Let’s Stop Winter from Coming: AAR Weighs in on the Ellora’s Cave Suit against Dear Author
Note: None of us here at AAR is a legal expert on defamation, and we’re not going to pretend to be for purposes of this blog. Nothing on here is intended to serve as legal advice. Laws changes, and they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so no blog can substitute for speaking to your own attorney.
We think by now everyone who isn’t living under a rock (or at least everyone who follows romance blogs and/or the publishing industry) is aware that Ellora’s Cave Publishing, Inc. and Jasmine-Jade Enterprises, LLC (collectively “EC” from here on out) has sued Dear Author Media Network, LLC(“DA”) and has also sued individually the blogger known online as Jane Litte(“Litte”), alleging that they have defamed EC and harmed the business. The plaintiffs seek an injunction, money damages, and also have asked the court to require DA to provide the identities of anonymous online commenters to one of its blog pieces concerning EC. However, as with many big lawsuits, the story doesn’t start with the court filing. If you want a history of EC and its ups and downs, Litte gives plenty of that, together with citations, in her allegedly defamatory blog piece. And you can find plenty more stories even with a cursory search on Google.
For some time before Litte ran her piece earlier this month, rumors about practices at EC had been percolating around Twitter, Facebook and blogland in general. Writer Beware has a summary of recent coverage here. Jane’s piece ran on September 14, 2014 and EC filed suit last Friday, September 26, 2014. Rather than summarize here(It could go for pages), I’ll just link to the news story. There are many, many summaries of these events all over the internet, and the lawsuit itself is also readily available on the Summit County, Ohio Clerk of Court’s website.
Along with the lawsuit, EC filed a motion for temporary injunction. DA reports that this has already been heard, at least preliminarily. Litte has reported that the court has not granted the temporary injunction at this point, but has asked the parties to come back to court for a more detailed hearing at which evidence will be presented. Presumably, there may be witnesses present to testify at this hearing, whenever it occurs, and Litte has also made mention of the possible filing of sworn written statements. As of September 30, 2014, the only affidavit showing in the court record is that of Patricia Marks, one of EC’s co-owners. Not surprisingly, her statement agrees with allegations made in EC’s complaint.
At this point, DA and Litte are looking for witnesses to present evidence at the upcoming evidentiary hearing. On her blog, Litte states, “Truth is an absolute defense to defamation,” and then asks for information from editors, authors, and cover artists. We have not personally seen an EC contract, but we have heard from at least one person regarding a possible confidentiality clause in the contracts EC uses. It also appears claims are being made that authors are afraid to come forward due to confidentiality clauses in EC contracts. We cannot give legal advice on here, but it’s common sense to remind anyone concerned about a possible contract or about their legal interests in general to seek out a lawyer. Obviously Jane’s attorney represents her interests, which may not be 100% in line with those of possible witnesses, even if said witnesses sympathize with her and DA’s position.
Courtney Milan has already spoken out urging people to come forward regarding the EC lawsuit and has discussed the possibility of helping witnesses get a lawyer to come to court. If you would like to contact an attorney before deciding whether to give out your name/come forward at all and you do not already have an attorney to contact or you have concerns about the cost, please be aware that many state and local bars have lawyer referral services which for a modest fee (usually $30-50 in my experience) will at least get you a consultation meeting with an attorney who specializes in the field of law you seek. The list of referral services for the state of Ohio, where the EC suit is pending, is here. If you would like contact information for lawyer referral services in other areas, please shoot Lynn an email at lspenceraar AT hotmail DOT com.
So, what does this all mean? Well, as many bloggers and authors noticed from the day the suit was filed, it means that in the short term, Litte and DA will have to pay for legal representation regardless of the strength of EC’s claim. Not surprisingly, this has any of us who express our views online thinking hard and talking about the case. The knowledge that a suit like this could be filed has a definite chilling effect on speech. We can see that in the earnest conversations now being held in blog comment sections, on social media, and in email loops. And our revulsion at the idea that someone could ever act with the notion that bloggers and authors can be bullied into silence is seen in the #notchilled hashtag started by Milan on Twitter.
