Defamation on the internet

[fairisfair]

Geez, a simple "you don't have a case" would have been sufficient. We didn't need the rudeness in there.
And fairisfair, your punctuation and grammer is not entirely perfect either, so you shouldn't be talking. And I published my email here because there would be no other way to tell you which response was mine.

Maybe you didn't. but we do.

Oh, and it's free too. . . . what a deal huh???

 

[quincy]

r_beau -

It's always a clue, when the site doesn't have a privacy policy, that what you post or email may not be real private. You can file that information away for the future. But your letter to them was a decent one and you got to say what you wanted to say. Probably a lot of people who visited the site agreed with you, too.

In order to bring a defamation suit, though, the language has to be pretty rough - debates often get heated and words thrown back and forth can get nasty, but that isn't defamation, usually - it's free speech. Plus, with a defamation suit you'd have to show damages - real proof that your reputation was harmed. None of us saw that.

And, finally, it is expensive to sue, and time consuming. It is best just to chalk all of this up to a lesson learned.

By the way, I love North Dakota. Very cool state. And good luck in med school!

 

[r_beau]

r_beau -

It's always a clue, when the site doesn't have a privacy policy, that what you post or email may not be real private. You can file that information away for the future. But your letter to them was a decent one and you got to say what you wanted to say. Probably a lot of people who visited the site agreed with you, too.

In order to bring a defamation suit, though, the language has to be pretty rough - debates often get heated and words thrown back and forth can get nasty, but that isn't defamation, usually - it's free speech. Plus, with a defamation suit you'd have to show damages - real proof that your reputation was harmed. None of us saw that.

And, finally, it is expensive to sue, and time consuming. It is best just to chalk all of this up to a lesson learned.

By the way, I love North Dakota. Very cool state. And good luck in med school!

Thank you for the great explanation Quincy. That was one of my problems too: I really didn't know exactly what the law did or did not cover and if defamation was the right category.

I guess my other question is what would be the guidelines/law on publishing other peoples words? I do know that because it is on the internet, it gets tricky. I suppose they did nothing wrong publishing comments just because they are a public website? Or how exactly does that work?

Correct me if I am totally out of the ballpark, but would it be comparable that my comments were free lance writing and I should get paid for my "article"? Wishful thinking....

Honestly, I really don't have that big of intentions to actually sue them if I find anything(and you are right; that would be more time and money than it is worth). And I don't think it is necessary to clog the legal system with an issue like this when there are REAL issues out there that need attention. I actually am just hoping to find something so I can personally call them and have something to threaten with in hopes it would encourage them to FINALLY remove my comments after all.

 

[quincy]

Generally, when anyone writes anything, they own the rights to what they wrote. They own the rights to reproduce those words (or make copies of them), the rights to sell or distribute those words, the rights to create adaptations (called derivatives) or new works based on the old or original work, and the rights to perform the work (such as in a play). Although most people will register their copyrights if they've written a really good book or created a beautiful piece of art, just the act of writing or painting creates a copyrighted work. Registering the copyright only provides the creator of the work more protection should someone try to "steal" their work, or infringe.

So, basically, even what I am writing now is copyrighted.

However, by being on this forum, one of the conditions I agreed to in their Terms of Service, is that the forum would own all rights to whatever I wrote. And that is a common term or condition for most websites like this. I don't know about the site you emailed, but I suspect they now own the rights to your email, too. Sucks, doesn't it?

You could go back to the site and re-read the terms and conditions of posting there. You could ask once again that they remove the email or you will take action. I don't honestly think there is much action to take, but it might get them to remove it. If they don't, however, just change your email address. The responses to the email you sent are not that bad, anyway (except for printing your email address...that is really nasty). It is mostly like immature teasing, though, and I am sure they will tire soon and will move on to something else.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

 

[r_beau]

Thanks quincy.

I have tried looking for a list of "terms and conditions" on their website (wondering if it said somewhere that they have all rights to post sent-in comments) but I haven't found anything at all**************

 

[r_beau]

I guess I could move my topic or repost in a different catagory that would be more fitting to the copyright issue. I just want to get as many facts and laws down that I can so I can be the most "persuading" that I can be to get them to remove my words.

So technically, what catagory does this now fall under. Copywrite??

 

[quincy]

r_beau, I just revisited the site and there are no terms and conditions.

Sharkonline has their site set up as a "debate" center, where rodeo supporters can email in their comments and the people at sharkonline can respond to what the rodeo supporters say. The site tells people that if they WANT to email them, to debate the cruelty to animal issue in rodeos, they can. By emailing them, you allowed your email to be published and debated in their forum. So, you got sucked in. And there is not much you can do about it now.

This website is an "animal rights" organization website, and they are not going to listen to any arguments that don't support their belief that rodeos abuse animals. No matter how logical your arguments, or any other posters' arguments, may be.

There are PETA and Vegan websites that are equally militant, and no matter how much you argue with them, they are not going to change their beliefs that rodeos (and circuses and zoos and research labs and so on and so on) are abusing animals. It is fine to go into a debate knowing this, but I think you felt a wee bit blindsided by the publishing of your email, as well as by their lack of understanding of the rodeo business. That's just how it is, though. They will not change their minds for you, and you will probably not change yours for them.

Accept that, I guess, and move on. (In other words, there are no copyright issues here you can fight and no defamation issues here you can fight.)

 

[r_beau]

Thanks for your help.

 

[quincy]

You're welcome.