The opinions I've seen are uniformly critical of Pivar, most of them strongly so. I don't know what response he was hoping for, but I doubt this is it.

I doubt much will come from this, though I wish there were laws that would punish the people who make frivolous lawsuits...

There are: they're called SLAPP laws. I note that New York, where this case was filed, has one.

P4limpsest:

However, I'm not sure that entirely addresses my friend's core argument–which is that a private citizen is not barred from trying to shut someone up. Does this guy cross the line by trying to bring it into the courts instead of just vociferously complaining?

Yes. The First Amendment protects your right to speak, but it does not require that other people provide you a forum or pay you for doing so. Organizing a boycott, or complaining to someone's sponsors, because you don't like what they have to say is entirely legitimate activity. But when you bring the government into it - when you demand, through the courts, that the state itself punish someone for saying something - then that is a different matter, and one that is covered by the First Amendment.

I doubt much will come from this, though I wish there were laws that would punish the people who make frivolous lawsuits (other than paying the other party's legal fees, which never truly cover the costs incurred). Throwing on 100 hours of community service would probably help prevent so many stupid cases coming to court.

While we all have 1st Amendment rights to free speech, defamation is actually a limitation to that right. You are not allowed to say things about others that are untrue, and that cause actual hard damages. Both points must occur, unless you get into the area of defamation per se, where if the untruth alleges a crime, immoral act, loathsome disease, etc, then you don't need actual out of pocket damages.

Defamation is a tort, i.e. a claim for a personal injury. A good defense may be the First Amendment, especially if the Defendant is deemed a public figure, which an author might be. Under NY Times v. Sullivan, there must be a showing of actual malice, something that is very difficult to show.

So, I'd say that Pivar probably has a snowball's chance in hell (assuming such a location existed) of winning the case.

However, don't forget the costs of litigation. Many rich, powerful people, (and I understand that Pivar is a wealthy businessman) often use the defamation cases to try to dampen or chill the free speech rights of people who don't have the financial wherewithal of paying for a defense. The mere threat of litigation will often cause people of modest means to back down quickly, and the chilling effect on others is often the actual intent of the litigation. It's not something to be taken lightly.

Myers is a professor at a small college, with a family. I don't know the financial resources of Seed, but this could be seriously expensive if the litigation drags on.

P4limpsest,

Your friend needs to realize that the 14th Amendment incorporated all the other amendments down to the states. Speech is considered one of the fundamental rights, which will be protected without any strong compelling interest to prohibit said speech.

I was discussing a similar issue with a friend and he roundly criticized me for referring to First Amendment. He pointed out that people tend to over use the First Amendment in such discussions, because all it guarantees is that Congress shall make no law prohibiting free speech. This is more limited than the sweeping protection Ebonmuse seems to be calling on in this article. This is also a big point in the recent controversy involving D.L. Hughley--wherein another private citizen is urging a boycott of his performances and trying to pressure comedy clubs to not allow him in. Hughley keeps bringing up his first amendment rights, and the woman that's mad at him keeps pointing out that isn't the Congress.

Are we coming back to the issue of negative liberty vs. positive liberty that Ebonmuse brought up in an earlier libertarianism post? Should we be advocating a more expansive form of the First Amendment that forbids other entities such as the courts and private citizens from harming freedom of speech? Or does the current form already give us such protections and my friend is just being overly literal? Or am I missing the point entirely? Very possible.