Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by others

Topics that do not fit anywhere else. Absolutely NO discussions of religion, race, or immigration!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Post Reply
philip964
Senior Member
Posts: 18502
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:30 pm

Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by others

Post by philip964 »

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-jones ... s-on-edge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts: 9609
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by RoyGBiv »

This case is not so cut/dry as the thread title might lead you to believe...

From the linked article...
Deters argued that thedirty.com was different from other websites like Facebook because Richie has admitted to screening submissions and adding his own comments, rather than other people posting their own comments.

The jury in the original case found website operator Nik Richie acted with malice or reckless disregard in posting the submissions he said were anonymous.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by K.Mooneyham »

Reading the comments on that story makes my head hurt. I understand not making filthy comments about individuals, but what counts as "libel"? Is someone discussing a political opinion that a politician doesn't like "libel"? If someone calls Dianne Feinstein a "gun-grabber", is that libelous? After all, she says she's just trying to make people "safer". And she hasn't physically grabbed anyone's firearms, to the best of my knowledge. Where does this end?
cb1000rider
Senior Member
Posts: 2505
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 3:27 pm

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by cb1000rider »

Yikes.. that means if the forum is moderated, maybe only if moderated by the owner, that the owner could be held liable. Bad ruling.
User avatar
VMI77
Senior Member
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by VMI77 »

K.Mooneyham wrote:Reading the comments on that story makes my head hurt. I understand not making filthy comments about individuals, but what counts as "libel"? Is someone discussing a political opinion that a politician doesn't like "libel"? If someone calls Dianne Feinstein a "gun-grabber", is that libelous? After all, she says she's just trying to make people "safer". And she hasn't physically grabbed anyone's firearms, to the best of my knowledge. Where does this end?
The intent, or should I say, "desire" of many, is to do just that....make any criticism or opposition to our rulers illegal.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
JP171
Banned
Posts: 1406
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:47 am
Location: San Leon Texas

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by JP171 »

VMI77 wrote:
K.Mooneyham wrote:Reading the comments on that story makes my head hurt. I understand not making filthy comments about individuals, but what counts as "libel"? Is someone discussing a political opinion that a politician doesn't like "libel"? If someone calls Dianne Feinstein a "gun-grabber", is that libelous? After all, she says she's just trying to make people "safer". And she hasn't physically grabbed anyone's firearms, to the best of my knowledge. Where does this end?
The intent, or should I say, "desire" of many, is to do just that....make any criticism or opposition to our rulers illegal.

ahh the return of lese majesty it just warms the heart doesn't it? I think that the courts are taking too many freedoms that the law hasn't granted its usually called legislation from the bench, they have an opinion of what they believe that we the serfs should be, do and say and will make us do as they want, be they republican or democrat. It isn't going to change until the pervasive belief in PC is shattered when the serfs storm the keep and remove the hereditary elite rulers(again)
bizarrenormality

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by bizarrenormality »

cb1000rider wrote:Yikes.. that means if the forum is moderated, maybe only if moderated by the owner, that the owner could be held liable. Bad ruling.
Why is it a bad ruling? If they allow free speech they are not responsible for what others say, like a common carrier has some immunity. However, if they're the final arbiter of what's posted on their site, they should have to accept responsibility for what they approve.

I can't go around repeating rumors and then avoid legal responsibility because someone else said it first.
K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by K.Mooneyham »

bizarrenormality wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:Yikes.. that means if the forum is moderated, maybe only if moderated by the owner, that the owner could be held liable. Bad ruling.
Why is it a bad ruling? If they allow free speech they are not responsible for what others say, like a common carrier has some immunity. However, if they're the final arbiter of what's posted on their site, they should have to accept responsibility for what they approve.

I can't go around repeating rumors and then avoid legal responsibility because someone else said it first.
My question still stands: under this ruling, is calling Dianne Feinstein a "gun grabber" libelous? She clearly has stated that intention before, that she wishes that Americans would be disarmed in some form or fashion; however, she has never actually grabbed anyone's firearms, to the best of my knowledge. Is a colloquialism, or slang term, a libelous statement? Or does it only apply when there is something personally foul said about the individual in question? That is the problem I have with that ruling.
User avatar
VMI77
Senior Member
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Judge rules website responsible for liablus posts by oth

Post by VMI77 »

bizarrenormality wrote:
cb1000rider wrote:Yikes.. that means if the forum is moderated, maybe only if moderated by the owner, that the owner could be held liable. Bad ruling.
Why is it a bad ruling? If they allow free speech they are not responsible for what others say, like a common carrier has some immunity. However, if they're the final arbiter of what's posted on their site, they should have to accept responsibility for what they approve.

I can't go around repeating rumors and then avoid legal responsibility because someone else said it first.
I knew you could be charged with lying to the Feds, but I just learned today that you can be charged with a crime if you lie to someone and THEY tell that lie to the Feds.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
Post Reply

Return to “Off-Topic”