Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

By Larry Klayman, of Judicial Watch; a fringe political group just a tier above Orly Taitz. Read his history (he was all over the spotlight in the '90s during the Clinton administration) before jumping to the conclusion that this is the start of something meaningful.

View on HN

[EDIT: OK, it appears that Wikipedia is more charitable than other sites in choosing with of Klayman's efforts to highlight. Mea culpa.]

Klayman is severely partisan, for sure, but is there any evidence that he deals in falsehoods?

Yes, sadly, the most energetic fighters are fighting one one side, instead of justice in generally.

But I'd rather have Klayman attacking Democrats for legitimate gripes, and Larry Flynt attacking Republicans for legitimate gripes, than practically getting nothing done because EFF is too boring to get support and non-partisans never get enough influence in general.

"In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages."

The EFF is not boring. You're very mistaken.

immaterial. He said "too boring to get support". Presumably he meant "too boring to get [across the board] support [from citizens of all walks in the nation]". I say this, as a supporter of the EFF.

As a Canadian who is seriously concerned about this political issue in your country which affects me, I have to ask, why are you bringing character into this? And also, why does his character matter if the intentions are good?

I'm assuming he's referring to his motive rather than character as (from what I've read), the person in question likes to chase issues the public is currently outraged about.

If he's able to follow this through, it really doesn't matter WHO is bringing the suit to light, but if his motive is weak then I would assume that he may not be as committed to follow-through on this as someone who is doing it from a principled standpoint.

>the person in question likes to chase issues the public is currently outraged about.

Sounds like a good strategy. What good is it to invest resources chasing an issue that you can't make anyone care about?

It's more a question of whether or not he can actually make a difference. Good lawyers don't take bad cases. Bad lawyers take cases that are unwinnable and make money from the gullible.

I agree. I am hearing and seeing that too in regards to all the "actors in this play"

Mr. Snowden is getting slammed for only having a GED and for once working as a security guard and now this former prosecutor is getting slammed for his possible missteps.

It's as if it is strategic trolling.

It also impressive that people feel the government and major corporations need their help in defending against any of this (as if the events don't already show they don't care about the public in general). Humans are funny.

His character matters because if you care about this issue, you don't want the public face of opposition to it to be a buffoon. Which is what Klayman is. The guy's been in on everything from Swift Boating to birthering, and that is absolutely not what you want people to see when they look up who's leading the charge against PRISM.

In many ways the most illegal thing you can do with prism is blackmail, right? But with swift boating and birther stuff it's easy to see that it takes a lot less effort to just lie. Actual prosecution of citizens under such a wiretap for domestic crimes would be illegal even under FISAAA but as far as I know that hasn't been tested in court.

I'm not bringing "character" into this so much as I am pointing out that Larry Klayman suing something for billions of dollars isn't newsworthy.

He seems to fail every time: "In April 2011, Klayman filed a lawsuit against Facebook, accusing the social media website of "negligence" for not responding quickly enough to calls to take down an anti-Israel "Third Intifada" page and demanding $1 billion in damages. Facebook representatives responded that the suit was "without merit." In December 2012, the district court dismissed the complaint on 47 U.S.C. 230 grounds.

Also in 2011, Klayman represented Joseph Farah in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Esquire magazine. In July 2011, Klayman represented Bradlee Dean in his unsuccessful defamation lawsuit against Rachel Maddow; Dean was eventually ordered to pay defendants' legal fees that totalled nearly $25,000.

In 2012, Klayman filed on behalf of a Florida resident an unsuccessful challenge to Barack Obama's placement on the primary ballot and claimed that the latter is not a natural-born citizen."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com