 948 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

5 replies	Author	Time	Post
prostitute review site sues blogger!!??! (Original post)	john89	Jun 2012	OP
That "12 million for a coffee spill" is pure right-wing bullshit.	Archae	Jun 2012	#1
you do realize that that mcd's coffee award was reduced to $640,000, and they didn't even get that.	unblock	Jun 2012	#2
The McDonald's coffee case is a bad example.	JoeyT	Jun 2012	#3
So are you the "defiant blogger"?	DURHAM D	Jun 2012	#4
Are you related to any of this? Welcome to DU. And educate yourself about the McD's case as what you	uppityperson	Jun 2012	#5

Response to john89 (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:43 PM

Archae (26,396 posts)

1. That "12 million for a coffee spill" is pure right-wing bullshit.

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:44 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Use a credible source or get the facts before you spout next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Reply to this post

Response to john89 (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:50 PM

unblock (23,779 posts)

2. you do realize that that mcd's coffee award was reduced to $640,000, and they didn't even get that.

they eventually settled for an undisclosed amount less than $600,000, of which the lawyers probably got 1/3 and their insurance company was made whole. after the rest of the medical bills this is not remotely the windfall people think it was.

and this was after mcdonald's had over 700 complaints and numerous lawsuits and settlements over excessively hot coffee without changing their policies.

and yes, the plaintiff was found partially responsible for the spill.

the only reason people think the mcdonald's case was frivolous was because the initial jury award seemed excessive, but it was knocked down on appeal. had the initial jury award been the few hundred thousand the plaintiff eventually received, no one would have thought twice about it.

Reply to this post

Response to john89 (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:04 PM

JoeyT (4,549 posts)

3. The McDonald's coffee case is a bad example.

Last edited Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:08 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Most of the "facts" people know about it came from right wingers lying about the case in the hopes of pushing tort reform laws that would prevent anyone from suing any corporation for any reason. She didn't get 12 million, she initially wanted McDonald's to cover her hospital bills for the skin grafts, which they refused to do, so she sued and was awarded money to cover her medical bills. Skin grafts are pretty expensive, but the award was nowhere near 12 million.

You can see information about the case (And her burns, if you have a strong stomach) here: http://pratlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/an-old-posting-i-always-wanted-to-have-referenced/

McDonald's knew serving the coffee that hot was causing burns that bad because it had *already happened to a whole bunch of other people*.

Regarding the poor blogger: He's about to discover the first amendment does not guarantee you anonymity or the freedom to defame. And now you know why the EFF and ACLU aren't involved.

Edited to add: Good luck to the creeps that run that site proving his/her allegations were untrue without revealing their own identities, though.

Reply to this post

Response to john89 (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:10 PM

DURHAM D (18,574 posts)

4. So are you the "defiant blogger"?

Reply to this post

Response to john89 (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:46 AM

uppityperson (74,291 posts)

5. Are you related to any of this? Welcome to DU. And educate yourself about the McD's case as what you

write is dead wrong.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)