On 01 Jan 2004 16:38:50 GMT, (Parrthenon) wrote:

ABSENCE OF MALICE?

By Larry Parr

"Nowadays lawyers are replacing good moves on the chessboard." -- GM Larry
Evans (2001).

I don't know what the basis is for these threats or why Mr. Fernandez is
posting on behalf of Susan Polgar.

I do know that in 1988 our FIDE delegate Don Schultz sued GM Larry Evans for
$21 million for libel and defamation of character. It was tossed out of court
after costing Don a lot of money. GM Evans refused to settle by paying $1 and
apologizing because his reporting was true. Even if it was false, however, Don
as a public figure had to prove not only monetary damages but also MALICE -- an
almost impossible hurdle for the plaintiff. Don later conceded in his book
CHESSDON that his lawsuit was a mistake. In the end it backfired and injured
only his own reputation.

As usual in such cases, the only victors are the lawyers.

Unlike KidDon, who has offered sensible advice, I am not a lawyer. But I
know that just deciding which court has jurisdiction is likely to drag on for
months if not years.

My main concern is that such cases have a chilling effect on free speech.

I agree with you about the 1989 ChessDon suit against Larry Evans
(which is posted on my website). http://www.samsloan.com/lawsuit.htm

However, I disagree about the Polgar matter.

The suit by Don Schultz against Larry Evans was completely foolish.
The suit was not so much about reporting but was about an online
debate between Schultz and Evans on Leisure Linc. It was unbelievable
tha Schultz, having done badly in the debate, would sue Evans. More
than that, Schultz claimed that the debate had cost him a chance to
become President of FIDE. Don Schultz had NO CHANCE to become
president of FIDE because this was during the Cold War and neither an
American nor a Russian could have become president of FIDE at that
point in time. Finally, almost nobody in FIDE read Leisure Linc or
were familiar with its contents. Thus, the postings on Leisure Linc
could not have impacted the desire of Don Schultz to become President
of FIDE.

The Polgar case is entirely different. There have been more than one
hundred unprovoked newsgroup postings by Tim Hanke and Stan Booz
personally attacking Zsuzsa Polgar. These postings have continued up
until this minute. There is no doubt that Zsuzsa Polgar is a public
figure in the World of Chess and under New York Times vs. Sullivan she
must prove actual malice to prevail. However, this will not pose any
problem at all. One hundred newsgroup postings viciously and
personally attacking Zsuzsa Polgar wirthout even one posting by Polgar
attacking Tim Hanke or Stan Booz is more than enough to prove actual
malice. Moreover, there are several witnesses to the fact that Tim
Hanke approached Zsuzsa Polgar sexually and made sexually suggestive
remarks to her during the meetings in Los Angeles and thereafter. With
Tim Hanke now the USCF VP of Finance and Zsuzsa Polgar a chess
columnist writing articles for Chess Life magazine, there is a clear
employer-employee relationship and Zsuzsa Polgar has strong grounds
for a federal sexual harassment suit.

I do not believe that Zsuzsa Polgar is bluffing. I believe that she
will file suit very soon and that she will prevail.

Sam Sloan

. Moreover, there are several witnesses to the fact that Tim
Hanke approached Zsuzsa Polgar sexually and made sexually suggestive
remarks to her during the meetings in Los Angeles and thereafter

This is so obviously outrageous Sloanism, it doesn't even bear comment. And
hell, if it was ME, not only would there have been suggestive remarks, but
the said lass would be giggling into my pillow right now. TMB doesn't mess
around.

What does matter is that this lawsuit so far appears to have three
supporters on this board:

LeModern Caveman (no stranger to legal frivolities himself)
Sam Sloan (nothing need more be said)
John Fernandez (whom we would have thought would know better -- that he
doesn't requires a sad re-evaluation of his own character).

Ah, tis a said day for RGCP, but it was only a matter of time, in our
McCourt society, that someone's feathers finally got so ruffled they ran to
1-800-SUESOMEONE. What's tragic here is that the only loser will be Susan
Polgar...those other camp followers who are tagging along, including those
named above and her business manager, never had anything to lose in the
first place.

TMB





"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 01 Jan 2004 16:38:50 GMT, (Parrthenon) wrote:

ABSENCE OF MALICE?

By Larry Parr

"Nowadays lawyers are replacing good moves on the chessboard." -- GM
Larry
Evans (2001).

I don't know what the basis is for these threats or why Mr. Fernandez
is
posting on behalf of Susan Polgar.

