IN OUR QUEST for IT news to interest you, our readers, we often trawl some of the more obscure nooks and crannies of the web, so you don't have to do so.

One of the websites we visit because it's a veritable magnet for odd technology news is Signs of the Times, so we couldn't help but notice when it was sued for Internet defamation. The INQUIRER takes a rather keen interest when other news sites are sued for libel, for reasons that might be obvious to our readers.

In February, Eric Pepin of Beaverton, Oregon and his company, Higher Balance Institute, filed an Internet defamation lawsuit against the California non-profit organisation Quantum Future Group, which operates the Signs of the Times news and analysis website, and Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who resides in France and is the chief webmistress of Signs of the Times.

Pepin's complaint (pdf) alleged that comments that appeared on the Signs of the Times reader forum were libelous, and it sought damages of $4.47 million.

Signs of the Times has only a relatively small readership, but it's a loyal group. When the website was sued it appealed for donations to cover its legal defence costs. Within just a few weeks its readers donated £65,000 (about $128,000).

On Saturday, Signs of the Times announced through its attorneys that on April 25 it filed motions challenging Pepin's lawsuit in US District Court in Portland, Oregon. In a statement, defendant Quantum Future Group (QFG) said it asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit and further asked to recover its attorneys fees.

In its legal briefs, QFG cited Oregon's anti-SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") statute to claim that its statements about New-Age "guru" Pepin and Higher Balance Institute (HBI) are constitutionally protected speech.

Under the anti-SLAPP law, QFG argues, if the plaintiffs cannot show that they will probably prevail on the merits, the lawsuit must be dismissed before QFG and other defendants have to incur high attorneys fees to defend themselves.

QFG contends that Pepin and HBI can't show they will probably prevail on the merits because, "Without exception, the statements are all constitutionally protected expressions of opinion rather than verifiable assertions of fact."

Since the statements to which Pepin and HBI object are opinions, QFG argues, "HBI cannot meet its burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the statements are false, let alone that Defendants knew that they were false or had serious doubts as to their truth."

Signs of the Times reader forum comments that Pepin and HBI alleged were defamatory included some posts questioning Pepin's meditative techniques and commenting on Pepin's 2007 trial on multiple alleged sexual offences involving his behaviour with a 17-year old follower.

"These are exactly the sort of statements that the First Amendment and recent statutes protect as free speech," said QFG attorney Stephen Kaus. "People are entitled to believe in gurus such as Pepin and buy their books and courses for hundreds of dollars or more, but people are also entitled to point out their view that the techniques of telepathy and development of a sixth eye promoted by Pepin are nonsense."

QFG maintains that the forum comments were opinions in reaction to matters of fact reported by mainstream news sources, including The Oregonian, a daily newspaper published in Portland, Oregon, and the Associated Press, and are therefore protected by both the US Constitution and the Oregon Constitution.

An article in The Oregonian reported on Pepin's 2007 court trial on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor. Pepin was acquitted because the judge did not believe that the state's allegations had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Washington County Circuit Court Judge Steven L. Price reportedly said it was "'probable that the conduct alleged in all counts occurred,' but [that] he wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt." According to The Oregonian, Judge Price "called the leader of a metaphysical Internet sales company manipulative and controlling and his testimony unbelievable, even as he acquitted him... of charges that he had sex with an underage boy."

Signs of the Times readers pointed out on its forum that being found "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same thing as being found " innocent of all charges."

QFG's motion also argues that, under the US Communications Decency Act of 1996, Signs of the Times, as the operator of an Internet forum, is not liable for third-party comments posted on its website. It also questions the Oregon based federal court's jurisdiction over QFG, a California non-profit organisation with its primary place of business in France.

QFG attorney Walter Hansell stated in an earlier press release, "HBI's lawsuit is a frontal assault on free speech, and on the free global flow of information and opinion on the Internet. It is a blunt force attack on the discussion of sincere opinions among people sharing common interests."

Following QFG's April 25th motions filing, Hansell said, "The intent of this suit by HBI is to stifle free speech, but luckily the anti-SLAPP statute allows us to nip the matter in the bud before the cost is out of hand."

Hopefully the court will order Pepin to pay the attorneys fees incurred by QFG and Signs of the Times to defend themselves as well.

L'Inq
Signs of the Times