Ruhut Sued for Calling People Communist

Prior to the commemoration of the national Heroes Day on 10 November 2010, some people have proposed that the government grant a National Hero Award to the late former President Soeharto.

Many people protested against this proposal saying that Soeharto did not deserve the award because of the abuse of power when he was in power from 1966 to 1998 that caused very big difficulties to the country.

In reaction to that protest Ruhut Sitompul, lawyer and member of the House of Representatives from the Democrat Party, alleged that people who do not agree with the said proposal are children of the former members of the Indonesian Communist Party.

Due this allegation, Ruhut was sued by four persons who do not agree with the proposal i.e. Judilherry  Justam, Chris Siner Key Timu, Muhammad Chonzin Amirulla and Stefanus Asat Gusma, have submitted a lawsuit against Ruhut with the District Court of Central Jakarta last Tuesday.

The said Plaintiffs claimed that Ruhut has committed an Illegal Action against them when he made the above mentioned allegation.

The submission of  said lawsuit shows that the image of the Indonesian Communist Party is very ugly in Indonesia, therefore people would be very angry if they are called members of said party.  

Sources (in Bahasa Indonesia) :
-   Ruhut Sitompul Digugat Terkait Pernyataan PKI (Hukum Online)
-   Soeharto Tak Dapat Gelar Pahlawan Nasional (Suara Pembaruan)
-   Gelar Pahlawan Nasional Bagi Soeharto Berisiko Tinggi (Okezone) 

Photo: Courtesy of Kompas.

Courtney Love Sued for Twitter Defamation

Do people take what they read over Twitter as fact or opinion? That's one of the issues of contention in a lawsuit by designer Dawn Simorangkir against Courtney Love, over allegedly false tweets Love sent to her 40,000+ followers

For details about this story, please read the following article that I have quoted from THR,Esq.

Courtney Love’s Tweets Lead to Unique Defamation Showdown

Rocker's rants bring the first high-profile trial over celebrity Twitter comments.                                            

3:09 PM 1/4/2011 by Matt Belloni, Eriq Gardner  

The following article appears in the current issue of The Hollywood Reporter available on newsstands Wednesday.
 
Courtney Love was very upset.
The firebrand rocker had been locked in a dispute with Dawn Simorangkir, a fashion designer who was demanding payment for a few thousand dollars worth of clothes.

So on March 17, 2009, Love took to her Twitter account and began hurling a stream of shocking insults at the designer known as the “Boudoir Queen.” 

Love’s tweets, which instantly landed in the Twitter feeds of her 40,000 or so followers (and countless others via retweets), announced that Simorangkir was a drug-pushing prostitute with a history of assault and battery who lost custody of her own child and capitalized on Love’s fame before stealing from her. “She has received a VAST amount of money from me over 40,000 dollars and I do not make people famous and get raped TOO!” Love wrote.

That tirade, along with others the Hole frontwoman unleashed on social media platforms including MySpace and Etsy.com during the next four days, form the basis of a unique lawsuit headed to court in January: the first high-profile defamation trial over a celebrity’s comments on Twitter.

“There has never been anything like this case before,” says Simorangkir attorney Bryan Freedman, who will attempt to convince a Los Angeles jury that Love’s false statements destroyed his client’s fashion career, thus entitling her to potentially millions of dollars in damages.

In an age when public figures from Kanye West to Ryan Seacrest communicate influential messages to thousands — sometimes millions — of followers on social platforms, the Love case raises the question of whether celebrities, like the news media, should be liable for what happens if they intentionally put untrue and damaging statements in front of their loyal readers.

“We don’t believe there’s any defamation, and even if there were defamatory statements, there was no damage,” says James Janowitz, an attorney for Love.

A key to the case, say First Amendment lawyers, could be whether an average Twitter user would interpret Love’s vicious tweets as facts rather than merely her opinion.

“I’ll be interested to see if the court gives people posting on Twitter more latitude than other media,” says Alonzo Wickers, a defamation expert who has handled matters for such media clients as Comedy Central and TMZ. “The way Twitter is evolving, it seems to be more of a means to express opinion. I would hope courts give tweets the same latitude as they do an op-ed piece or a letter to the editor.”

To aid her case, Simorangkir plans to call to the stand Jessie Stricchiola, a social media expert who was tasked with studying how many people saw the Love rants and what kind of credibility is given to statements made on a casual forum like Twitter. Stricchiola will report her findings at trial.