I do know that in 1988 our FIDE delegate Don Schultz sued GM Larry
Evans for
$21 million for libel and defamation of character. It was tossed out of
court
after costing Don a lot of money. GM Evans refused to settle by paying $1
and
apologizing because his reporting was true. Even if it was false,
however, Don
as a public figure had to prove not only monetary damages but also
MALICE -- an
almost impossible hurdle for the plaintiff. Don later conceded in his
book
CHESSDON that his lawsuit was a mistake. In the end it backfired and
injured
only his own reputation.

As usual in such cases, the only victors are the lawyers.

Unlike KidDon, who has offered sensible advice, I am not a lawyer. But
I
know that just deciding which court has jurisdiction is likely to drag on
for
months if not years.

My main concern is that such cases have a chilling effect on free
speech.

I agree with you about the 1989 ChessDon suit against Larry Evans
(which is posted on my website). http://www.samsloan.com/lawsuit.htm

However, I disagree about the Polgar matter.

The suit by Don Schultz against Larry Evans was completely foolish.
The suit was not so much about reporting but was about an online
debate between Schultz and Evans on Leisure Linc. It was unbelievable
tha Schultz, having done badly in the debate, would sue Evans. More
than that, Schultz claimed that the debate had cost him a chance to
become President of FIDE. Don Schultz had NO CHANCE to become
president of FIDE because this was during the Cold War and neither an
American nor a Russian could have become president of FIDE at that
point in time. Finally, almost nobody in FIDE read Leisure Linc or
were familiar with its contents. Thus, the postings on Leisure Linc
could not have impacted the desire of Don Schultz to become President
of FIDE.

The Polgar case is entirely different. There have been more than one
hundred unprovoked newsgroup postings by Tim Hanke and Stan Booz
personally attacking Zsuzsa Polgar. These postings have continued up
until this minute. There is no doubt that Zsuzsa Polgar is a public
figure in the World of Chess and under New York Times vs. Sullivan she
must prove actual malice to prevail. However, this will not pose any
problem at all. One hundred newsgroup postings viciously and
personally attacking Zsuzsa Polgar wirthout even one posting by Polgar
attacking Tim Hanke or Stan Booz is more than enough to prove actual
malice. Moreover, there are several witnesses to the fact that Tim
Hanke approached Zsuzsa Polgar sexually and made sexually suggestive
remarks to her during the meetings in Los Angeles and thereafter. With
Tim Hanke now the USCF VP of Finance and Zsuzsa Polgar a chess
columnist writing articles for Chess Life magazine, there is a clear
employer-employee relationship and Zsuzsa Polgar has strong grounds
for a federal sexual harassment suit.

I do not believe that Zsuzsa Polgar is bluffing. I believe that she
will file suit very soon and that she will prevail.

Sam Sloan

(Sam Sloan) writes:
I do not believe that Zsuzsa Polgar is bluffing. I believe that she
will file suit very soon and that she will prevail.

I don't think she's bluffing either--she's a tough cookie and if she
says she's going to file a suit, she very well might do it. As
Schultz-Evans and the Peterson affair show, chess people file suits
all the time. However, I don't think the stuff that's been posted to
rgcp is enough for her suit to get anywhere on, and I haven't seen the
mailing list messages that she's complaining about.

"The Masked Bishop" writes:
What does matter is that this lawsuit so far appears to have three
supporters on this board:

LeModern Caveman (no stranger to legal frivolities himself)
Sam Sloan (nothing need more be said)
John Fernandez (whom we would have thought would know better -- that he
doesn't requires a sad re-evaluation of his own character).

I haven't seen Fernandez supporting the lawsuit. I saw that he posted
some messages to rgcp for her at her request. I'd have been willing
to do the same thing, though I don't support the lawsuit.

I'd have been willing
to do the same thing, though I don't support the lawsuit.

Toadies all. Listen to yourself.

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"The Masked Bishop" writes:
What does matter is that this lawsuit so far appears to have three
supporters on this board:

LeModern Caveman (no stranger to legal frivolities himself)
Sam Sloan (nothing need more be said)
John Fernandez (whom we would have thought would know better -- that he
doesn't requires a sad re-evaluation of his own character).

I haven't seen Fernandez supporting the lawsuit. I saw that he posted
some messages to rgcp for her at her request. I'd have been willing
to do the same thing, though I don't support the lawsuit.

"The Masked Bishop" writes:
I'd have been willing to do the same thing, though I don't support
the lawsuit.

Toadies all. Listen to yourself.

I don't see how that follows. When she posted here herself, that
became an event in its own right and she was hassled mercilessly by
Booz, ModernCaveman, and others. Asking someone else to post for her
is an entirely worthwhile strategy on her part. You'll notice
Seirawan does the same thing. If he posted here directly, there'd be
the same bunch of bozos showing how brilliant they must be because
they can flame a grandmaster on a newsgroup.

