Update: Tom Stienstra responds, outlines his complaints.
The ruling -- which is only two pages long and can be read here -- was quite simple. In waiting nearly three years to file suit, Stienstra let the statute of limitations lapse.
That doomed Stienstra from the get-go. But County Commissioner JoAnn M Bicego also seemed unimpressed with his supplemental legal arguments. She disagreed with his contention that a blog post is continually being published and republished due to the "dynamic character of the internet." Instead, case law has established that since Chandler's article ran in April 2010, Stienstra's opportunity to make a legal claim lapsed in April of 2011.
Stienstra's novel claim that the Communications Decency Act
, of all things, would somehow extend this timeline seemed to confuse the court: "The Communications Decency Act, to the extent it would apply to this case, would shield Mr. Chandler from liability from comments posted by third parties on his blog, but it would not alter the applicable statute of limitations."
So, the actual content of the article never came into question. Reading the offending material,
it's difficult to perceive what could be construed as libelous or defamatory. After perusing the story at SF Weekly
's behest, Jim Ewert
, the general counsel for the California Newspaper Publisher's Association, agreed: "I don't see anything on the face of the blog that jumps out at me."
Chandler -- who crowed over his victory in this ebullient blog post
-- has his own theory. "My belief is that this whole mess was never about libel," he writes. "Instead, the Trout Underground's article about Mr. Stienstra's arrest was the only mention of his arrest appearing on the first page of Google results for "Tom Stienstra.I believe Stienstra wanted it removed, and that the bullying letters and the lawsuit were designed to make the post disappear."
In the ruling against Stienstra, it is noted that the writer complained that Chandler's article "remains on the first page of hits when his name is entered into the Google search engine."
Our message for Stienstra has not yet been returned.
Chandler's article regarding his weed bust remains on that first Google page of hits, however. And now, another weed-related article is on the first page as well. Tomorrow may bring more.
"In other words," writes a triumphant Chandler, "Stienstra didn't do himself any favors."
Update, 4 p.m.: Stienstra sent an e-mail our way:
The judge ruled I could not collect damages solely due to the "Single Print Rule," held in the past for print publications, that puts a 1-year statute of limitations on the ability to collect damages for libel, that she applied to an internet blog post.
I believe that law needs to be changed to stop bloggers like Chandler and anonymous posters from publishing lies and defaming people on the internet.
In court, it was revealed that Tom Chandler made no attempt to get the truth, not even a single phone call to anybody, before and after he defamed me.
I was not involved in the case. In the 11-page affidavit that led to the encounter, I was not mentioned even one time. I was never charged with a crime. I won the only action filed in the matter, against the Department of Justice and Siskiyou County with the U.S. Attorney's Office to recover property.
It may disappoint some people who want me to champion their cause, and others who want to defame me, but I don't use marijuana. Just not my thing and never has been.
To get the blog material removed, I advised Chandler's attorney today that I am considering suing for injunctive relief. Even though I cannot win damages for libel because of the statute of limitations, I can ask that they pay all attorney fees in the process of an injunction..
Considering we have tried every avenue to get false, libelous and defamatory material removed in a fair manner, and they have resisted, we believe we will be awarded attorney fees in full if he fails to comply.
In the entire process, not once has Chandler defended what he wrote because it was accurate, honest and truthful or just plain the right thing to do. He can't because it's bullshit. The guy would not have graduated my journalism class.
For my work in the San Francisco Chronicle, I won the Presidents Award, Best of the Best, as outdoor writer of the year for a record third time last fall from the Outdoors Writers Association of America.
When asked what was specifically objectionable within this fly-fishing article and how it differed from the many other publications that covered the original story, Stienstra sent us an excerpt from a court filing. It does not address our latter question but does dissect the fly-fishing blog point-by-point -- and is far, far longer than the offending article. Those interested in Stienstra's rationale can read that document here