We at AAR are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of using court action to silence internet reporting and commentary. EC’s request to reveal the identities of anonymous commenters is disturbing as the anonymous commenting community is a vital part of the spread of ideas and makes the work of bloggers and reviewers a much richer experience. This is not just a spat between EC and DA/Litte; this is a suit that could have implications for anyone who wants to express opinions in a blog, write a heartfelt review that may not be of the “I give everything 5 stars” variety, or even just contribute to a comments discussion pseudonymously. And perhaps that’s why the sometimes dysfunctional world of Romlandia has started to band together this week.
– Lynn Spencer, Blythe Barnhill, and Dabney Grinnan
Special Note to commenters: To the extent legally possible, we will protect anyone who wishes to comment anonymously. This is always our policy, but we wanted to emphasize it for this post.
And another note (10/2/2014) – I just saw that Tina Engler of Ellora’s Cave has commented publicly on The Passive Voice blog. If you scroll down the comments, you can see it here.
And yet another note (10/14/2014) In the interests of honoring the spirit behind our editorial, I am editing any comments that call out any bloggers by any name other than the one they choose. All comments using anyone’s “real” name will be edited to reflect this policy. Thanks. Dabney
Here I am. An actual Ellora’s Cave author, or I was.
Nobody is going to make people declare their real identities every time they post online. Not unless they’re prepared to spend millions going to the highest courts. And “”online”” isn’t just the US (don’t forget the world wide web was invented, developed and given to the world by a Brit). I live in the UK, but if I anonymise or use a bouncing browser, I can post from any country I like. Not that I do. Not worth the hassle.
Way before this lawsuit started, I decided to take back my rights from Ellora’s Cave as they became due. Way before, like in May. The reason is, and remains, commercial. My sales are down there, and I’d like to take the books back and refresh them a bit before reissuing them, either with another publisher or self-publishing. I don’t think that my m/f romances, hot though they are, qualify as erotic in today’s market, so I’d like to take them mainstream.
It’s not like anybody forced me to sign that contract. I knew what I was getting into. I researched the company and its owners. But at the time, royalties were way higher than I could get anywhere else, even New York, artwork was good and EC did a lot of brand promotion.
But my career is ongoing, as is theirs, and while the market has changed, EC has lagged behind. In my reasonably informed opinion.
If I get the rights back to the 19 books I have with them, that will help everybody. I won’t burden the company with books that aren’t selling particularly spectacularly any more, and I’ll have a chance to give the books another go-round. I’ll even discuss foregoing the royalties I’m due in return for the rights.
That’s it, done.
Now the court case, that’s something else. I don’t pretend to know what’s going on any more than anybody else. The owners of EC aren’t talking to the authors much any more, probably because they speak, it leaks. I’m not a legal expert, and all this legal-speak is getting a bit like a w**k-fest for anybody who knows anything about the law. What I know about US law is from watching Boston Legal and I’m wondering why somebody doesn’t hire Denny Crane. However the money that’s being tossed around? That does annoy me, because I can think of far better uses for it.
Just remember that it’s not always all about you.
Just an FYI: if I have something to say, I don’t hide behind anonymity. I have 2 names, my real one (Tina) and my pen name (Jaid.) Thank you.
Thank you for sharing that with us.
I thought I just did.
But hey, that’s the face you want to present to the world, all while you’re claiming there’s some “”chilling effect”” being perpetrated against book reviewers fine. The only chilling effect I’m seeing is the one orchestrated against anyone who does not agree with Dear Author’s cheerleading team.
For the record, I am not Tina Engler, nor am I one of her supporters. I do not post at Dear Author, but I am familiar with the site. But don’t let a little thing like the truth stand in the way of the accusations that are now flying around on Twitter.
You can keep your echo chamber. I prefer the real world. Good day.
No, the point is to ensure that bloggers are held to the same ethical standards as journalists.
Yes, I already noted that the burden is different for public figures. Intent now becomes very important. That is where Ms. x may run into trouble.
