Inspired by the Magic Jack vs. Boing Boing story : http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/23/magic…dials-wron.html
MJ wrote an article about BB’s EULA which contained some… interesting items … such as the buyer waiving their right to sue. These items are not the topic, however, but BB’s reaction - which was to file an alleged SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit against BB to shut them up, not really to win, or so BB alleges (and IMO plausibly).
Question: Am I right in thinking that, from the Objectivist stance, the attempt to use Government force via the intercession of the Courts to silence a critic is an immoral action?
Per the BB article:
"Our lawyers, Rob Rader, Marc Mayer and Jill Rubin of MS&K, determined that it was a SLAPP lawsuit: a strategic lawsuit against public participation. In such a lawsuit, winning is not the main objective. Instead, it is crafted to harry critics, not least with the high cost of fighting a lawsuit, into abandoning their criticism. New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella wrote that “short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.”
I’m inclined to agree with Justice Colabella - the threat of legal reprisal - the high cost of attorneys, court fees, and such - does seem to constitute a real and credible initiation of intimidation.
Your thoughts?