Then she can post anonymously. All this does is make you look like a willing
dupe-- "sure Susan, I'll post whatever you want" whether you agree with it
or not. It also makes her own comments look a little less than sincere,
since she evidently is so "scared" of being flamed by the idiots on this
board.

I find that pretty doubtful. It's more an aristocratic move: why bother
lending the aura of your own effort to something, when there of plenty of
willing lackeys to do it for you, regardless of how ill-considered the
posting might be?

Toadyism.



"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"The Masked Bishop" writes:
I'd have been willing to do the same thing, though I don't support
the lawsuit.

Toadies all. Listen to yourself.

I don't see how that follows. When she posted here herself, that
became an event in its own right and she was hassled mercilessly by
Booz, ModernCaveman, and others. Asking someone else to post for her
is an entirely worthwhile strategy on her part. You'll notice
Seirawan does the same thing. If he posted here directly, there'd be
the same bunch of bozos showing how brilliant they must be because
they can flame a grandmaster on a newsgroup.

The problem is not her unwillingness to post: it's YOUR willingness to be
the messenger for something you don't agree with. Here's a more dramatic
example that might help you find your way out of the amoral fog you seem to
be in:

Let's say Bobby Fischer called you up and said "Paul, would you please post
my message on the usenet about how Jews are scum and the cause of all evil
in the world? I'd don't want to do it myself, since I'm a grandmaster and
the bozos will flame me."

Somehow I doubt you would agree. At least I hope you wouldn't. So the
conclusion is that either a) you really do agree with Polgar or b) you
don't, but consider the issue trivial enough that your own disagreement
pales before the luster of her grandmaster request to you.

TMB


"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"The Masked Bishop" writes:
I'd have been willing to do the same thing, though I don't support
the lawsuit.

Toadies all. Listen to yourself.

I don't see how that follows. When she posted here herself, that
became an event in its own right and she was hassled mercilessly by
Booz, ModernCaveman, and others. Asking someone else to post for her
is an entirely worthwhile strategy on her part. You'll notice
Seirawan does the same thing. If he posted here directly, there'd be
the same bunch of bozos showing how brilliant they must be because
they can flame a grandmaster on a newsgroup.

"The Masked Bishop" writes:
Then she can post anonymously.

That would miss the whole point.

All this does is make you look like a willing dupe-- "sure Susan,
I'll post whatever you want" whether you agree with it or not. It
also makes her own comments look a little less than sincere, since
she evidently is so "scared" of being flamed by the idiots on this board.

What kind of crap is that? If a movie star or CEO or big politician
wants to announce something, most of the time they don't do it
themselves. It's the same with grandmasters and other well known
players: every time they post here, some moron starts hassling them,
so they have enough sense to stay away.

I don't see it as a matter of being scared. The flaming is simply
counterproductive. Also, Susan Polgar specifically said she wasn't
going to post here any more. Unlike certain idiots who keep saying
that and coming back anyway, she's sticking with what she said.

I find that pretty doubtful. It's more an aristocratic move: why bother
lending the aura of your own effort to something, when there of plenty of
willing lackeys to do it for you, regardless of how ill-considered the
posting might be?

Shrug. I don't know about "regardless", but I'm willing to cut Polgar
more slack than I'd cut some USCF politicians that I could name.

"The Masked Bishop" writes:
Let's say Bobby Fischer called you up and said "Paul, would you please post
my message on the usenet about how Jews are scum and the cause of all evil
in the world? I'd don't want to do it myself, since I'm a grandmaster and
the bozos will flame me."

I don't think I'd post such a message to Usenet or host it on my web
site, but if Fischer put it on his own web site and asked me to post
his URL, I'd probably post the URL, along with a comment describing
the situation.

Somehow I doubt you would agree. At least I hope you wouldn't. So the
conclusion is that either a) you really do agree with Polgar or b) you
don't, but consider the issue trivial enough that your own disagreement
pales before the luster of her grandmaster request to you.

I think b) is closer. I wouldn't describe it as "luster", but she's
contributed a lot to the game and I'd do it out of a certain sense of
indebtedness. I'd also believe that the message is newsworthy whether
or not I agree with it, and I don't mind posting news. I remember
posting the USCF-Games Parlor contract because of its newsworthiness,
and I certainly didn't agree with THAT.

In Fernandez's case, I believe he's personally acquainted with her and
so is posting for her as a personal favor. That's also a perfectly
good reason.