Libel???

[cbg]

How, if at all, does this relate to your other question?

 

[randomdancing]

It's not related.

 

[quincy]

This is just a general question and does not involve you?

 

[Proserpina]

This won't be worth prosecuting even IF defamation is a criminal offense in your (unnamed) state.

Even as a civil matter I'm doubtful it would go anywhere even IF defamation per se in your (unnamed) state was an issue (saying someone has an STD can be classed as defamation per se - IF your state has that)..

 

[quincy]

Being falsely accused of moral failings can potentially support a defamation suit. . . . . not that it is sounding like there is any action worth pursuing based on facts provided here so far.

 

[randomdancing]

This does not involve me directly.

 

[quincy]

Ahh. So you are just curious.

What is the name of your state, randomdancing?

If you or anyone else can identify the people in town who are being talked about, and these people have suffered reputational injury as a result of the comments made about them, these people could always consult with an attorney for a review of the facts, to see if there is any legal action they can take against the blogger/Facebook page writer.

If it is possible for a supportable claim against the writer, these people would then have to decide if it is worth their time and the high cost of suing the blogger/Facebook page writer. Defamation suits are expensive to pursue, especially when the defamer is anonymous.

That said, many "anonymous" writers are not really all that anonymous. Many seemingly anonymous online posters reveal enough about themselves in various places online that piecing together their real identity is not all that difficult. I imagine "Jane" can be unmasked pretty easily, even without a court order, based on the targets of her comments and the content of her postings.

If not discoverable by other means, the BlogSpot creator can also be compelled through court order to reveal the identity of Jane.

The person who makes the libelous statements (in your example, Jane) would generally be the defendant named in the lawsuit and, in your example, Liz C., Tom and Carl could all have separate actions to pursue. If Jane is not the BlogSpot creator but posted defamatory comments directly on the BlogSpot, Jane would probably be named as the sole defendant. However, the BlogSpot creator could also be sued over the defamatory content appearing on his blog under certain circumstances. Choosing to publish defamatory comments made by another, republishing defamatory material, makes the publisher/re-publisher vulnerable to suit.

Facebook and Google would not be named as defendants in a defamation lawsuit, however, unless they somehow helped contribute the libelous content or encouraged libelous postings, which is highly unlikely. Both are provided an immunity from legal actions taken over content provided by third party users. This immunity is granted through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

As to what was written, context is important. Generally, however, the words "hot" and "ugly" would be considered pure opinion and not actionable. These words when used to describe a person cannot be proved to be true or false statements of fact, and defamatory statements are false statements of fact. The other comments that were made could potentially be considered defamatory if false, but it would depend on all of the particular facts of the matter.

Blogs and websites of the sort you mention are problematic. Laws are slow to change but many states are now enacting new laws and amending old ones to handle online defamation.

 

[randomdancing]

This won't be worth prosecuting even IF defamation is a criminal offense in your (unnamed) state.

Even as a civil matter I'm doubtful it would go anywhere even IF defamation per se in your (unnamed) state was an issue (saying someone has an STD can be classed as defamation per se - IF your state has that)..

Michigan. I'm sorry. It said that in the original thread. Which was deleted because I absent mindedly posted a link to the blog page.

 

[randomdancing]

Ahh. So you are just curious.

What is the name of your state, randomdancing?

If you or anyone else can identify the people in town who are being talked about, and these people have suffered reputational injury as a result of the comments made about them, these people could always consult with an attorney for a review of the facts, to see if there is any legal action they can take against the blogger/Facebook page writer.

If it is possible for a supportable claim against the writer, these people would then have to decide if it is worth their time and the high cost of suing the blogger/Facebook page writer. Defamation suits are expensive to pursue, especially when the defamer is anonymous.

That said, many "anonymous" writers are not really all that anonymous. Many seemingly anonymous online posters reveal enough about themselves in various places online that piecing together their real identity is not all that difficult. I imagine "Jane" can be unmasked pretty easily, even without a court order, based on the targets of her comments and the content of her postings.

If not discoverable by other means, the BlogSpot creator can also be compelled through court order to reveal the identity of Jane.

The person who makes the libelous statements (in your example, Jane) would generally be the defendant named in the lawsuit and, in your example, Liz C., Tom and Carl could all have separate actions to pursue. If Jane is not the BlogSpot creator but posted defamatory comments directly on the BlogSpot, Jane would probably be named as the sole defendant. However, the BlogSpot creator could also be sued over the defamatory content appearing on his blog under certain circumstances. Choosing to publish defamatory comments made by another, republishing defamatory material, makes the publisher/re-publisher vulnerable to suit.

Facebook and Google would not be named as defendants in a defamation lawsuit, however, unless they somehow helped contribute the libelous content or encouraged libelous postings, which is highly unlikely. Both are provided an immunity from legal actions taken over content provided by third party users. This immunity is granted through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

As to what was written, context is important. Generally, however, the words "hot" and "ugly" would be considered pure opinion and not actionable. These words when used to describe a person cannot be proved to be true or false statements of fact, and defamatory statements are false statements of fact. The other comments that were made could potentially be considered defamatory if false, but it would depend on all of the particular facts of the matter.

Blogs and websites of the sort you mention are problematic. Laws are slow to change but many states are now enacting new laws and amending old ones to handle online defamation.

I am in Michigan. Sorry.

Can we (as a town) get this blog taken down?

 

[quincy]

I am in Michigan. Sorry.

Can we (as a town) get this blog taken down?

As a town? I don't know. You, or someone who was unfairly talked about on the blog, may want to have an attorney in your area (one well-versed in defamation law) personally review the site and provide an opinion on the merits of any suit after a review of all facts.

It is very difficult, however, to prevent the creation of websites and blogs and postings of the sort you are concerned about. The best way could be a lawsuit or two leveled at the blogger or writer or website creator who provided the defamatory content - if any lawsuit is found to have merit enough to pursue.

Although defamation suits are notoriously costly actions because reputations are valuable, when the effects of the defamatory comments are serious enough, damages awarded to the person or persons defamed can be extremely high, which can easily bankrupt the person who has tossed off reputationally injurious statements (probably thinking that all speech is protected under the law, which is just not true).

At any rate, the costs to a defendant, in defending against a suit and that result from a lawsuit loss and a hefty award of damages, can stop the careless blogger from blogging, or at least stop the careless blogger from blogging carelessly in the future.

Again, I suggest you, or actually someone from your town who was directly identified and potentially defamed, speak with a lawyer. That is the best way to learn the options available and if any option is one worth exploring further.