Paperwork to file for a Defamation action?

[quincy]

I think you are right.

 

[StacyInCalif]

I will indeed do some research on this, because that makes no sense. As a former journalist and publisher who is well aware of the burden on publishers regarding libel published by them, I would make the assumption that even an "internet publisher" should be held to the same high standard as one who publishes in print on paper.

By default, any company that allows libelous or defamatory statements to remain posted after they have been informed of such (if they were foolish enough to allow these sorts of things to be published in the first place) should be held responsible and accountable to those who have been libeled and defamed by postings on servers owned and/or operated by those companies.

Perhaps a new precedent can be set with a large enough action and with enough plaintiffs. What we really have here is "free speech" taken to a whole other level never imagined by the founding fathers and totally run amok contrary to what the law intended. Something needs to be done about it. I won't mind being the person brave enough to take that first step.

 

[Proserpina]

I will indeed do some research on this, because that makes no sense. As a former journalist and publisher who is well aware of the burden on publishers regarding libel published by them, I would make the assumption that even an "internet publisher" should be held to the same high standard as one who publishes in print on paper.

By default, any company that allows libelous or defamatory statements to remain posted after they have been informed of such (if they were foolish enough to allow these sorts of things to be published in the first place) should be held responsible and accountable to those who have been libeled and defamed by postings on servers owned and/or operated by those companies.

Perhaps a new precedent can be set with a large enough action and with enough plaintiffs. What we really have here is "free speech" taken to a whole other level never imagined by the founding fathers and totally run amok contrary to what the law intended. Something needs to be done about it. I won't mind being the person brave enough to take that first step.

I hope your pockets are deep.

Stacy, please - rethink this.

 

[quincy]

You have obviously not been a journalist in quite awhile, Stacy, because you have forgotten that journalists do not make assumptions.

The fact is that the Communications Decency Act §230 protects webhosts and websites from defamation (and other tort) liability with very few exceptions. The law looks at them like libraries or book stores that distribute material to the public and not as publishers of the material. Unlike a library or a bookstore, that distributes material without having any involvement in the creation of, or often even any knowledge of, the content of the material distributed, a newspaper helps to create the content and has editorial control over what appears in the paper.

Therefore, a newspaper and the newspaper publisher can be sued for libel over defamatory content appearing in the paper, and an author and the author's publisher can be sued for libel over defamatory content appearing in a book. But courts have held that online "publishers" cannot (generally) be held liable for what appears on their sites because they (generally) have no hand in creating the content and they (generally) have no editorial control over the content that appears. Just as I cannot sue a librarian for giving me a book that contains defamatory content, because the librarian did not write the defamatory words in the book, I cannot sue Facebook over the defamatory things Mary Jo writes about me on her Facebook page. Any defamation suit would be against the book author/publisher, and against Mary Jo.

As for you taking the first steps in a suit against Google or Yahoo or Facebook or whatever, steps have been taken already. Many many steps. And these steps are reflected in many many court decisions. To review some current court decisions, see Finkel v Facebook, 2009 (suit dismissed against Facebook with court finding Facebook immune from liability under §230) and Novins v Cannon et al, 2010 (suit dismissed against Google based on §230). The CDA provision has been challenged, and is continuing to be challenged, but nothing you have posted here indicates that any suit you might bring against Google et al would be successful.

Read the Communications Decency Act §230.

 

[StacyInCalif]

You have obviously not been a journalist in quite awhile, Stacy, because you have forgotten that journalists do not make assumptions.

Ah, but only in the scope of their work. Unless, of course, their work is in the area of Opinion / Editorial / Op-Ed. Then it's pretty much a free-for-all of assumption.

The fact is that the Communications Decency Act §230 protects webhosts and websites from defamation (and other tort) liability with very few exceptions. The law looks at them like libraries or book stores that distribute material to the public and not as publishers of the material. Unlike a library or a bookstore, that distributes material without having any involvement in the creation of, or often even any knowledge of, the content of the material distributed, a newspaper helps to create the content and has editorial control over what appears in the paper.

Actually, according to what I've been reading, the CDA was intended to protect internet service providers and not internet content providers, however the case law I have seen thus far seems to be vague on the difference and there have been recent cases that have unveiled anonymous users via legal action against the content providers. The point would be, of course, to use legal means to gain those identities and not to seek damages against the websites/providers themselves. We are ONLY interested in getting the proof necessary to show the individuals whom have been perpetrating the libel are who we believe them to be. We're NOT interested in suing any of the "providers"/publishers for money.