It’s clear from your repeated and continued doxxing of Jane where your sympathies lie. Go away troll.
Learn what “”doxxing”” means. I’m not doxxing anyone. That is the person being sued.
Also, resorting to screaming “”Troll!”” at anyone who disagrees with you is silly and hysterical. Calm down. You, actually, have done more to perpetuate the supposed “”doxxing”” of the defendant than pretty much anyone.
Twice in one day in comments to the same person is not “”repeated and continued””. But we already know you have trouble with the meanings of simple words, slang and otherwise.
I’ve been reading the posts somewhat irregularly and I have to disagree that what citymouse has written is “”trolling.”” I don’t actually feel strongly one way or the other and I actually do really like the Dear Author site and hope that things work out for them. Having said that, I found the original blogger’s post to have some red flags that citymouse has pointed out, which is that writers (bloggers and journalists included) need to substantiate accusations or risk defamation suits. If the DA blogger can do that, she should be fine. If she cannot, then defamation is a real possibility. Freedom of speech allows everyone to have their say, but freedom of speech does not mean that there are not legitimate consequences to harming someone’s reputation or making unfounded personal insinuations against another without potential repercussion. Again, I think all of this is possible grounds for legal intervention, which is why I’m intrigued by the case.
I agree with you 100% Not a clear cut case at all. Will be watching with interest.
I have edited this thread to take out any mention of Jane’s real name. If you are unhappy with that call, please feel free to email me.
Thanks,
Dabney
I have no issue with your edits. Interesting how you let “”Go away troll”” stand, however, and the insinuation that I have some sort of bias or particular sympathy here because I don’t agree with the preferred narrative.
“”Go away troll”” did not make me happy but it didn’t seem to call for editing. We try and strike a balance between healthy debate and unhealthy debate. If you think I’ve interpreted that incorrectly, please let me know.
Thanks,
Dabney
Argumentum ad hominem: the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument.
An ad hominem attack occurs when a person attacks the character of a person rather than attacking what that person said.
Ad hominem: [Latin, To the person.] A term used in debate to denote an argument made personally against an opponent, instead of against the opponent’s argument.
Sweetie, it’s cute that you’re studying these things in high school, but please wait ’til you grow up a little more before you preach and snark at people for doing the things you’re actually doing to them.
It just makes Ms. x look bad.
I have edited this thread to take out any mention of Jane’s real name. If you are unhappy with that call, please feel free to email me.
Thanks,
Dabney
thx Dabney.
Who she has represented and what kinds of suits she’s been involved in are public record. I only brought up the defendant’s real job in the context of the comment I was responding to. In that light, it is relevant.
People can’t blame this on the lawsuit-happy culture we live in and not expect the fact that the defendant is part of that lawsuit-happy culture and has profited from it personally to be brought up.
It’s not a crime to be a lawyer. Those are your words, not mine.
Citymouse: Your response to my post was an argumentum ad hominem. And since you changed the direction of what I was addressing, your reply was also a non sequitur. I suggest that a course in logic and debate may be helpful, perhaps along with a study of John Adams’ thoughts on a nation of laws, not men.
I forgot to mention one other fallacy in logic I had intended to include: Reductio ad absurdum. That is, taking one statement (about too many lawsuits) to it’s opposite extreme (no lawsuits).
No, actually, it was pointing out the ridiculousness of your comment, given the situation.
You seem to have a huge grudge against lawyers and lawsuits. In that context, it’s actually appropriate to point out that one of the parties in THIS lawsuit is a lawyer and practices the very kind of law you’re railing against.
I get it. A friend of yours has been sued and you naturally think this is unfair. But that we are free to sue is part of freedom of expression. It comes with the territory. If people are going to write publicly about other people’s business practices, it’s something they leave themselves open to.
The rest of your comment had nothing to do with anything — something something about money and marketing, neither of which have anything to do with freedom of speech, or lawsuits, or this particular incident.
