TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sarah-jones ... s-on-edge/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.

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?

Yikes.. that means if the forum is moderated, maybe only if moderated by the owner, that the owner could be held liable. Bad ruling.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.