Moderation situation of SC forum

[diogenes]

Originally Posted by Genossa maximillian

Most likely what is in Wikipedia comes from a law dictionary, frequently used in most law schools. Your second argument can be debated because it can be relative to the degree of good reputation involved. Example, a company fires its management because of mismanagement and reorganizes, etc. How can you prove that in fact there is a bad reputation by trying to get rid of the people who harmed you? Explain.

Point taken about the law dictionary.
Regarding the reputation of the plaintiff, I agree completely that it is open to debate in court (and all sorts of pleas to juries who are notoriously capricious in defamation cases- here in the U.K. at least) and is not a cut and dried affair. But it needed to be pointed out in the context of people making statements about the nature of the defamation laws and how they might apply to posters here.

[redeye]

Originally Posted by Genossa maximillian

It's getting juicy

Its actually kindof stupid.

[Genossa maximillian]

As I said, I am merely posting FYI items, and I am glad you are aware of your postings as much as anyone else becuase nobody is being accused of anything, we are just studying the potential consequences of our words when we post on public forums using a variety fo examples. And I think that is healthy to do.

Now, I love it when what a good conversation ends up in this..."Or, are you just being lawyerlike, and trying to manipulate a conversation to frighten people out of stating opinions when there is really nothing to be afraid of?"

Why get so defensive at the last minute?

Originally Posted by pruritis_ani

well, I am not yelling "fire", but thanks....

I understand very well that there are limits to the first amendment. If you care to look through my posts, I would love to see what you think is libel or defamation...

In short, my writings state that I think SC sucks, and that it has had a terrible history filled with lies on this forum and it's websites. These lies have been clearly documented in the past. I also state that the students of this school have made false claims in the hopes of attracting other students. Again, this has been clearly documented on this forum. Based on this information, I feel that the administration is not to be trusted, nor are the "students" that post on this site.

These are the facts upon which I base my opinion.

I am not making any untrue statements, so no libel or defamation. And, I would love to see what you really think of my statements, and whether anything that I have said could truly be held against me. I think it is very obvious that I have broken no law. Or, are you just being lawyerlike, and trying to manipulate a conversation to frighten people out of stating opinions when there is really nothing to be afraid of?

[Genossa maximillian]

Originally Posted by redeye

Its actually kindof stupid.

Well, if clarifying such important topics as internet communication law is stupid, oh well! It's up to you.

[Genossa maximillian]

Originally Posted by diogenes

Point taken about the law dictionary.
Regarding the reputation of the plaintiff, I agree completely that it is open to debate in court (and all sorts of pleas to juries who are notoriously capricious in defamation cases- here in the U.K. at least) and is not a cut and dried affair. But it needed to be pointed out in the context of people making statements about the nature of the defamation laws and how they might apply to posters here.

We certainly agree!

[pruritis_ani]

nothing defensive at all. i noticed how you picked my thread out, made the ridiculous comparison to yelling "fire", in the name of "pointing out potential consequences". just pointing out to others some reasons as to why you may try to do such a thing. clearly, if you have any understanding of the law, and have read any of my posts, you would know what a ridiculous comparison you were drawing. and, i know that you are not a stupid person, and that you do indeed read these posts. so, there had to be a reason that you singled my post out...and, it clearly is not the content. so, why is it? oh yeah...."potential consequences". give me a break.

what is said on this forum is far more comparable to an unfavorable book review. we have opinions based on publicly available information. we are free to say what we want, as long as it is not untrue. so, where on earth are you coming up with this "fire in the theatre" line of attack?

the answer is either that you are ignorant, you did not read the posts or that you are trying to scare people. and, as i mentioned before, you are not ignorant, and have a history of being very thorough about your reading before commenting....leaves us one choice....

[Genossa maximillian]

The grounds, it depends on what are you looking for. For example saying that such and such school is ran by mobsters, that it is a scam, etc. Those kind of things are extremely compromising when you are taken to court based on defamation, libel, etc. Even if you post copies of emails, like it happened in the St. Chris forum severa months ago can be grounds for a lawsuit. My case I like to quote, Wagner v. Miskin (2003 ND 69), the court accepted local jurisdiction against an out-of-state web site owner.* The defendant as changed with complaint sought damages for libel, slander, and for damages from reproducing her privileged communications (e-mails).* The court judged against the libeler, granting extensive punitive damages to the tune of $3,000,000.00.

Originally Posted by redeye

I am not taking this personally. It was just posted by Empathy that what is being written here IS grounds for a lawsuit. Since I am guessing that no one here is an attorney, using the (1) nebulous my friend is an attorney ploy or (2) Trust me, I know the law better than you argument to try and get people to stop posting, I would like to know what are the grounds for suing someone here? What Laws, in What States. What if the person making the claim lives outside of the States?

I have never heard of someone successfully sued for voicing their opinion on a Web Forum like this but if you know otherwise please post.

[azskeptic]

Originally Posted by Genossa maximillian

Well, if clarifying such important topics as internet communication law is stupid, oh well! It's up to you.

