Update 2005-11-04: this post has been edited in accordance to the wishes of H & N Consulting.
[Note: I’m posting this during my lunch hour.]
A mail today [2005-11-02] from H & N Consulting:
Dear Mr. Erikson,
We regret to inform you that our company today has decided to take
legal actions against you and your employer.
You have not lived up to the agreement you sent us yesterday. You
are still slandering our company and CEO. We have proof that we did
not spam any web blogs. These proofs will now be used against you in
a court of law.
Unfortunately, we will also sue your employer since you have posted
these accusations during regular business hours.
[…]
Sincerely,
H & N Consulting
[This email did not have a confidentiality agreement attached.]
This is my reply:
These accusations are absurd.
The are no references to the name “XXX” in my posts.
You have crossed a line. Go ahead with your lawsuit. When I have
been served, I will comment on the situation in accordance to the
rights of free speech. You may be assured that the name “XXX”
will, in the future, be associated with suppression of free speech
and legal posturing.
Good luck in trying to build a business with a reputation like that.
[The referenced name has been altered to “XXX”.]
Update 2005-11-03: after the first white heat of anger, I’m feeling
much more sanguine about the whole affair.
I have contacted my hosting provider, and he suggested (but did not
require) that I remove all references that may give cause for
offence. I have now done so.
I have contacted my employer and explained the situation to them. By
the way, this website is covered by a
disclaimer.
The fact that the legal threats were not delivered by a legal
representative gives rise to the suspicion that no-one within the
profession will touch this with a ten-foot pole. That, or financial
constraints.
I have uncovered some interesting facts about the Swedish data
protection law, PuL. Specifically the Ramsbro case, where a man was
acquitted for publishing the names of bank presidents and financiers
on the internet.
Basically, you can publish personal facts (including names) if you do
so in a “journalistic manner”, to inform, critizise, and cause
debate. I feel that the fact that a 2-bit “search engine optimisation”
company can use vague legal threats to shut down free speech on the
internet to be cause for debate.
As to the accusations of slander, I cannot see how that applies, as
slander is “defamatory statement expressed in a transitory form such
as speech”.
Thanks to the good people in #mobitopia for their support and advice.