Besides, there is a massive difference between content providers who can easily remove libelous or defamatory information on a website posted by an "anonymous" source and a library wherein books are made available written by identified authors (yes, even when using pseudonyms ). Apples to oranges, particularly in this very new area of law.

Therefore, a newspaper and the newspaper publisher can be sued for libel over defamatory content appearing in the paper, and an author and the author's publisher can be sued for libel over defamatory content appearing in a book. But courts have held that online "publishers" cannot (generally) be held liable for what appears on their sites because they (generally) have no hand in creating the content and they (generally) have no editorial control over the content that appears. Just as I cannot sue a librarian for giving me a book that contains defamatory content, because the librarian did not write the defamatory words in the book, I cannot sue Facebook over the defamatory things Mary Jo writes about me on her Facebook page. Any defamation suit would be against the book author/publisher, and against Mary Jo.

Of course. But the difference comes into play when a "content provider" is aware of libelous content yet allows it to remain published (without investigation or consideration), acknowledges that said content is libelous yet takes no steps to protect the persons whom were libeled. Have you read the case law on the CDA challenges? They are almost universally extremely weak cases and both poorly put together as well as poorly prosecuted. There have been little grounds from what I can see for most of the suits brought forward thus far.

As for you taking the first steps in a suit against Google or Yahoo or Facebook or whatever, steps have been taken already. Many many steps. And these steps are reflected in many many court decisions. To review some current court decisions, see Finkel v Facebook, 2009 (suit dismissed against Facebook with court finding Facebook immune from liability under §230) and Novins v Cannon et al, 2010 (suit dismissed against Google based on §230). The CDA provision has been challenged, and is continuing to be challenged, but nothing you have posted here indicates that any suit you might bring against Google et al would be successful.

Read the above. Also, look into the case of Liskula Cohen against Google/Blogger: Cohen v. Google (Blogger) | Citizen Media Law Project ~ this is not only going to be far reaching in setting a precedent I believe, but is exactly what we are seeking, to unveil the identity(ies) of anonymous individual(s) who attack and defame online.

Read the Communications Decency Act §230.

I have.

 

[seniorjudge]

I hope your pockets are deep.

Stacy, please - rethink this.

Best advice yet.

Oh ... read Don Quixote before you file the lawsuit.

 

[quincy]

Congratulations, Stacy! You now know enough about the law to be handed your FreeAdvice diploma. You have graduated from this site!!

Now you must go and work on your precedent-setting defamation action against the people who had a restraining order against you and, of course, against Google and Yahoo and Craigslist et al. I think you are ready to handle it all on your own, now that you have a mutual restraining order and you know what forms to file.

Good luck. I will look forward to reading about your case!!!

 

[StacyInCalif]

Well seniorjudge, I do find the irony of this amusing:

There are two rules for success:

(1) Never tell everything you know.

In light of this from quincy:

The CDA provision has been challenged, and is continuing to be challenged, but nothing you have posted here indicates that any suit you might bring against Google et al would be successful.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the conversation on points of the CDA and challenges issued so far, but for good reason have not posted "everything I know". Were I to do so, I'd venture a guess that most here would change their minds as to the merits of our case. Does this sound overly confident? Why yes, I believe it does. For very good reason.

 

[quincy]

Stacy, just go tell your entire story to an attorney in your area. Because you continue to say you have a case of epic proportions you will be able to locate one, I am sure. Because the facts of your situation are to remain mysterious, there is nothing more this site can do for you.

Goodbye and good luck.

 

[JessiesGirl30]

Stacy that is his sig line, not a jab at you. Look at his other posts, you will see.

 

[seniorjudge]

Stacy that is his sig line, not a jab at you. Look at his other posts, you will see.

Obvious things escape Stacy.

 

[StacyInCalif]

Stacy, just go tell your entire story to an attorney in your area. Because you continue to say you have a case of epic proportions you will be able to locate one, I am sure. Because the facts of your situation are to remain mysterious, there is nothing more this site can do for you.

Goodbye and good luck.

I already have, but thank you.

Stacy that is his sig line, not a jab at you. Look at his other posts, you will see.

No kidding?? Really??

Note: I never stated anything other than the obvious ~ that the text quoted in my above post was from his signature. I simply found the irony amusing considering the recent discussion.

 

[quincy]

Note to cbg re. your post #5:

Damn you're good.

 

[seniorjudge]

Given that the odds are you'll simply tell us that we're all wrong because we don't know all the details, I don't know why anyone should bother.

cbg can spot the weirdos right off.

 

[Shadowbunny]

cbg can spot the weirdos right off.

I guess we know who has the FA Crystal Ball....