<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: BBB Defeats Defamation Lawsuit (After 7 Years)&#8211;Better Way v. BBB	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/11/bbb-defeats-defamation-lawsuit-after-7-years-better-way-v-bbb.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/11/bbb-defeats-defamation-lawsuit-after-7-years-better-way-v-bbb.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 22:19:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ralph Haygood		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2021/11/bbb-defeats-defamation-lawsuit-after-7-years-better-way-v-bbb.htm#comment-3160</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ralph Haygood]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 22:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=23245#comment-3160</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;but the plaintiff nevertheless was able to keep this in court for 7 YEARS&quot;: That may even have been the point. I don&#039;t see anything here about the plaintiff being on the hook for the defendant&#039;s costs. When I read about such dubious suits, I often suspect that the plaintiff knows full well they&#039;re going to lose - they should, if their lawyers are any good - but they don&#039;t care, because the point is to force the defendant to spend a wad of cash on defending themselves. Sure, the plaintiff has to spend a wad of cash too, but for some vindictive rich people, it may be money well spent - the defendant&#039;s pain is worth the price. Then too, there&#039;s the reputational effect: the defendant is putting the world on notice that anyone who says something in public that the defendant doesn&#039;t like is liable to suffer the same kind of pain.

&quot;We need more expedited procedures to kick doomed cases out of the courts much quicker than this&quot;: Yes indeed.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;but the plaintiff nevertheless was able to keep this in court for 7 YEARS&#8221;: That may even have been the point. I don&#8217;t see anything here about the plaintiff being on the hook for the defendant&#8217;s costs. When I read about such dubious suits, I often suspect that the plaintiff knows full well they&#8217;re going to lose &#8211; they should, if their lawyers are any good &#8211; but they don&#8217;t care, because the point is to force the defendant to spend a wad of cash on defending themselves. Sure, the plaintiff has to spend a wad of cash too, but for some vindictive rich people, it may be money well spent &#8211; the defendant&#8217;s pain is worth the price. Then too, there&#8217;s the reputational effect: the defendant is putting the world on notice that anyone who says something in public that the defendant doesn&#8217;t like is liable to suffer the same kind of pain.</p>
<p>&#8220;We need more expedited procedures to kick doomed cases out of the courts much quicker than this&#8221;: Yes indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
