BB wrote: I don't care if each and every item in that post you gave the URL for is false and can be proven. To prove a case of criminal libel AND to recover anything, you must also prove INTENT (that the person who posted those 'facts' KNEW them to be false and damages, or that you have somehow been harmed in a measurable manner.
Megan writes: Accusing someone of committing crimes, constitutes Libel Per Se. In such a case, damages are presumed. The writer did not have to KNOW the statements were false. The question is whether or not a reasonable person, might have had ANY reason to doubt the truthfulness of the statements. If a person had ANY doubt, and they published the allegations anyway, then they acted with a level of negligence that is equal to acting with malice.
BB wrote: You have shown nothing that even points to INTENT therefore, you have no case on the facts posted.
Megan writes: Assuming the allegations are based on complete fiction as our poster claims, it is unreasonable to think there would be any difficulty proving that the writer acted with negligence or malice. One simply does not put THAT amount of false info out about someone, unless there is some malice.
BB wrote: And in the hopes ( folley as it is ) that megan finally learns something, read Zeran v. AOL, Gentry v. eBay and Schneider v. Amazon or Aquino v. Electriciti Inc. OR Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal for the facts necessary to prove libel in the Internet arena.
Megan writes: None of those cases have anything to do with “the facts necessary to prove libel in the Internet arena.” They all address the question of exactly WHO can be held liable, IN ADDITION TO the original creator of the defamatory publication. Our poster does not seem intent on suing any providers; she was simply hoping they would assist her by removing the offensive material, as many providers are willing to do, voluntarily.
Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal is all about the common law principle that one who republishes defamatory matter originated by a third person is subject to liability if he or she knows or has reason to know its defamatory character."
BB wrote: But then Ellen L. Batzel v. Ton Cremers, et al. turns that decision on it's ear,
Megan writes: I fail to see how this case turned anything on it’s ear. This case merely seeks to further define the circumstances under which a site owner can qualify for immunity under article 230 (c) (1).
It’s about who is really responsible for the fact that a private email ended up on a list serve and a web site. The site owner is immune only if he had reason to believe the email was intended for the listserv…in which case the original writer of the email would be the only one responsible for damage to the plaintiff’s reputation. If the site owner acted negligently in posting the email, if he had no real reason to believe it was meant for publication, then he will not be immune and will be partly liable for the defamation.
Batzel v Cremers, has nothing at all to do with the posters situation.
BB writes: or maybe Sidney Blumenthal, et al. v. Matt Drudge and America Online, Inc. will be more interesting reading.
Megan writes: Again, this case is all about trying to drag AOL into something that only Drudge, the original publisher of the alleged defamation, is responsible for.
Defamation law is the same for the Internet as it is in any other form of communication. There is nothing new about what constitutes defamation or what is necessary to prove one has been defamed.
Did you even look at those cases BB?
