Libel on a web site by owner's staff

[island]

What is the name of your state? California, but the web site home is Massachusetts.

In California, the owner of a web site cannot be sued for libel if the written material was posted by a third party. However, what if these third party members were staff acting on behalf of the site?

Do I have recourse if I can meet the other requirements (proof of damages, proof of the lack of veracity, and so on)?

If law concerning the internet is still unclear, may I take action another way, which is to contact the internet service provider of the web site and show that the Terms of Service and the Acceptable Use Policies were violated?

I have the defamatory material preserved, as well as emotional distress/damages documented by a medical expert.

 

[TomD1974]

First, were these people agents of the web site owner, people that were employees at the time or compensated or commissioned in some way by the owner? If yes, then include the owner on your lawsuit* along with the people who can be proved to have actually posted the material.

*assuming that there is a basis for a suit - like you have actual damages and not some concocted or unreasonable claim facilitated by your henchman in a white coat.

 

[quincy]

You can ALWAYS take action. But you may not always be successful.
I noticed you mentioned you had all of the requirements for a libel suit - proof of damages, proof of lack of veracity, and so on. I hope your "so on" includes a lot of time and a lot of money, which are major requirements for any suit.
As for internet law, it is still evolving as it is relatively new. Different courts in different states, and even different courts in the same state, will have differing opinions on similar-fact cases.
It is hard to judge the merits of your particular libel case based on the limited information given - missing is the libelous material upon which you are basing your suit, the context in which this libelous material was presented.....and so on.

 

[quincy]

Island, I don't think I answered your questions very well. One reason for that is the limited information given by you, but the main reason is that Internet law is still developing and, therefore, there is no CLEAR direction on Internet suits at this point in time.
For instance, there is the question, with the website, as to which state has jurisdiction - California or Massachusetts? Each state has different case laws which they rely on in court to make their rulings. What laws will govern the action? Another question is the potential liability - does the ISP have any liability, or the web owner (if you bring suit in Massachusetts), or just the person or persons posting? The two most widely discussed Internet libel law cases, based on similar facts, contradicted each other. And most Internet libel cases are settled before they ever get to court. The only thing I can tell you for sure is that anyone libeled on the Internet will find their case is not the simplest to pursue - hence my earlier post warning you of the need for a lot of time and a lot of money.
You do have some areas you can explore before proceeding with a libel suit. You can contact the web owner and ask that the offending material be removed (if it hasn't been already). You can ask for a retraction and apology. You can contact the ISP (although, if the ISP is more of a distributor than a publisher, then it probably has no control over the material on the website). And THEN, it you think you have enough evidence to prove libel in a court, and you want to take the time and spend the money, you can contact a lawyer specializing in Internet law.

 

[island]

Thank you.

Thank you for all the information and time to read and respond. Much appreciated. I didn't give the details so as not to burden, bore, or bog down.

I am not actually interested in pursuing a lawsuit, but I did want to find out the general information in order to remind the owner of the site that what happened IS actionable.

The libel was in fact harmful in the sense of emotional distress to cause psychiatric intervention (and cost therefore) so I consider that to be serious enough and not trumped up.

The libel was written by staff who were supposed to be moderators. Some members were involved too, but in California at least, third party libel on the internet is NOT actionable. So my question was really about the technicality of having the site owner ultimately responsible for his staff and therefore the libel not considered third party.

I have looked into the ISP issue and found out that the Terms of Service and Authorized Use contract was in fact broken by several of the "events" that occurred. However, most ISP services tend to only pay attention to copyright infringement.

I have contacted the owner of the site and informed him of the various actions available and then (because I am a buddhist and do not believe in retaliation) proposed an alternative that involves a retraction and apology.

So far I have had no responses from this individual though I have been civil and made many requests for information regarding his attorney and other things.

I am not sure what I am able to do at this point if he continues to avoid responding to my emails. I do have his contact information. And I could also post, via another party, on his website to get his attention. Not sure what I should or could do at this point.

 

[panzertanker]

Not sure what I should or could do at this point.

Let it go?
It has apparently caused you enough stress already...is moving on an option?

 

[island]

hmmm

Letting it go is probably the best for an overall strategy. However, I think I am entitled to find out more about the issue before I make a decision. Why not? It seems harmless enough.

Wish your final signature statement were so harmless, but it takes all kinds, especially under the cloak of the internet.

 

[panzertanker]

Wish your final signature statement were so harmless, but it takes all kinds, especially under the cloak of the internet.

Which one:
The asking assinine questions
OR
The lawyers
?

 

[island]

LOL

You master baiter!

 

[seniorjudge]

...

The libel was in fact harmful in the sense of emotional distress to cause psychiatric intervention (and cost therefore) so I consider that to be serious enough and not trumped up.

....

Without any direct contact with you, this part would never hold up.

The damages are not direct; they are too remote. In other words, you would never be able to prove causation.

 

[moburkes]

Island, I would have reported your post, but the moderator is already looking at it. Please refrain from that type of language. We all appreciate it.

 

[island]

Thanks. I suppose you are right. Again I wasn't saying that I would carry something forward and try to win. Just getting acquainted with the issues so that I could make an informed decision.

The distress was registered along the way on the site itself. And was montitored by an MD so I am not so sure that some accountability couldn't be proved.

But then you are the expert, not I. I am only testing out the questions to see what the ramifications are.

 

[island]

I apologize if my joke was taken in a mean spirited way. It just so happens that I was being baited, and that is called trolling in many cases, so I responded in kind with a sense of humor.

 

[panzertanker]

I apologize if my joke was taken in a mean spirited way. It just so happens that I was being baited, and that is called trolling in many cases, so I responded in kind with a sense of humor.

I was not offended, I was asking 2 legitimate questions:
1. CAN you let it go?
2. What is wrong with my signature statement?

I can assure you, as can many others here, I am no troll. Nor am I a "baiter" to get into an argument.

I do not see how you wopuld prove causation, as seniorjudge says, so I asked you if moving on and letting go might not be an option.

 

[island]

I take the word "assinine" to be rather vulgar, base, and abrasive. To quote it each and every time you post is to be a baiter, for you are passive aggressively insinuating an insult.

So that is what is wrong with your signature. And you know it so once again it is disingenous of you, in bad faith to even ask.

I replied to the rest of your response earnestly and to the others as well. Don't see the need to act inappropriately or overstate.