So. Now an ad hominem attack directed at me assuming my motives and experience, as well as at my right of free speech. Also is an excellent demonstration of the cultural issue I first brought up.
Figures.
You stated your reasoning. Several times. And who has prevented you from doing so?
Free speech does not guarantee that everyone will like what you say. Also, if you don’t like being criticized personally, you shouldn’t personally criticize others.
You didn’t bring up any cultural issues. What on earth are you going on about?
You poor dear. You really don’t understand any of this, do you?
Is it clear? Maybe to insiders, but not necessarily to an outside, more objective reader.
Taken at face value, even your defense here implies that the writers in question we’re not going on record.
All that aside, it’s the ad nominee comments in the piece that are at issue more than the facts about sales figures, etc., which are what they are.
If you are interested in donating to the legal fund Dear Author/Jane Litte has created to help pay for defending DA, here’s the link:
http://www.gofundme.com/DA-DefenseFund
“”We at AAR are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of using court action to silence internet reporting and commentary. “”
This!!! Big time! Thank you! I for one am deeply sickened at our lawsuit-happy culture on just about any issue one can name, but especially freedom of speech. If you’re not happy, sue, seems to be the course these days. Along with publicity, marketing and money clearly in focus, of course. Sorry to be cynical but I see it as yet a further unraveling of the basics of our culture. We can continue to pass even more and more laws than we already have, quadruple the lawsuits, and bring courts to an even bigger logjam than they are already in–or even until the moon turns purple and green striped–but that won’t bring us back to a more reasonable, civilized time that is less focused on fame and money. The Constitution guarantees our right to PURSUE happiness; it in no way guarantees the deliverance of happiness, for crying out loud.
No, but we have legal recourse if we believe we’ve suffered material damages as the result of someone’s false and/or malicious public statements.
Do you want to live in a society where anyone can say anything, no matter how damaging, about you, and all you can do is smile and be nice and suffer the outcome, all in the name of reasonable and civilized?
I was commenting on the nature of our culture being lawsuit happy, and NOT on taking away anyone’s legal recourse. That said, take a look at how many citizens are focusing these days on our nation of laws becoming a nation of powerful people with more money than others, even in the courts, for instance, which was John Adams’ concern in the first place, that is, those with more power (money) working the system. The current example is a case in point: A defense fund is needed for one of the parties.
A defense fund is needed for the party that is the lawyer who has profited from lawsuits because she is now being sued?
She has personally profited from the very system you criticize. Claiming that a personal injury attorney is a powerless, impoverished victim of the big, bad, mean old legal system (industry) is priceless…
I wish there was a “”Like”” button.
What Jane does for a living is irrelevant. How do you know who she has represented? Who are you to make such judgements?
“”Profits from lawsuits”” is a bit rich isn’t it? Let’s dial back the hyperbole a notch.
A lawyer is an officer of the court. A lawyer’s duty is to represent their client to the best of their ability within ethical regulations which apply in their jurisdiction.
It is not a crime to be a lawyer and it is not a crime to be paid for your lawful work, no matter what your job is.
Bringing up Jane’s real world job here is trollish and has nothing to do with the actual debate.
We at AAR are deeply uncomfortable with the idea of using court action to silence internet reporting and commentary.—-
—————————-
This I so agree with. Plus does anyone recall Hustler vs Falwell the libel legal case which Falwell lost. Hope that Ms Litte has that case used in her defense.
Jane Litte is not an author. She’s being sued for writing about the authors (says non-lawyer me.)
Journalists are sued all the time though, and they often lose, requiring their publishers to pay up. Public interest is just not enough reason to guarantee protection. The writers must have evidence to back up all claims. Hopefully, the DA blogger does. If not, a lawsuit is warranted.
I am definitely not a lawyer. But I get the impression that some publishers use their confidentiality clauses as a club — but that doesn’t mean they have a right to do so. Just because a clause is in a contract, that does not mean it is binding or even legal.
