Gamer blogs today stood up for free speech rights, picking up on reports of strong-arm tactics by a Christian videogame developer that is threatening to sue bloggers for criticizing its product. These reports include a Daily Kos diary in which it was reported that Left Behind Games has threatened to sue blogs that criticize its convert-or-die videogame. The corporation's attorney, Gordon D. Katz, has issued a flurry of form letters threatening to sue blogs unless they remove unspecified "false and misleading information," including reader comments, about its critically panned product, Left Behind: Eternal Forces.
Yesterday, it was revealed on Daily Kos that the attorney's letterhead address is that of a private house owned by his mother. It was also revealed that the individual whom bloggers are instructed to contact regarding this matter -- Katz's purported "Administrator on this matter, Robilyn Lyndon" -- is actually the Senior Vice President of Left Behind Games, Inc., and the wife of its CEO, Troy Lyndon. Therefore, she is actually Katz's client, not his supervisee.
Today, gamers' blogs, including GamePolitics, Kotaku, The Escapist, and Destructoid, weighed in on behalf of freedom of speech and against bully tactics.
In "Left Behind Games Hushes Heathens," Kotaku writes:
This is exciting stuff. Our RSS generally avoids religion like locusts, but we're always up for a good freedom of speech/religion battle.
Kotaku noted that "we actually were sent seven, yes SEVEN copies" of the vague but threatening form letter from Gordon D. Katz.
In "Left Behind Games Threatens Sites That Don't Like Left Behind Games," The Escapist writes:
The letter, issued by the law offices of Gordon D. Katz, says that while Left Behind Games "generally supports free speech in the media," it will not tolerate the spread of false information that may cause harm to the company. "Left Behind Games Inc. is demanding that you immediately remove any and all information contained on your site about the above stated game that is false and/or misleading, including any such statements or commentary and the responses thereto," the letter says. "This includes posted comments made by others in the context of reading the incorrect or misleading statements."
"If you do not comply immediately, the company will be forced to pursue additional legal action which will include claims for damages, costs of suit and attorney's fees," it continues. "This may subject you and your organization to significant legal and financial damages." ...
Released in 2006, Left Behind: Eternal Forces has faced criticism both from Christian groups, who decried the game's intolerance and "convert or die" philosophy, and from game reviewers, the majority of whom slapped the game with average-to-poor reviews over its technical issues (most of which have since been patched) and mediocre gameplay.
In "Game Publisher Threatens the Blogs: Will Sue You If You Say Bad Things," Destructoid writes:
Apparently, if you dare criticise Left Behind's games, you are posting "false and misleading" information. How arrogant do you have to be to send something like that? This isn't the only instance of bully-boy tactics on the part of Left Behind either... Also, Eternal Forces looked terrible anyway.
In "Left Behind Games Gets Apocalyptic with Bloggers," GamePolitics writes:
Numerous reports have surfaced on the web over the last few days regarding legal threats made against blog sites by Left Behind Games, publishers of a controversial real-time strategy title based upon the mega-selling Christian book series....
Suing the blogosphere? Good luck. Such bully tactics are likely to bring the wrath of bloggers - and their readers - down upon Left Behind Games.
Come to think if it, Left Behind has a history of watching the blogs. We’ve had a few comments placed here on GP by a company employee. I wonder if The Daily Show and Jack Thompson got nastygrams as well?
A Primer on SLAPP Suits
None of the blogs is informed what content the corporation finds objectionable. Therefore, the corporation does not appear to be on firm legal ground, but is nevertheless threatening a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP suit), the purpose of which is to intimidate critics into self-censorship. And corporate censors frequently pursue SLAPP suits, even in unmeritorious cases, because they work.
SourceWatch describes why corporations deploy strategic lawsuits against public participation ("SLAPP suits"), and how they are effective:
"Thousands of SLAPPs have been filed in the last two decades, tens of thousands of Americans have been SLAPPed, and still more have been muted or silenced by the threat," write law professors George Pring and Penelope Canan in their 1996 book, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out.
In their investigation of the trend, Pring and Canan found that "filers of SLAPPs rarely win in court yet often 'win' in the real world, achieving their political agendas. We found that SLAPP targets who fight back seldom lose in court yet are frequently devastated and depoliticized and discourage others from speaking out--'chilled' in the parlance of First Amendment commentary."
SLAPP suits achieve their objectives by forcing defendants to spend huge amounts of time and money defending themselves in court.
"The longer the litigation can be stretched out . . . the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success," observes New York Supreme Court Judge J. Nicholas Colabella. "Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the 'game' face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. . . . Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined."