We've just had the following letter in which makes interesting reading:

This law firm represents James Shortt of Republic of Ireland. Many statements about James Shortt which have been posted on your website are untrue or defamatory. These statements have been made maliciously to injure James Shortt in his trade, office and profession. These comments are reasonably identifiable as directed to James Shortt Under Nebraska Revised Statutes 25-839, words imputing an indictable offense are actionable per se. Words that are defamatory per se include those that imply that the plaintiff has been engaged in criminal activity. It is clear that as the operator of arrse.co.uk you have published false statements concerning James Shortt that have caused injury. This letter constitutes a demand for the removal of those false and libelous statements. In accordance with NRS 25-840.01, James Shortt demands removal of these libelous statements within three weeks (21 days) of this notice.

Despite the limited liability you may claim under 230 of the Communications Decency Act, we believe that you face liability if you fail to remove these defamatory posts from your service after republishing subsequent to having being noticed of the offending material, and this letter serves as a notice. In accordance with NRS 25-208 defining the statute of limitations, and in accordance with the single publication rule as it applies to republication, our records indicate that these defamatory statements have been published as recently as 7/26/2011.

Your conduct constitutes tortious interference with the business and contractural relations of James Shortt. As such they are actionable and expose you to the imposition of compensatory as well as punitive damages.

Following we have noted the uniform resource locator(s) to the malicious, and libelous, statements posted on your site; some of the statements also evidence tortuous interference. If James Shortt is forced to file suit to stop your wrongful conduct, he will also seek an award of his attorney fees and litigation expenses.

Location of offending material

[Every thread on ARRSE & Navy-Net that mentions him]

These posts exceed the bounds of free speech. Your failure to delete these false statements, or your facilitating their reproduction after notice of their falsehood, constitutes further publication and malicious intent.

We ask for your co-operation and assistance in this matter. Understand that our client does not intend for this matter to go unresolved and that he will take any and all legal action to have these posts removed. Pse do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours

Thomas Ferneau
Ferneau Law Office

Not sure why this fellow comes to mind?



Any suggestions???

If you need any legal advice on libel related matters then message me.

The letter isn't badly written but it is a little ambiguous.

Why instruct an American law firm to handle this, I thought James Shortt lived in Ireland

Originally Posted by Bad CO

Any suggestions???

Write back and correct the appalling grammar? Make them aware that US law doesn't actually apply in the UK?

Presuming it is now too late to allow the defence of doli incapax, might one be tempted to consider the reply given in Arkell v. Pressdram, 1971?

What's the Latin for 'fuck off'?

Incidentally, the truth cannot, by definition, constitute a libel.

Would it exceed the bounds of free speech for me as an individual to state that I believe Jim Short to be a fucking liar?

And someone who has, in my own opinion, obtained business as a result of knowingly misrepresenting his past?

Originally Posted by crow_bag

Why instruct an American law firm to handle this, I thought James Shortt lived in Ireland

If he has a reputation in the US and the contents of the website materially affect it then he could argue the US courts have jurisdiction.

Imputations of criminal activities punishable by imprisonment are actionable per se so he wouldn't even need to show damages.

You'd better avoid travelling to Nebraska then.

Write back and ask this "lawyer" if he has actually read all the aforementioned threads.