Thanks to Courtney Milan, there is more about confidentiality clauses here:
http://www.thepassivevoice.com/10/2014/a-note-about-confidentiality-clauses/
And even more at her own site: http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/2014/09/30/a-note-about-confidentiality-clauses-notchilled/
That is a great point. I think courts do need to weigh in here, We’re seeing all sorts of interesting freedom of speech cases via the Internet now, and some focus on cyberbullying too, including minors engaging in cyberbullying. Remember that old adage not to put things in writing! Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want, but that doesn’t mean that someone else can’t take you to task for it in all sorts of ways, including legal retribution. Defamation and libel are legitimate consequences if you engage in ruination of someone’s reputation without proof. I hope to learn more about this interesting case!
When I read that post in Dear Author, I considered it very interesting. I was very surprised when I saw that they were sued because of it, as I didn’t see anything wrong or insulting in it. I know nothing about US laws, so therefore I don’t know if we bloggers have to be worried for the effects of whatever the court decides.
I hope that everything goes all right for Jane Litte and Dear Author. It’s one of my favourite webpages.
I have little faith in human nature, so in my opinion, it’s better if they do not rely only on witnesses coming forward. In movies everybody does ‘the right thing’, and we all think that we would have been brave enough to protect people prosecuted by the nazis, for instance. But in reality people is very coward, even when it’s not their lives what is at risk, only the opinion of their neighbours. And they prefer to think ‘somebody else is going to do it’ instead of ‘I’ll do it’. I wish I’ll be wrong.
There’s a difference between giving your opinion about a book, something we bloggers do, and I think it’s protected by freedom of speech as long as we don’t insult anybody, and giving information, which is something that journalists do, and Jane Litte did in her post, so I think she deserves the same level of protection than any journalist writing about an issue of public interest. The whatever-constitutional-amendment that protects journalists. But that’s just my opinion.
If authors were in fact, contractually obliged to not badmouth/defame/speak out of context/talk about EC in a negative light, does that mean that Internet posts wherein this is done (if it WAS done, damned if I know) constitute libel and are NOT a form of protected speech?
If it is a matter of whether or not the posters violated contractual obligations to EC, couldn’t the courts pretty easily get the identifying information of the posters, regardless of whether or not Jane gives it to them?
Contracts cannot bind third parties.
True statements are not libelous and defamatory.
EC is suing over the contents of the blog post not the commenters. The request for commenters’ identities is an add on in the supporting memo.
True statements are not libelous and defamatory, but statements impugning the business practices of a company or person may be. That’s what the suit is about. The court will now determine the truth of DA’s statements and the intent behind them.
The intent factor is important here because both parties are public figures.
What’s troubling in that context is the personal nature of some of the statements, plus some of the subsequent discussion of the case that devolves into personal attacks. I’m not sure if EC can use what’s being said after the publication of the DA piece as support for a claim of malicious intent, but if she can, it sure sounds like one group of people who don’t even have contracts with EC have had it in for EC for a while now.
If questioning business practices is defamation and disliking a company proof of malicious intent, more people need to be concerned about this case. A lot of people hate Amazon and will flat out assert that Amazon is evil and trying to drive publishers out of business, or they hate the big 5 publishers and accuse them of screwing authors. Bloggers and self published authors could be sued for smearing those companies’ reputations and damaging their businesses.
People can be critical of bad business practices if they have supporting evidence. People cannot make unsubstantiated statements about companies or individuals that are not substantiated.
Being critical is one thing. Attributing what you perceive as bad business practices to unethical, even illegal actions without proof is not protected speech.
If authors were in fact, contractually obliged to not badmouth/defame/speak out of context/talk about EC in a negative light, does that mean that Internet posts wherein this is done, constitute libel and are NOT a form of protected speech? My though about the whole thing was that this was less likely a free speech issue and more of a case of libel/defamation and whether bloggers are legally obligated to not engage in such behavior.
