"I had to sell my home in Asheville," says Batzel from Los Angeles. "Once this came out, I was afraid to be there. As someone in the district attorney's office told me: If the real neo-Nazis find you, we'll never find your body; if the wannabe neo-Nazis find you, we will find your body."

Or, as Batzel's attorney Howard Fredman puts it, "Before taking this case I had to ask myself: Has my client really been hurt? Is this all going to go away if we just ignore it? Then she showed me the letters seeking to have her disbarred. One traditional reason for defamation suits is to clear your reputation."

While Fredman seeks to clear his client's name, Stephen Newman of Latham and Watkins in Los Angeles, which represents Cremers on a pro bono basis, is trying to salvage his client's career. Cremers, who says he "does not make a penny" from the Museum Security Network, recently lost his salaried job as the security manager for the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. He was asked to leave in March, after 13 years of service.

	Print story E-mail story

As Cremers recounted over the phone, in an energetic Dutch accent, "The museum director reacted very sympathetically when I first informed him about the possibility of libel, but the plaintiff has been harassing the museum, sending them letters, trying to involve them in the lawsuit. It's very intimidating."

Batzel's attorney admits that his team, "under the impression that the Rijksmuseum was formally affiliated with and supported the Museum Security Network," contacted the Amsterdam museum at one point. But he stresses that the museum was not named in the suit.

Cremers also says that cultural differences cloud the issue. "In our country we are not used to this sort of litigation. If this happened in the Netherlands, I don't think any court would accept the case. But if they did, I might be asked to apologize and fined $2."

Cremers and his attorney have asked that the case be dismissed on four grounds, three of which have been denied.

One argued, unsuccessfully, that Cremers, a citizen of the Netherlands with no real business in California, rests far outside the court's jurisdiction. Another failed attempt at dismissal asserted inconvenience of forum. The third, also denied by the judge, identified Cremers as an Internet service provider, which under the 1996 Telecommunications Act would protect him from libelous statements made by third-party "content providers" using his service. The final motion, and the only one still pending, uses a California free speech act known as "anti-SLAPP" to try to force the plaintiff to produce more evidence. A ruling is expected by August.

If the suit does reach court, some pretrial arguments are likely to be revisited. First, there's the question of location: are U.S. libel laws applicable to an e-mail newsletter that's generated in the Netherlands but that reaches some U.S. readers? And, for that matter, are they enforceable? Then there's the issue of retraction, a common mitigator in defamation cases. After posting Smith's e-mail, did Cremers make a sufficient retraction and apology?

But what really has the attorneys talking is a single point of law: whether the Museum Security Network qualifies as an Internet service provider, which would give it immunity from libel under the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

The Free Software Project
Read Andrew Leonard's book-in-progress on Linux and open source -- and post your comments.