LWN: Comments on "Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)"

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

rahvin — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:46:51 +0000

The anti-slapp was already filed, the judge shouldn't have taken it upon himself to use the criteria laid out in the motion to dismiss for refile. This puts an extra step in the process where the whole intent of anti-slapp motions is to stop the need for a bunch of motions to get rid of a case that's mooted by the constitution's guarantee of free speech. Now there is at least 1 maybe two more motions to file, this runs up costs for both the plaintiff and defendant and will ultimately only increase the legal costs needed to be recuperated. The judge should be ashamed.

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

rahvin — Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:42:10 +0000

They don't need just "not opinion". The standard is going to be material fact and has to be convincing enough that a reasonable person would infer it to be the truth and not opinion or hyperbole (which will be hard considering the first sentence had the words "in my opinion" in it). There was no way in hell grsecurity was going to meet the defamation requirement, they were very lucky the judge didn't let the anti-slapp motion execute because then they'd be on the hook for Bruce's legal fee's. I hope Bruce appeals that ruling so he gets the legal fees out of them. I don't think the judge had cause to moot the anti-slap motion while dismissing the suit based on the same criteria. But I'm not the one paying the legal bill, that will be up to Bruce to decide.

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

xtifr — Tue, 26 Dec 2017 00:10:00 +0000

That would make a lot of sense. In fact, if it doesn't work that way, it would seem to defeat the whole purpose of *having* an Anti-SLAPP law.

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

jospoortvliet — Mon, 25 Dec 2017 23:03:23 +0000

A comment at the register pointed out that Bruce can re-file the anti SLAPP motion if they don't amend and have them pay his legal fees. It was merely dismissed to give them the chance to amend their complaint.

I don't know if this is true but if so - interesting ;-)

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

k8to — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:21:44 +0000

Nitpick: details are "pored over", not "poured over".

http://grammarist.com/spelling/pore-over-pour-over/

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

xtifr — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 20:46:17 +0000

I think they're obligated to say that while they regroup and ponder. And I'm sure they'll be pouring over all of Bruce's public postings in the hopes of finding *something* which they can paint as being more than just opinion. Which would mean it's technically correct to say it's not the end...of the work the lawyers will be doing.

But if they just come back to court with more of the same, it's going to get a lot harder to pretend it's not a SLAPP suit.

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

mageta — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 10:57:42 +0000

From the article:

> In an email to The Register, Rohit Chhabra, founder of the Chhabra Law Firm and Grsecurity’s attorney, said: “While it is unfortunate that the court did not agree with us, this is certainly not the end of it.”

Judge rm -rf Grsecurity's defamation sue-ball against Bruce Perens (Register)

xtifr — Sat, 23 Dec 2017 02:36:50 +0000

The judge did indeed deny the anti-SLAPP motion, but only because it became irrelevant once the underlying case was dismissed. The denial was not only without prejudice, but the ruling actually says:

> "That said, the court has difficulty seeing how the present claims can elude California’s anti-SLAPP statute."

I'm no legal expert, but I'm betting that Grsecurity's lawyer is busy telling them that they were lucky to get out with nothing worse than a dismissal!