ORLANDO, Florida – Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered the remains of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony, is now suing Casey Anthony for defamation.

Kronk’s attorney is saying that Casey Anthony’s defense team made several false statements about him during the trial, including several uncomfortable and thinly-veiled suggestions that it was Kronk himself who killed Caylee Anthony. Kronk is seeking a jury trial, and $15,000 in damages.

The aloof Casey Anthony, who was acquitted in August of murdering her daughter, has been hardly seen nor heard from since her release. Kronk’s lawsuit isn’t the only one pending against Anthony either; Zenaida Gonzalez, whose name just-so-happens to match Anthony’s imaginary nanny antagonist whom she blames for kidnapping Caylee is suing. Texas EquuSearch, a volunteer organization that spent $110,000 in multiple searches for Caylee’s body, also wants a piece of the pie.

During the trial, Kronk’s testimony, as well as that of his son, were suspicious, to put it delicately. Though he arrived in court as a Good Samaritan, his son’s testimony suggested that Kronk withheld information about Caylee’s whereabouts in order to claim reward money. Jose Baez, the lead attorney on Casey Anthony’s defense team, was trying to point the finger anywhere else possible, and did indeed make several comments that found him uncomfortably close to being held in contempt of court. It’s no stretch of the imagination that Kronk would be upset by a scourging of his person on national television, but here he is again. Looking for money.

For many of us, the Casey Anthony thing is just yesterday’s news. Some think she’s innocent, others just don’t want to talk about it. Despite her recent silence since acquittal, controversy surrounding Casey Anthony will continue to crop up. We’re in for another O.J. here, folks. And we all remember what ultimately happened to him.

Tired of hearing about Casey Anthony? Will financially bleeding her dry count as some form of justice in your eyes? Let us know down below.

Meter Reader Joins Lawsuit Crusade Against Casey Anthony is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the more frightening aspects of the ever more free exchange of information on the internet is the apparent impulse in many to stifle this open dialogue, particularly many who have a great deal of power, money or influence.

Censorship, of course, far predates the internet. But it seems every day there is a new venue where someone is trying to get someone to STFU. And while the internet is certainly used for spreading misinformation, accidentally or deliberately, should people be allowed to tell a story that is true and correct to their knowledge if the spread of that information stands to harm another individual?

The answer, of course, is yes. But Ars Technica writer Timothy Lee brings the issue of online reviews and medical reviews to the forefront again with his tale of an inadvertent almost-gagging when seeking a new dentist. Lee hadn’t planned on reviewing the dentist necessarily, but while filling out the stock-standard medical forms in the new patient intake, Lee noticed something out of sorts and investigated. What he found is a little disturbing and creates a few questions as far as the rights of private citizens to- well, speak. Lee explains:

Yelp says Dr. Cirka is one of the best in the Philadelphia area. The receptionist handed me a clipboard with forms to fill out. After the usual patient information form, there was a “mutual privacy agreement” that asked me to transfer ownership of any public commentary I might write in the future to Dr. Cirka. Surprised and a little outraged by this, I got into a lengthy discussion with Dr. Cirka’s office manager that ended in me refusing to sign and her showing me the door.

Lee explains that the agreement was supplied by a group called “Medical Justice,” purporting to aggressively defend doctors against frivolous malpractice claims. But on their site, buried in marketing-speak that can almost make you sympathetic to their free-speech objections, is a stance on net reviews that is chilling.

The practice also seems to rely heavily on both patients’ and doctors’ lack of understanding of laws surrounding these issues. Lee describes how the office was unable to explain some very simple implications of the agreement it enters into with patients on a daily basis:

I had a long conversation with Dr. Cirka’s office manager, who insisted that the agreement was not intended to censor the truthful reviews of Dr. Cirka’s patients. Rather, she said, it gave Dr. Cirka a tool to remove fraudulent reviews. She said they were especially concerned about non-patients (such as competitors, ex-spouses, or former employees) writing fake reviews to damage Dr. Cirka’s business.

She didn’t have a good answer when I pointed out that the agreement’s text didn’t say anything about fraudulent reviews. She also couldn’t explain how the agreement could bind non-patients, who by definition will not have signed it.

The conversation Lee recounts is really the crux of the issue here- it’s almost impossible to root out unethical negative complaints without stifling the many others who may have legitimate reason to post an unfavorable review. Recently, a doctor in Wisconsin brought a defamation suit against a patient’s son after the man posted a negative review online. The case was thrown out.

Do you find this practice unsettling? Should doctors be able to interfere with information you share outside their offices? Are the limits of HIPAA laws alone enough to place doctors into a protected class immune from online opinion that doesn’t apply to restaurants, nail salons, bars and other businesses?

Should doctors be able to gag patients online? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Pissed off consumers can take a deep breath and keep ranting, for now- a judge in North Dakota has thrown out a defamation lawsuit brought by a doctor against a man who complained to websites and regulatory bodies about the care received by his father.

Neurologist Dr. David McKee alleged in his lawsuit that the patient’s father, Dennis Laurion, defamed McKee and his practice in “false statements” made to “the American Academy of Neurology, the American Neurological Association, two physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee and St. Luke’s hospital,” damaging his practice. Laurion contended he was immune from legal action because the statements he made were true.

In an 18-page order, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden recognized the influence of the internet on how information such as that shared by Laurion can impact a practice or business:

“In modern society, there needs to be some give and take, some ability for parties to air their differences,” the judge wrote. “Today, those disagreements may take place on various Internet sources. Because the medium has changed, however, does not make statements of this sort any more or less defamatory.”

McKee’s suit addressed some of the more subjective claims made by Laurion:

In his suit, McKee alleged that Laurion made false statements including that McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth Laurion had been transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to a ward room; that McKee told the Laurion family that he had to “spend time finding out if [the patient] had been transferred or died;” that McKee told the Laurions that 44 percent of hemorrhagic stroke victims die within 30 days; that McKee told the patient that he didn’t need therapy; that McKee said it didn’t matter that the patient’s gown was hanging from his neck with his backside exposed; that McKee blamed the patient for the loss of his time; and that McKee didn’t treat his patient with dignity.

Commenting on the ruling, McKee pointed out that Laurion allegedly made statements to nearly 20 regulatory agencies and websites, and none of the former had taken any action regarding Laurion’s claims.

[Grand Forks Herald via Consumerist]

Judge throws out doctor’s defamation lawsuit against patient’s son is a post from: The Inquisitr

According to the judge, though, the kids’ creation doesn’t qualify as defamation. The profile, the court said, contained “over-the-top statements” and could not be considered an “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Basically, the profile was an obvious parody, as opposed to a harmful attack.

The judge did give the students a verbal lashing, saying they “should know that appropriating the identity of a teacher or school administrator to create a fraudulent Internet social profile is unacceptable and that engaging in such conduct will have consequences.” Other than that, though, case closed.

It’s an interesting scenario. Sure, most would say that the kids probably shouldn’t have made the profile. Does it, though, warrant a lawsuit and costly court battle — particularly if, as it sounds, it was quite obvious that the profile didn’t really belong to the principal and was not legit? One might contend that the principal did more damage to her reputation by filing the lawsuit than she would have by disciplining the kids, making sure the page was taken down, and moving on.

I guess it’s the modern-day equivalent of a fake love letter from a teacher or an objectionable scrawling on a bathroom stall wall — with the key difference, of course, being the worldwide accessibility. Seemingly, though, it won’t become a criminal offense in this regard, if the precedent set here is any indication.

Judge: Fake Profile Not Defamation is a post from: The Inquisitr