Psychiatrist Drops His Lawsuit Against Critic Who Left Wordless One-Star Review

from the but-the-damage-is-already-done dept

It looks like the psychiatrist who sued a pseudonymous reviewer over a wordless one-star review has finally decided to stop digging this particular hole. Since news broke of psychiatrist Mark Beale's defamation suit against "Richard Hill," Beale has amassed a great many one-star reviews by non-patients. There's no telling if Beale will be seeking to file an en masse lawsuit against these Does (taking a page out of copyright trolls' handbooks), but this cannot possibly be what he envisioned when he decided the original one-star review was worth suing over.

Unbelievably, Beale managed to convince a judge to allow him to seek the real identity of "Richard Hill" in order to continue with his lawsuit. Not only did the judge give enough credence to Beale's argument that a one-star review was per se defamatory, but the judge granted the unmasking order, calling a review of business "commercial speech" -- something given less protection under the First Amendment.

University of South Carolina professor Eric Robinson has been keeping an eye and the local docket and sends us news that Beale has dismissed the case. It's a voluntary move [PDF] on Beale's part, but it's also without prejudice, leaving the path clear for Beale to refile.

But it doesn't look like Beale will amend this suit or refile, even if he's found a judge willing to bypass First Amendment protections to unmask a critic who left nothing more than a wordless single-star review. At least not against a Doe defendant. The unmasking did happen and Beale's request [PDF] to view the information turned over under seal to his lawyer was granted [PDF] by the judge. Soon after that, the request for dismissal [PDF] was filed.

This means Beale now knows who "Richard Hill" actually is. He could have stuck with the lawsuit, amending it to include the Doe's real name and serving the defendant. But he sought dismissal instead. Does that mean Beale found "Richard Hill" was actually someone he didn't want to take to court, or worse yet, someone he already knew? Remember, his original lawsuit contained some very curious assertions to bolster his allegations, the weirdest being that his mother thought "someone she knew" was trying to ruin his reputation.

Or it could be Beale discovered Hill was an actual patient of his, despite his assertions otherwise. (His lawsuit claimed two things: "Richard Hill" was a fake name and "Richard Hill" was not a patient of his. These two statements are tough to make definitively, but Beale asserted both simultaneously in his lawsuit.) Maybe he didn't feel like pursuing an unhappy patient in court, especially after he had already sworn otherwise in his complaint. Or maybe Beale is planning some sort of offline, out-of-court battle against the unmasked critic -- something that would be unfortunate but at least wouldn't allow this particular judge to continue his attack on the First Amendment.

That makes this cut-and-run a bit more interesting than it would normally be, as litigation has ceased after discovery of the only thing Beale appeared to be missing from his suit: a defendant he could serve. Equally problematic is there's a judge in the South Carolina court system where locals can take their grievances about anonymous commenters and expect unmasking to proceed, no matter how weak their arguments are.

Whatever the future holds for Beale and his litigious moves is unknown, but there's no undoing the damage Beale did to his own reputation by trying to make a case out of a one-star review. Had he done nothing, it would have been carried away by internet flotsam with zero damage to his career or future prospects. Instead, Beale could not let a one-star, wordless review go unanswered, and now his Google results are full of them.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Pixelation, 17 Jan 2018 @ 10:44am

    Psychiatrist makes sane decision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 11:49am

      Re:

      Not necessarily:

      The unmasking did happen and Beale's request to view the information turned over under seal to his lawyer was granted by the judge.

      He may decide to pursue his white whale outside of the courts, whether through the standard bumptious legal demands for money or through other means.

