On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:05:06 -0700, in news.groups, comadreja
<comadreja-t@comcast.net> wrote:
>In article <4f0hfiF1h5ff4U1@individual.net>,
> Poe <haunted@terrible-thought.com> wrote:
>
>> comadreja wrote:
>> > In article <MPG.1ef49593b7e3ceed9896ff@news.peaksky.com>,
>> > Larry Caldwell <firstnamelastinitial@peaksky.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>In article <4f08l1F1ffmo1U1@individual.net>, haunted@terrible-
>> >>thought.com (Poe) says...
>> >>
>> >>>Isn't Caldwell one of those pedos that was posting here for a while?
>> >>
>> >>Careful. I might find out where you live, and *I* can afford to file a
>> >>lawsuit.
>> >
>> >
>> > You don't have much of a lawsuit. It was not a statement, but a
>> > question. You would have a tough time showing malicious intent.
>> >
>> > -c
>>
>> You seem well informed on legal matters of this sort, so I have a
>> question for you. Has any precedent been set with regard to slander or
>> libel via Usenet? I'd be curious how well that would work, especially
>> with regard to such things as non-repudiation, obtaining server data to
>> try to prove the case for non-repudiation with many servers in other
>> countries, etc. - not to mention the the very nature of Usenet and how
>> it is used and the sort of non-credible discussion that often occurs
>> here, possibly rendering the entire vehicle less credible.
>
> When libel cases pertaining to the Usenet first appeared, around the
>mid 1990s, plantiffs were trying pretty strongly to lay blame on the
>ISPs as much as the allege defamer. Someone who I believe still posts
>on the Usenet is Laurence Godfrey, who had a case Godfrey v. Demon
>(1997) that he tried in the UK and won a settlement from Demon. The
>poster who caused the allege defamation lived in Canada, I believe he
Nope (He/She) sherilyn ( AKA 'Tony, with the baloney,') lived/still
lives in the UK.
>settled with Godfrey. UK defamation laws have a lower standard than the
>US, and certain defense strategies can't be used like in the US. Winner
>of the verdict also gets their legal fees paid by the loser of the case.
Tony buckled...
> Each Common Law country, (the US and the British Commonwealth) (I
US isn't a 'common law' country...
>don't know about Civil Law countries, like most of Europe and Latin
>America for example) has different standards for defamation. You can
>sue an Australian who posts in Canada from a Internet Cafe on vacation,
>and sue them in let's say US Federal Court. However I don't know how
>legally binding the judgement would be,(which I doubt there would be,
>because the US Federal court would probably throw out the suit before
>reading three pages of the suit) or if you would ever get any money from
>the defendant.
You have to show how the court has venue over the case. 1) the person
has to reside in the US or have been in the US when the act was done
or 2) the person it was done to must live or lived in the US when the
act was done.
> Also for example, in most Common Law Countries, public officials can
>sue for defamation. In the US, it is almost next to impossible for a
>public official to sue for defamation, given the standard of "malicious
>intent" set by Sullivan v. NY Times (1964) Also Commonwealth countries
>have different standards of what can be used as a defense compare to the
>US courts allow. In the US courts, "fair comment", "good faith" and the
>silver bullet, "truth" are strong defense stances that are used to fight
>a defamation case.
That's why very few defamation cases ever get to court trials.
> The aspect of "Public" versus private is important in defining
>defamation law in the US. There is another important defamation case
>that can be linked in some way to the Usenet, Gertz v. Welch (1974)
>
> Basically, pertaining to Gertz v. Welch, someone who seeks to
>participate in public, like posting one's views on the Usenet, is not as
>susceptible for defamation damages compare to someone who is not seeking
>the limelight. Hence if someone is in a flame war, and cries foul that
>they have been defamed, they will be looked upon that they were an
>active participant and expose themselves to comment, whether the comment
>is fair and objectionable, or completely outrageous and defamatory. The
>comment will most likely fall under the "fair comment" clause. Gertz v.
>Welch set the standard for a "semi-public" person, and whether the
>standard of "malicious intent" has a lower threshold or not than a
>public official, like a politician.
>
> One has to try really hard to defame on the Usenet. I believe that
>the courts look at Usenet as an opinion forum, which give an allege
>defamer some protection under "fair comment". A person would have to
>cause malicious intent meeting a standard like by posting someone's
>address, phone number, social security number, credit card numbers,
>state they are fervent Al-Qaeda and NAMBLA members and then post it to
>35,000 Usenet groups. It would be obvious that the allege defamer is
>trying to cause financial harm or disrepute the character of the person
>being defamed. Saying choice words during a discussion, no matter how
>outrageous or defamatory, probably gives the poster some protection.
That's the standard take on most of usenet in the US...
great, isn't it?
--
Ak'toh'di
|
|