Love, who is scheduled to testify in court, already gave a deposition in the case, during which she argued that she was only repeating in her tweets what she had heard from Simorangkir herself. (Simorangkir denies truth in any of Love’s tweets.) She did acknowledge Love’s influence as a fashion icon, of sorts, and Simorangkir plans to use those statements at trial to demonstrate that Love was enough of a trendsetter to effectively kill her reputation. In addition, e-mails and phone calls made by Love to Simorangkir in the aftermath of her Twitter rampage, some of which purportedly exhibit remorse about the comments, will be introduced to jurors.

Love’s attorneys have their own witnesses, including a medical expert who plans to testify that even if Love’s statements were untrue, her mental state was not “subjectively malicious” enough to justify the defamation lawsuit.

That claim — something akin to an insanity defense for social media — suggests that Twitter was so appealing and addictive for Love that she had no appreciation for how the comments she posted would be received by others.

The trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 18 in Los Angeles. UPDATE: The trial has been delayed to Feb 6.

share

Garuda and the National Football Team

I thought that everyone in Indonesia are happy that our national football team beats Malaysia, Laos and Thailand in the AFF-Suzuki Cup, and will play versus the Philippines in the Semi Final in Jakarta on Thursday.

That's why I was surprised when I read on the blog of ReBorn yesterday about the Lawsuit filed by David Tobing, a lawyer, against the used of the Garuda Symbol on the T-Shirts of the our national team.

In an interview with TVOne last night, David Tobing said that afternoon he has filed the Lawsuit with the District Court of Central Jakarta against the President, the Education Minister, the Sports and Youth Minister, the All Indonesian Football Association (PSSI) and PT Nike Indonesia.

He alleged that the use of the Garuda symbol on the T-Shirts is against the Law No 24/2009 Article 57 regarding the use of State Symbols.

This allegation was denied by the other guest at the talk show i.e. Historian Asvi Warman Adam who said that Article 52 of said Law allow the use of a State Symbol among others for those who are representing the country. He also said that our national football team has also used the Garuda symbol when they played against the Soviet Union at the Melbourne Olympic Games in 1956.
These statement was supported by lawyer Amir Syamsuddin who also urged David Tobing not to take advantage of the national team's present popularity.

Considering that our national team has been doing their best to represent our country in the AFF-Suzuki Cup, and we expect that they will win the tournament, I hope that David Tobing would be wise and withdraw the lawsuit, especially that now that the public has know about him and his protest. And if he persists, I hope that the judges would refuse his lawsuit. 


Sources :
-  Garuda di Seragam Timnas PSSI Menuai Gugatan (Hukumonline)
-  Lambang Garuda di kostum Timnas Digugat (MetroTV)
-  Kemendiknas Diskusikan gugatan lambang Garuda di kaos Timnas (Primaironline) 

Photo :  Courtesy of Kaskus.

Lawsuit against KPK

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is famous for its strong commitment to fight corruption in Indonesia.

But recently, the KPK has to taste the bitterness of its own medicine when one of the alleged corrupter plan to file a lawsuit against it. Please find an article in The Jakarta Post below.

Considering that the Indonesian judicial system adopted the principle of Presumption of Innocence, I hope that KPK and other law enforcement agencies would always respect the rights of any suspects whose crimes have never been decided by the Court of Law.

Graft suspect to file pretrial lawsuit against KPK

The Jakarta Post | Wed, 02/03/2010 9:14 AM | National

Former minister Bachtiar Chamsyah, who has been named a suspect in a graft case by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), plans to file a pretrial lawsuit against the antigraft body, one of his lawyer said Wednesday.

Lawyer Fauzie Yusuf Hasibuan told tempointeraktif.com that the KPK had denied his client his constitutional rights by announcing that his client had been named a suspect to the media without officially telling Bachtiar.

Fauzie also claimed that the KPK had never summoned Bachtiar over the graft case prior to the announcement.

Bachtiar was named a suspect Monday in a graft case involving the procurement of sewing machines and the import of cattle during his term. The KPK said it might announce other suspects in the case.

Bachtiar was alleged to have directly appointed certain companies in the procurement of sewing machines and the import of cattle – intended for distribution to the poor under the government’s poverty eradication program between 2004 and 2006. He also allegedly inflated the price of the goods.

Separately, KPK spokesman Johan Budi said that the anticorruption body would be ready to face the lawsuit. “[They] should go ahead [with the suit]. They have the right to do so,” he said.

Coins for Justice

Today, the number of coins donated by people all over Indonesia to help Prita Mulyasari has reached more than 650 million Rupiah.

This is 3 times higher than the 204 million Rupiah (US$ 21,600) fine that Prita must pay based on the verdict of the High Court of Banten regarding Civil Defamation Lawsuit filed against her by the Omni International Hospital in Banten.

The support for Prita has forced the hospital to request for cancellation of Civil proceedings, and request for amicable settlement based on the intermediary of the Minister of Health.