Interesting point. Can EC compel websites to give up the identifying info on every anonymous commenter who says something negative about EC? Wouldn’t they have to have some indication that the comments are coming from an EC author? Maybe only if the anonymous commenter claims to be an EC author in the first place. Is wondering about your royalties a negative comment, though? Saying you’re concerned because you haven’t gotten royalties you believe are due isn’t necessarily a negative comment. Saying that you’re due royalites and EC isn’t giving them to you even though you “”know”” they have the money is possibly defamatory.
Is Jane Litte an EC author, though? I don’t know why that clause would affect her.
I think you may underestimate how difficult it can be to know who’s commenting. They can use a fake email address, then you’ve only got an IP address. But those can go through anonymizers, too.
Sure, if I commented without an anonymizer, you’d know it’d have been made in my household (because we have a static IP address). However, in most cases, you’d be lucky to get the metro area from the IP address.
(Background: I used to be a network geographer for a company that translated IP addresses to metro locations, so I have a clue exactly how hard it is.)
Not to mention that laws governing the release of identifying information vary from state to state. My state has a pretty high bar a petitioner would have to meet to get identifying information from my service provider.
I’m just wondering out loud. Not sure that part of EC’s request is even being recognized by the court, much less pursued.
Before an anonymous commenter’s “personal identifying information” is given up, a court must review the comment and find that it is more likely than not defamatory. Only then with the ISP be compelled to provide the information.
Assume that her evidence is sound and everything she said is true. That would mean EC’s lawsuit is purely an attempt to shut her up. That is the chilling effect for those who believe her evidence, the fact that truth is no protection against having to pay to defend yourself in court.
Yes, I think if someone goes out on a limb and is a public “”whistleblower,”” as it were, then there is a risk of a lawsuit. I don’t think the chilling effect extends necessarily to everyone in the public world of the Internet posting opinions about books or writing. I hope that distinction is clearer.
Good distinction, @Blackjack1.
I have only a surface knowledge of this case, but I saw red flags all over the DA post, and most of them originate from a very basic distinction that Litte did not consistently make, and one this AAR post doesn’t make when raising the alarm — reporting versus editorializing.
If most of the DA post is based in fact, then the defamation claims likely won’t hold up, but I suspect, like you said in an earlier post, the real problem was with the writer’s decision to throw in information that was protean to an individual but not Ellora’s Cave. I’m not convinced that the whistleblowing is what’s brought on the lawsuit, either — but I’d say the perceived mudslinging was.
Yes, after reading through the original piece a few times, it’s when the author veers off into speculation and semi-accusatory commentary that things start to go downhill quickly. In my not-a-lawyer-just-a-spectator perception of things, this is where EC may have some grounds for their claims. It’s telling, too, that the speculation DA engages in over the whys and wherefores of EC’s perceived financial issues are what she is now actively trying to substantiate with hard evidence.
It’s one thing for authors to privately wonder what’s happening with their royalites, but it’s another to present yourself as a journalist and go on to make those kinds of accusations based on what amounts to gossip and hearsay. It would have been better if the author had held off on that section of the piece until she had interviewed EC authors on record.
The case is interesting because of the blogging v. traditional journalism elements, and the social media elements. For all that we’ve had the internet for a couple of decades-plus now, it’s still unchartered territory in a lot of ways. Cases like this are what will eventually order it so that future bloggers-cum-journalists can navigate it more surely.
You do realize that speculation and opinion are protected speech, correct?
Brava, ladies! Good for you for weighing in on this important fight. Your blogs carry weight in the romance community, and sharing your opinions helps all of us, authors, bloggers, and readers.
Agree. Aren’t reviews of published works considered fair game, or protected speech as long as the reviewer doesn’t veer off into personal attacks upon the author? I don’t think anyone should worry about being sued over writing a negative review.
I’m interested in the outcome, too.
Yes! Freedom of speech does protect all sorts of intellectual endeavors, and so I do think this so-called “”chilling effect”” could be a bit of a red herring. However, freedom of speech does not protect personal attacks or erroneous information that can damage a person or company’s reputation, as long as the information is proven false. I’m not an attorney though and so it’s an interesting case to see play out.