The opportunity to provide law citations to an attorney is an honor.

The most recent case of someone who was sued for posting information they saw elsewhere is

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S122953.PDF

It will probably go to the Supreme Court so e'll find out more in the future. Some large companies supported the woman in the lawsuit---they feared erosion of the freedom of the internet.

Tell us more Genosa of what this all means.

[Genossa maximillian]

The point is....You cannot just preface a libel with “in my opinion” (i.e. IMHO, John murdered three people).* The most common defense in a false light action is to claim First Amendment freedom of speech, but the courts are quite clear about offering no protection for false speech:



"false speech, even political speech, does not merit constitutional protection if the speaker knows of the falsehood or recklessly disregards the truth."

And the typical example is yelling fire in a crowded theater, figurative speech, you name it.

And I am not saying you, specifically, I am making reference to anyone who blindly believes their words will always be protected by the first ammendment.

If you consider this scaring tactics, it is a matter of perceptions. I can go on the whole night and you will be blindsided by the " yelling fire" word and "scaring tactics" arguments.

Originally Posted by pruritis_ani

nothing defensive at all. i noticed how you picked my thread out, made the ridiculous comparison to yelling "fire", in the name of "pointing out potential consequences". just pointing out to others some reasons as to why you may try to do such a thing. clearly, if you have any understanding of the law, and have read any of my posts, you would know what a ridiculous comparison you were drawing. and, i know that you are not a stupid person, and that you do indeed read these posts. so, there had to be a reason that you singled my post out...and, it clearly is not the content. so, why is it? oh yeah...."potential consequences". give me a break.

what is said on this forum is far more comparable to an unfavorable book review. we have opinions based on publicly available information. we are free to say what we want, as long as it is not untrue. so, where on earth are you coming up with this "fire in the theatre" line of attack?

the answer is either that you are ignorant, you did not read the posts or that you are trying to scare people. and, as i mentioned before, you are not ignorant, and have a history of being very thorough about your reading before commenting....leaves us one choice....

[Genossa maximillian]

Originally Posted by azskeptic

The opportunity to provide law citations to an attorney is an honor.

The most recent case of someone who was sued for posting information they saw elsewhere is

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S122953.PDF

It will probably go to the Supreme Court so e'll find out more in the future. Some large companies supported the woman in the lawsuit---they feared erosion of the freedom of the internet.

Tell us more Genosa of what this all means.

If the Supreme court wants to take it. Keep digging, you will find more gold!


Other interesting cases:

Sabbato v. Hardy,* Case No. 2000CA00136 (Ohio Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2000).* An Ohio appellate court reversed a lower court's decision concerning immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Hardy operated a website that allowed users to post and read opinions on the website. Sabbato sued Hardy for defamatory comments that were posted on his website. The appellate court found that the lower court had erred in granting Hardy immunity under the CDA. The court determined that Hardy was not automatically entitled to immunity under Section 230 of the CDA because the complaint alleged that Hardy had personally participated in creating the defamatory comments.*

Griffis v. Luban,* No. C3-01-296 (Minn. 2002).* The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision regarding jurisdiction. Luban, a resident of Minnesota, repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking Griffis's professional credentials. Plaintiff Griffis obtained a default judgment for defamation in Alabama, which she sought to enforce in Minnesota. The lower Minnesota court determined that Alabama had properly exercised jurisdiction and enforced the default judgment. The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed stating that the Alabama court could only have exercised jurisdiction if "the defendant expressly aimed the tortious conduct at the forum state such that the forum state was the focal point of the tortious activity." The court determined that although Luban had published the defamatory statements on the Internet, they were not expressly aimed at Alabama. Therefore, the court held that the Alabama court was not entitled to jurisdiction and that Griffis could not enforce the default judgment in Minnesota. See separate entry for lower court ruling.*

Varian v. Delfino and Day,* (Santa Clara Cty, Dec. 2001).* In one of the first Silicon Valley Internet libel cases to reach trial, a jury awarded $425,000 to Varian, the former employer of two disgruntled workers. The jury found that the two former employees had libeled Varian executives by posting more than 14,000 defamatory messages on over 100 different websites. The jury found the defendants liable for defamation as well as misappropriation of the executives names.* Update*April 19, 2002:* Pending appeal, the California 6th District Court of Appeal granted a temporary stay of contempt proceedings and the injunction granted by the trial court. The appellate court also stayed the damages award.

For the sake of being objective

Barrett v. Clark,* No. 833021-5 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2001).* Plaintiffs were doctors who ran websites that exposed health frauds. The defendants were advocates of alternative medicine. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendants had published a number of defamatory statements on alternative medicine websites. Defendants moved to strike under California's anti-SLAPP laws (Code Civ. Pro. Sec 425.16), which were designed to counter lawsuits that chill the free exercise of speech. The court granted the motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP laws because 1)the statements concerned alternative medicine, a highly controversial issue that is a matter of public concern, and 2)the plaintiffs were unable to establish a probability of prevailing on their claims. *


Merry Christmas to all, wow I made it alive to over 850 postings