Suing The Blogger, Low Hanging Fruit

It was covered all over the mainstream media.  The video was on Youtube.  A petition circulated across the internet calling for the shooter to be prosecuted, with more than 5400 people signing on.  This all happened because Christopher Comins tried to kill two dogs by shooting them at point blank range.  Fortunately, Comins has lousy aim and dogs lived.

So what does a shooter do when he’s caught on video and properly castigated everywhere?  He sues a blogger.

Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis has a blog called Public Intellectual, where he posted about Comins’ dog-shooting.  The title is Christopher Comins: Barbarian Hillbilly Dog-Assassin (w/Friends in High places). My guess is that Comins objected to being called a Hillbilly.  I bet Hillbillies objected to being associated with Comins.

The post is harsh.  Then again, trying to murder dogs, especially when the owner is screaming to stop and you’re close enough to see the collar around their necks, deserves some harsh words.  But Comins is a businessman.  He’s got both the wherewithal and motivation to make somebody pay for his getting caught.


Christopher Comins owns CustomFab, which builds special steel-pipe products for Walt Disney World and NASA. Moreover, Comins and Carter attend prayer groups with Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty (in fact, Carter and Mayor Crotty have made the news before for shady land deals). Crotty was appointed Mayor by Jeb Bush in 2001. Additionally, Comins has generously funded the Bush administration. In short, Comins is in bed with a group of folks who know how to get away with stuff. And it shows.
That somebody is VanVoorhis.  Given the scope and breadth of the attacks on Comins for his dog-shooting, only one rational explanation surfaces to explain why he picked VanVoorhis to sue for defamation.  He’s the easiest target.

Like most bloggers (as opposed to blawgers, for whom this doesn’t necessarily apply), writing is a not-for-profit venture.  We’re not talking 501(c)(3), but that there’s no money in it and VanVoorhis blogs because he chooses this medium to express himself.  It’s pure blogging, with no ulterior purpose beyond speaking one’s mind.  That makes VanVoorhis an easy target.

Now that Comins has picked him to sue, the burden falls on the bloggers shoulders to defend himself, to pay the freight to exercising free speech.  It’s the American way. Any dog-shooter with cash can sue any poor schnook who wrote about him that he wants.  After all, how many bloggers want to dump a pile of money, assuming they have pile to spare, into a defense against some crazed, but better funded, hillbilly NASA contractor.

But the news isn’t all bad for VanVoorhis.  He’s defended by one of the most vigorous and brilliant free speech on the internet lawyers around, Marc Randazza.  And Randazza isn’t satisfied to just defend a blogger’s right to free speech and fair use.  He’s going after the dog-shooter as well. 

Maybe the poor blogger isn’t quite the low hanging fruit that the dog-shooter thought he was?  Maybe, as long as there are lawyers like Randazza around.  Maybe, to the extent that anyone around the broader blogosphere isn’t aware that Christopher Comins is a dog-shooter, they will be soon because he’s decided to attack a blogger for going after him for being a dog-shooter.  Wouldn’t that be a shame?

14 thoughts on “Suing The Blogger, Low Hanging Fruit

  1. PAM FROM PLANO

    Don’t know why such behavior continues to amaze me. One would think I have lived long enough to grow out of such delusions.
    Be that as it may, thank you for posting this.
    I may not be a big time Criminal Defense Attorney who makes the big bucks :), but I did find some money to donate to this cause!
    It seems only fitting that Mr. VanVoorhis be able to financially benefit from this man’s egomania and bullying tactics.

  2. Stephen

    Paragraph 23 and 27 of Comins’ complaint amuses me – “The statements are accessible to roughly thousands of individuals on the Internet.” Less amusingly, given that he’s looking for $15k plus costs that’s like between a couple of or a dozen dollars a person it’s accessible to.

    I’m interested that he’s used the comments on the blog in the complaint, that seems ridiculously tenuous.

  3. Jon_B

    You have to wonder what purpose these kind of defamation actions serve… for example, how many people read the original post (“roughly thousands…”) and how many will be reading it now as a result of this claim.

    I am pleased that he has found someone to represent him – hope the counterclaim is succesful!

  4. jfischer1975

    “Then again, trying to murder dogs, especially when the owner is screaming to stop and you’re close enough to see the collar around their necks, deserves some harsh words.”

    “Murder” is defined as the intentional killing of a *human being* with malice aforethought, i.e., you can’t murder a dog, dude.

  5. SHG

    Sigh.  Murder is a real word aside from being a legal term. To the extent that only a human being can be “murdered”, I would think that would be clarified by the “murder dogs” combo.  And whether it’s defined as being with “malice aforethought” is by jurisdiction.  i.e. Not in New York, dude.  Homicide, however, is different. 

  6. Anne

    Maybe people think bloggers and blawgers do have deep pockets! (And maybe in a few rare cases they are correct!) Everyone’s doing it, there must be a pot o’ gold at the end of the post, right?

    Me, I’m fantastic at finding non-paying gigs, not because “they might bring in $$ some day” but because they’re what I’m good at and enjoy.

  7. SHG

    I’ve had some decent gigs in my time.  Blawging, as you say, isn’t one of them.  If there’s a pot o’ gold to be found, it’s not here.

  8. Lyle

    VanVoorhees is a simpleton and a gassbag.
    Pure and simple, NONE of this would have happened if Chris Butler had been a responsible dog owner and kept his dogs on HIS OWN PROPERTY. It’s a shame that the beautiful Siberians suffered injures by an initial act of negligence by BUTLER.
    I’m a dog owner and dog lover. My dog stays on my property or is on a leash. I hope Butler and other irresponsible dog owners learn a lesson from this unfortunate, but PREVENTABLE incident.

  9. Stephanie

    “Lyle” (i.e. Chris Comins)
    What is it about the United States Constitution that bothers you so much? And why are you intellectually incapable of reading coherent arguments? And even if Vanvoorhees is a “gassbag” his view is quite typical. People do not watch that disgusting video and root for the gunner. They root for the innocent animals.

    Also, you know you cannot sue all 10,000 “Gassbags” don’t you.?

  10. Stephen

    Luckily for the rest of us the world is less simple than it is for you. The world is not John Wayne v Injuns.

    However in other ways the world is very simple – they suffer injuries because they’re shot in the head. You need look no further than that. Causation is very clear here.

    Dogs probably should be kept in their yard or on a lead. Yet if they’re not kept in their yard the sane, normal reaction is not to almost shoot them a dozen or so times at close range while shocked tourists record your actions on video.

Comments are closed.