Libel or just humiliating?

Idaho/Internet. My wife subscribed to a magazine and participated in its online message boards. After a while her posts started to get deleted without warning, and my wife complained about it.

Then the magazine changed from a monthly to a bi-monthly subscription. My wife, who also subscribed to the competitor's (still) monthly magazine posted on the competitor's web site. She was critical about the 1st magazine's spin on the change and said that she was not going to renew her subscription there since the price was now a poorer value.

Almost immediately, the editor sent an email indicating that my wife's subscription had been canceled and that she was no longer allowed to post on the web site. In a list of participants on the message board, my wife's (real and posting) names appeared next to the word "BANNED" in big red letters. It was the ONLY name on a long list marked like this.

Meanwhile a bunch of negative posts started appearing on the competitor's site from people who were apparently also unhappy about the change or the magazine staff. After my wife reported that she had been banned, the messages began to get really ugly. This touched off a flame war between the two sites that was eventually shut down by both editors.

Since many people posted under false names, there was speculation that a single "unhappy" person had made all the nasty posts. There was also a lot of speculation about the "horrible" things that the banned person must have done to be marked like this. Although my wife could not defend herself (she was banned), others posted testimonials saying that she was honest and friendly. These positive posts were deleted along with all the flame postings.

When the editor shut down the threads, she said, "The subscription I cancelled that apparently brought all this on was done for several different reasons, only one of which you are aware of - the negative (and untrue) comments that were publicly posted on the other board. Since no one knows the whole story, comments shouldn't be made here either for or against, and any future posts concerning this matter will be deleted."

I believe that these comments encourage the impression that 1) my wife posted under the false names, 2) that she did something "horrible" in addition to her critical post, etc. But this is all implied, not directly said.

Is this libel or just nasty treatment by the editor? People from the board have started to shun my wife, including two pen pals that had been active with her until this happened. I sent an email to the editor telling her that she needed to clarify the situation or allow my wife to post a defense, but so far she has ignored me.

My response:

Hell, this type of thing happens on these Boards too !

People yell and scream at each other here all the time.

It's no big deal. We get our frustrations out, we flex our verbal muscles a bit, we posture, our testosterone gets squirted on everyone, and then we all go to sleep at night.

Eventually, the post dies down, and we all go back to normal.

In other words, "BIG DEAL", "SO WHAT?" "WHO CARES?"

In the end, it's not a problem.

Find another Bulletin Board.

IAAL

You may be missing the point (or I am)

What was upsetting wasn't getting caught in the middle of a flame war. I agree that this happens all the time. The EDITOR's actions, however, seemed defamatory or at least malicious. Usually in a flame war you can at least flame back without one-sided censorship. Was it really necessary to post BANNED next to my wife's name, when just canceling her subscription would have been sufficient?

And these are no ordinary bulletin boards. Items are bought, sold and traded in these groups. With my wife's image tarnished the number of people willing to trade with her has dramatically declined.

DH

My response:

You seem to think that the Constitution follows you into the private domain of someone else's Internet site. Well, guess what ?

It doesn't.

The owner of the site, just like the owner of a building, can censor you all he/she likes. You leave your right to free speech at the entrance to the site, or the doors of the building, and you follow their rules - - not yours.

When you're in someone else's house, you don't tell them how to live, or what to cook for dinner. You shut up, or have pleasant conversation, say thank you, and "that was a wonderful dinner." Then you leave. Then, after you leave, you pick up your copy of the Constitution from the porch, and put it in your pocket.

If you don't like the site because you don't agree with how it's being run, then you leave.

IAAL

What is your problem? All I'm asking is whether the situation I described constitutes libel or not. I don't need a lecture from you that doesn't answer the question.

Are you saying that libel is not possible because its a private website? I find that hard to believe. Are you saying that what I described is clearly NOT libel? That would be more helpful, especially if you'd elaborate a little. Or are you saying that complaints like this annoy you for some reason? In that case, I could care less about your opinion!

Anyone else even read this site?

My response:

You have never stated any libelous or defamatory statements. You have only stated conclusions. Without actual statements, I can only "conclude" that there was nothing stated of a defamatory nature.

You may not have liked what happened, but you cannot expect a specific response without specific statements.

You say things like:

1. "In a list of participants on the message board, my wife's (real and posting) names appeared next to the word "BANNED" in big red letters. It was the ONLY name on a long list marked like this."

2. "After my wife reported that she had been banned, the messages began to get really ugly."

3. "There was also a lot of speculation about the "horrible" things that the banned person must have done to be marked like this."

You never say anything that constitutes libel. These are all conclusions !


Then, you have the audacity to say:

"I don't need a lecture from you . . . "

Well, apparently you do. You obviously have no idea what libel is, or what constitutes libel, because you think that posting the above "examples" are libel, and are written to help me or anyone, to help you ! The only thing the above statements are, in reality, are just a waste of time to read. You've never stated the remarks that led up to your above-stated conclusions. But, you really don't want a lecture about that, now do you ?

Then you ask:

"Are you saying that what I described is clearly NOT libel?"

And my answer, at this juncture, is a resounding, "YES, it is "clearly" NOT libel" - - because you have said virtually NOTHING in regard to "actual", verbatim, statements that were allegedly written.

No one here is going to play "20 Questions" with you either. We expect, since you know, and know how, to use the word "libel", and since you're obviously an adult, that you know enough to quote the actual statements without us asking, or without beating around the bush.

So, with the current information I have, I can only conclude by saying, if you don't like their Rules, or what is being said, then leave.

Oh, and same also goes for this site.

IAAL

Thanks for the info.