These efforts failed, because Prita wants the Criminal Prosecution against her at the District Court of Tangerang to be canceled too, but cannot be fulfilled by the hospital. So Prita appealed with the Supreme Court for the civil lawsuit case.

Although the Criminal Prosecution is carried out by the District Attorney, but Prita's demand is reasonable, because the Prosecution exists based on the hospital's report to the Police.

In connection with the injustice faced by Prita and the people's support, a businessman Rahmat Shah said that he wants to buy the coins and build a statue that symbolize justice in his hometown Medan North Sumatera.

For detailed media reports, please click here and here.

The coins shows that people hated the injustice faced by Prita who was jailed for 3 weeks just because she sent e-mail to her relatives and friends about the hospital's terrible services.
Whereas there are other people who were suspected of conspiracy against the Corruption Eradication Commission(KPK) but still untouched by the law.


Image: Courtesy of Wikia.

Successful Lawsuit against a Cigarette Co.

Cigarette manufacturers are very powerful in Indonesia!
This can be seen from the advertisements spaces on the media and open-air sign boards that are dominated by cigarette manufacturers.

Efforts made by Anti-Cigarette activists, including filing lawsuit against those manufacturers, often ended in vain. Maybe the main reason is because those manufacturers contributed a large sum of money for our country's income.

Recently, I read on Legal Blog Watch about a successful lawsuit filed by a Cigarette Smoker against cigarette manufacturer Philip-Morris at the District Court of Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Note: this company is majority owner of Indonesian cigarette manufacturer PT HM Sampoerna.

Although the verdict of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts may not be applicable in Indonesia, but it can at least be used as reference for similar lawsuit here.

Please find below the said blog post for your kind perusal.

'Healthy' Smokers Win Landmark Tobacco Ruling

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled today that cigarette smokers who have suffered no apparent injuries to their health may nonetheless bring a lawsuit to force tobacco makers to pay for medical monitoring to scan for cancer that may develop in the future. The case, Donovan v. Philip Morris USA, was decided based on questions certified to the court from the U.S. District Court in Boston. In an opinion authored by Justice Francis X. Spina, the unanimous SJC said the smokers should have their day in court.

Our tort law developed in the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, when the vast majority of tortious injuries were caused by blunt trauma and mechanical forces. We must adapt to the growing recognition that exposure to toxic substances and radiation may cause substantial injury which should be compensable even if the full effects are not immediately apparent. ...

When competent medical testimony establishes that medical monitoring is necessary to detect the potential onset of a serious illness or disease due to physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk of harm from exposure to a known hazardous substance, the element of injury and damage will have been satisfied and the cost of that monitoring is recoverable in tort. ...

Medical expenses are recoverable not only for direct treatment and diagnosis of a present injury or an injury likely to occur, but for diagnostic tests needed to monitor medically a person who has been substantially exposed to a toxic substance that has created physiological changes indicating a substantial increase in risk that the person will contract a serious illness or disease. The expense of medical monitoring is thus a form of future medical expense and should be treated as such.

The plaintiffs in the case are asking the federal district court to certify the lawsuit as a class action. They purport to represent a class of Massachusetts residents aged 50 and older who smoked Marlboro cigarettes for at least 20 years and who have not been diagnosed with or suspected of having lung cancer. Philip Morris sought to have the case dismissed in the District Court on the grounds that a tort plaintiff must be able to prove an existing physical injury in order to recover damages.That was the question the federal court asked the SJC to decide.

The SJC also ruled that the plaintiffs claims are not blocked by the statute of limitations. Because the technology was only recently developed that would allow the medical monitoring they seek in their complaint, the discovery rule would apply, the SJC said.

Posted by Robert J. Ambrogi on October 19, 2009 at 02:33 PM

Facebook paid a US$ 65 million Lawsuit

Good public image is very vital for business entrepreneurs that provide services to the society, therefore it should always be protected at any price.

Perhaps that's what in the minds of the management of social networking website Facebook when they paid US$ 65 million to settle Trade Secret Theft Lawsuit filed against Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg by a Harvard University students & alumni website ConnectU.
According to a blogpost by Carolyn Elefant in Law.com, the compensation was supposed to be Top Secret, but was exposed by ConnectU's former lawyers of a Los Angeles law firm Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges in its newsletter which was later on quoted by a San Fransisco legal newspaper The Recorder.
The reason for said disclosure was unclear, but one thing for sure was that last year ConnectU fired the said lawyers who demanded US$ 13 million for fees.

The above case clearly shows that every one who provide professional services should always safeguard any information related to the work they are doing for their clients or employees.