Internet criticism, even if mean-spirited, does not entitle one to millions in damages, as per a recent legal decision in California. Landlord attorney Dennis P. Block brought forth litigation against tenant advocacy group BASTA due to a parody Twitter account allegedly run by a contractor they used. The spoof account, according to Block, was a source of emotional distress, leading to a dip in his firm’s morale and the departure of a star litigator.
In a previous interview in 2007, the disputed lawyer described his eviction of people from their homes as a “patriotic duty”. This perspective, unsurprisingly, aligns contradictorily with that of a tenant rights group and much of civilized society which largely views such actions as ‘immoral’.
Many might argue that Block’s competency could be questioned. While he has had a successful career, he belongs to a small and rather amusing group of attorneys caught for citing fabricated caselaw, incidentally using ChatGPT, opening the room for competency-related jokes.
The debatable Twitter account had a minor following of approximately 150 people. The lawyer, who once told a major newspaper without batting an eyelid that he considers it his duty to put people out on the streets, couldn’t handle criticism from this small group of followers. To pose as a tough landlord lawyer, one needs to develop a thicker skin to ward off criticism.
Notably, the attention garnered by this lawsuit has led to more people knowing about this parody account than would have been possible otherwise, leading to an unintentional Streisand effect.
In conclusion, learnings from this case could be useful to legal professionals willing to learn about the relationship between social media and legal boundaries in defamation and emotional distress.