      If that happens, I'm wondering if "Richard Hill" would have grounds to sue those who unmasked him and exposed him to any such harassment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Chris ODonnell (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 10:53am

    His mother seemed awful involved in this. Maybe she posted the review. It would explain his dropping the case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      OGquaker, 17 Jan 2018 @ 10:52pm

      Re:

      Forty years ago my 6 ft. Rosy Boa wandered onto the sidewalk, first time in five years, perhaps my dog got overly affectionate again.
      Some guy stopped his car and started to drive away with Rosy. A local kid tried to talk him out of taking the snake, and gave the man my telephone number.
      Two days later, Dr.*** (a psychiatrist at the VA Hospital across the street)called me, the snake was lost at his Mother's house, could I help find it while she was shopping?
      His mother was going to phreak out if....
      He brought my Boa back.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bynkman (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 11:03am

    The Streisand effect in action.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    I.T. Guy, 17 Jan 2018 @ 11:19am

    Who was the judge? Looks like Dr. Jeff-

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Roger Strong (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 11:42am

    Remember that DC judge who sued a dry cleaning company for $65 million over a lost pair of trousers back in 2005? A case that was still going on over a decade later?

    I'm beginning to suspect that he was seeing a psychiatrist after all.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Vic, 17 Jan 2018 @ 11:51am

    His mother reportedly is a retired judge in VA. That might explain some outcomes in this weird case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 12:14pm

    Dear Mark Beale

    Dear Mark Beale,

    Please get therapy from a psychiatrist who won't sue you for leaving a one star review.

    Be sure to discuss with the psychiatrist the issues about your childhood and influence of lawyers and judges which might have deeply scared you for life.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 2:03pm

    Plot Twist - It was the Judge who granted the order who left the review. (sinister musical stinger here)

    Probably not, but wouldn't it put a pretty bow on this stupid case showing the flaws in the system??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2018 @ 2:22pm

    Kinda wanna leave this guy a one-star review.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Toom1275 (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 4:27pm

    Will he now leave a one-star review for the lawyer that duped him into pursuing this stinker of a lawsuit?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2018 @ 6:09pm

    Commercial speech involves speech that makes you money. Criticizing a business is not commercial speech (unless you are criticizing them for being a competitor I suppose).

    One of the very points of free speech is so we can criticize our wealthier overlords when they abuse their power for profit. To say something that the establishment doesn't like even if it costs them money. If you can't say something that someone doesn't like then what's the point of having free speech laws in the first place? and people wouldn't be as likely to express their opinions if they had to stay anonymous as those with power may try to retaliate. So anonymity is important. Anonymous product reviews are intended to be protected speech.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2018 @ 6:11pm

      Re:

      Heck, when we talk about net neutrality, even while anonymous, that's technically 'commercial speech' under these ridiculous standards because net neutrality laws can affect the commercial interests of big businesses.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    crade (profile), 17 Jan 2018 @ 7:18pm

    you missed the other potential reason for dismissing the lawsuit.. That getting the user's identity was what he wanted out of the lawsuit in the first place.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2018 @ 12:05am

    *gose to look at some of the reviews. Then is amused and slowly clapping at the review treating it as a diner*

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PaulT (profile), 18 Jan 2018 @ 12:26am

    "his mother thought "someone she knew" was trying to ruin his reputation"

    Well, she did, ultimately - her son, by filing such a ridiculous lawsuit that it had to be widely reported that the man was a bullying idiot and therefore not the type of stable person one would normally wish to have looking after your psychiatric care.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    oliver, 18 Jan 2018 @ 1:00am

    Hi Tim
    You are writing this post, as if this was a good thing?
    Do you really believe that this case of unmasking was correct and justified?
    That should have come up much much stronger!!
    Kinda like "hitting back twice at hard" against that blowhard psych scheister!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 18 Jan 2018 @ 1:51am

    A Climb Too Steep

    "Maybe he didn't feel like pursuing an unhappy patient in court..."

    Or, perhaps, after being buried under a pile of dicks by trolls responding to his court filing, he just couldn't face another Dick Hill in court.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 18 Jan 2018 @ 4:07am

    Obligatory.

    *****

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Torbot111, 18 Jan 2018 @ 7:01am

    What about if the person reviewing was using a proxy server or even Tor? If he had not have dropped the suit, would he keep digging until he hit a brick wall?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    BernardoVerda (profile), 18 Jan 2018 @ 4:43pm

    Physician, heal thyself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Thanks To Our Sponsors

The Techdirt Free Speech Edition
is a partnership with

with sponsorship from:

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.