Blog Of War
Online chat about a Georgia weapons manufacturer ends in real-time Oregon court battle.
October 1st, 2008
Letters to the Editor • Inbox0 comments
October 1st, 2008
The Weekly Fix • Our Spin On 7 Days of News 1 comment
October 1st, 2008
The Money Side of the Street | Some Oregon lawmakers took big bucks from Wall Street in flush times.3 comments
October 1st, 2008
Political News That’s Always Credit-Worthy | Meet the Oregonians who now back McCain after supporting Clinton.12 comments
October 1st, 2008
Trucked-Up Politics | Merkley and Obama say NAFTA is killing U.S. manufacturing. WW goes to Mexico to see what it’s doing there. 5 comments
October 1st, 2008
Obsession | Who’s obsessed with whom? 2 comments
October 1st, 2008
Rogue of the Week • You Can’t Spell “Obsession” Without The O. | A new way to spark reader interest: Distribute a DVD that PO’s subscribers.13 comments
October 1st, 2008
Murmurs • The Whatever-Happened-To Edition1 comment
October 1st, 2008
Browse the Beaver State | Web encyclopedia aims to be the go-to site for all things Oregon. 1 comment
October 1st, 2008
Cover Story • Jail Junkies | Who knows more about stopping property crime: Kevin Mannix or an ex-addict who stole 1,000 cars?14 comments
![]() |
[July 2nd, 2008]
Note to bloggers: Those rants you’ve been posting as “PDXFemme” or “BatBoy68” could get you hauled into court.
Ian Hale Garner, a gun enthusiast from central Oregon, is facing a federal lawsuit by a Georgia-based weapons manufacturer for anonymous comments he posted this spring in an online chat room.
The suit filed in U.S. District Court in Portland brings to Oregon a battle being fought around the country over the limits of free speech online. Bloggers elsewhere have been sued with mixed results for criticizing real-estate companies, writing negative book reviews and even disparaging Apple computers.
“There are free-speech issues we believe are part and parcel to the underlying dispute,” says Garner’s attorney, Michael McGean of Bend.
Garner, 30, claimed online that he’d heard silencers made by Advanced Armament Corporation produced inaccurate shots. He also alleged that an arms manufacturer had severed its contract with Advanced Armament over personal conflicts with the owners.
The company says the comments are false and the lawsuit seeks $200,000 for damage to its reputation.
The lawsuit claims Garner posted the comments as “ian187” and other nicknames in chat rooms on the websites AR15.com and SilencerResearch.com. Both sites are geared toward gun aficionados and the weapons industry.
“This case illustrates the worst of the Internet, in that a person sitting in Redmond, Ore., can destroy a company’s client or customer relationship through the click of a mouse,” says Michael Seidl, Advanced Armament’s Portland attorney. “The damage is impossible to quantify when a false rumor is spread.”
advertisement
Seidl says Garner posted his comments where they could do maximum damage: chat rooms populated by people involved in the weapons industry. He says it wasn’t difficult to learn the identity of ian187 because Garner had registered with the chat rooms under his own name.
The federal Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields website owners from liability for content posted by users, making user-generated Web 2.0 sites like Craigslist and MySpace possible. But the law leaves the door open for claims against individuals who use the Web to post defamatory comments.
Seidl says the gauge for whether Garner slandered Advanced Armament is the same as everywhere else: If the comments were false and they harmed Advanced Armament, then Garner should be held liable.
McGean agrees the same standards apply to the Web, but he says what his client posted was true. He filed a motion June 4 asking U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin to dismiss the case. Coffin has not yet ruled on the motion.
“There are many lawsuits that are filed by plaintiffs who are simply interested in quashing any kind of public criticism,” McGean says. “The objective is not to prevail (in court) but to bully the person into shutting up. And we feel that’s what is really going on here.”
WWIRE: Read about another blog-linked lawsuit here .
RECENT COMMENTS ON “Blog Of War”
It is funny when people who don't have the budget to buy the high end stuff like AAC now rationalize why they did not want it anyway.
High end stuff? WTF? I wouldn't consider AAC stuff high end. Their cans are priced like everyone else. Your statement makes no sense. This lawsuit has cost AAC a ton, just by their actions.
This article taught me that AAC is the Apple of silencer manufacturers. And you should be careful what you say in about them 'cause they will sue you and ruin your life. Just like Apple. So you better...
After reading the article it looks like the attorney for the guy getting sued stayed tight lipped and stuck to the facts while AAC's attorney blabbed all he could to spin this in AAC's favor. Judging ...