I do also think that the Internet is a wildly unregulated space that gives people a false sense of security that anything and everything can be posted. I worry more that someone feels they can say anything under the belief that freedom of speech is a free-for-all. I really do hope the DA blogger had her facts in order and can stand by them.
I don’t know that much about this case, having only read the original blog post that got DA’s Jane in hot water. I see that she posts “”evidence”” with facts and figures and if those facts are substantiated, then she should be fine. However, if those facts are not substantiated, defamation could well be an issue. The blogger also posted what seems to me as personal attacks against the EC publisher’s mental health, and that too could be defamation, which is one very good reason why people should abstain from personal attacks against anyone in writing. I don’t see this though as a broad freedom of speech issue in that we should all be fearful of posting negative opinions about a book or an author’s writing or that there is a “”chilling effect”” necessarily. The DA blogger went far beyond posting her thoughts about a particular publisher and provided evidence about its unhealthy financial status and the health of a particular person. I hope for her sake that she is able to stand by the research she posts. I’m curious now to watch this evolve.
Why is Jane Litte only now asking for EC authors to come forward? Isn’t her defense (not in the legal sense) of her piece that all the things she wrote about were substantiated by evidence she already had? That worries me.
As much as any writer should be worried about looney-tunes coming out of the woodwork to sue them, isn’t the point that those same writers should do their due diligence and make sure of their facts before they publish something damning about a company or a person?
I hear a lot about this “”chilling effect””, but, IMO, writers should be nervous enough about publishing potentially damning material that they make sure they have their ducks in a row before publication day. Is that a chilling effect or is that common sense?
I guess I have more questions than anything else, but that one has been at the forefront since yesterday when all my FB feeds and twitter feeds started asking people to come forward. It was my impression they already had come forward before the piece was published.
I don’t know if you’ve read Jane’s piece or some of the related materials, but in the piece, she does cite to numerous sources for her information. In addition, there have been reports made at places like this: http://deirdre.net/elloras-cave-author-exodus-support-thread/ with regard to some of the issues raised in the DA blog post and subsequent lawsuit.
However, my understanding is that what Jane is looking for now are actual witnesses and sworn statements that she can take into a court hearing. That’s a little bit different than the materials one might use in background research.
The need for authors themselves may be related to the rules of evidence and admissibility – specifically, the rule against hearsay. That is, the blog statements are inadmissible because they are out-of-court statements offered for the truth of their contents. In an evidentiary hearing, someone who can authenticate them would be required to testify (i.e., the authors).
Because, even though Jane had sources for that information, when it gets to the point of putting one’s legal name in front of a court, some people are going to back down.
(I’ve already had two people either a) remove their postings or b) ask to be removed from the handful of posts I’ve made. As an example.)
So you ask for more people, so there’s redundancy. Remember, part of it is substantiating the amount allegedly owed, and that’s not simple.
This bothers me even though I know it shouldn’t. People were willing to let Jane be the voice for their problems with EC, and now that there’s trouble, some are not going to back her up.
But did they know that those conversations were going to be used in a piece about EC’s supposed financial difficulties?
If DA took what those authors understood to be private conversations and used them as back up in a public piece criticizing EC, their subsequent actions are perfectly understandable.
Just to be clear, I don’t think I’ve seen any authors coming out publicly to claim that DA misused information from any “”private conversations”” they had with Jane. Do you have a source for that?
No, but it’s a possible explanation to DSM’s and MaryK’s concerns. I don’t have a source either way, nor have I seen a source either way — that there are writers who explicitly agreed to go on record (anonymously or not) with claims about royalties, etc., or that there are writers who are saying their private conversations were misused.
She’s a well known book blogger. Why would they all bring their problems to her if they didn’t want her to do something about it?
Dunno. But a blogger can’t make an assumption like that on her own. She’d have to make sure her sources were aware they were indeed going to be used as sources for a published piece even if she wasn’t using names.
That’s right MaryK. It’s clear from the originating post that authors & others were reporting their concerns to Jane in the hope that she would speak out because they felt they could not.
Thank you, ladies. The last paragraph says it all, really.