Libel on the Net

[Shay-Pari'e]

I've been warned? About what and by whom? I don't THINK so Paridise. So you lied.


I most certainly have not been told by anyone other than YOU, that I'm wrong about what I post. And you lied again.


Yes indeedy, over two years ago, I didn't know how to get the identity of an anonymous poster? That's not really something a person needs to do everyday is it? Hey, I don't have that problem, so don't ask me.

Unlike some folks, I don't claim to be an expert on every single aspect of law. Do you even realize the the amount of lawyers that do post on this forum?

In fact, I mostly lament my lack of knowledge about everything. One thing I can tell you though Paridise. Unlike yourself and others, I don't post ANYTHING unless I am absolutely sure of my facts. No you don't.. Again, this is a legal based web site.


It's easy enough for someone to PROVE a person wrong about a matter of law. No it isn't, that is what many of the people who contribute to this forum have to deal with in regards to you.

The admin of this site has a responsibility to sensor posts. They have a responsibility to insure the people who post advice know a little something. Megan, you are a danger to people visiting this site, they may take you seriously.

 

[lasvegasdad]

Amazing! Simply amazing!

"The admin of this site has a responsibility to sensor posts. They have a responsibility to insure the people who post advice know a little something. Megan, you are a danger to people visiting this site, they may take you seriously. Today 12:16 AM"

I guess in Law School spelling is not as important as it was in Elementary School.

The words are CENSOR and ENSURE, not sensor and insure. And no, they're not typos... that's clear.

I haven't seen any responses on this board that appear to be offered by lawyers/attorneys and to my understanding offering legal advice otherwise is against the law. Not to mention potentially damaging to those whom are being offered legal advice by amateurs or legal novices who clearly appear to be anything but attorneys.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

"The admin of this site has a responsibility to sensor posts. They have a responsibility to insure the people who post advice know a little something. Megan, you are a danger to people visiting this site, they may take you seriously. Today 12:16 AM"

I guess in Law School spelling is not as important as it was in Elementary School.

The words are CENSOR and ENSURE, not sensor and insure. And no, they're not typos... that's clear.

I haven't seen any responses on this board that appear to be offered by lawyers/attorneys and to my understanding offering legal advice otherwise is against the law. Not to mention potentially damaging to those whom are being offered legal advice by amateurs or legal novices who clearly appear to be anything but attorneys.

Then obviously you have not spent enough time on this forum to know what you are talking about. Otherwise, you would have some idea that the question of libel/slander on this thread has already been decided by the U.S. Supreme court, various appellate courts and by international rulings.
Now, I suggest you either offer legal advice, IF QUALIFIED, or refrain from joining a discussion where the only contribution you seem to make is to keep the personal discussion going.

 

[HomeGuru]

"The admin of this site has a responsibility to sensor posts. They have a responsibility to insure the people who post advice know a little something. Megan, you are a danger to people visiting this site, they may take you seriously. Today 12:16 AM"

I guess in Law School spelling is not as important as it was in Elementary School.

The words are CENSOR and ENSURE, not sensor and insure. And no, they're not typos... that's clear.

I haven't seen any responses on this board that appear to be offered by lawyers/attorneys and to my understanding offering legal advice otherwise is against the law. Not to mention potentially damaging to those whom are being offered legal advice by amateurs or legal novices who clearly appear to be anything but attorneys.

**A: you have a major problem.

 

[dsshell]

To the last three poster's. Please keep your agenda off this forum.

If anyone wanted to get to know your situation, it is not difficult. I for one don't want to know about your cat fight.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=dsshell/v=2/SID=w/l=WS1/R=2/H=0/IPC=us/SHE=0/SIG=130hb89nf/*-http://www.familyrightsassociation.com/members/wisconsin/kay_henson/Suzanne_Shell_10202.htm

I take exception to being included in this rebuke. I posted a legitimate legal argument which was absolutley relevant to the discussion of this thread. An argument which had not been previously submitted. I made no personal claims nor levelled any personal attacks. I made no reference to the case at issue. I stated a legal argument, nothing more, nothing less. There was no agenda involved on my part.

I was on topic and entirely appropriate in my post. I do not deserve to be treated like this based on the conduct of other posters or the prejudices of other list members.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I take exception to being included in this rebuke. I posted a legitimate legal argument which was absolutley relevant to the discussion of this thread. An argument which had not been previously submitted. I made no personal claims nor levelled any personal attacks. I made no reference to the case at issue. I stated a legal argument, nothing more, nothing less. There was no agenda involved on my part.

I was on topic and entirely appropriate in my post. I do not deserve to be treated like this based on the conduct of other posters or the prejudices of other list members.

Actually, dsshell, your post was wrong in reference to the legal aspects of this discussion. It doesn't matter, in this situation whether the post is truthful or not. In the context of this post, the legal issue is that of 'intent'.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that online publications enjoy the same protections of 'first amendment' as do legitimate publications and that even if they suspect or 'know' that the publishing of the information may be false, the plaintiff must also show INTENT on the part of the publication to enjoy the rights and priviledges of libel.

In this case, and from the clear language of the posted URL reference, this was a news story which NEVER stated for a fact that the subject of the article WAS guilty, only that 'it has been reported'. And that is why this is not libel. On any party.

 

[meganproser]

Although the following three issues are questions of law that can ONLY be determined by a court, let’s just say these decisions went the way most favorable to the defendant.

The plaintiff in this case qualifies as a “public figure”.
The web site qualifies as a “news source”.
The allegations qualify as a matter of public concern.

BB wrote: In this case, and from the clear language of the posted URL reference, this was a news story which NEVER stated for a fact that the subject of the article WAS guilty, only that 'it has been reported'. And that is why this is not libel. On any party.

Megan writes: The insertion of a few "disclaimers" does not turn that which is offered as fact, into "opinion". The media never said Richard Jewell WAS guilty of planting the bomb at the Olympics. I believe Jewell’s settlement with NBC was for $500,000.00.

A good explanation of what constitutes opinion in libel is found in the following, which involves a public individual who sued the New York Times for libel:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/search/display.html?terms=criminal and procedure not liibulletin&url=/nyctap/I93_0205.htm

The part most relevant to the poster’s question follows as the Court describes the nature of the New York Times articles:

"Additionally, although the articles contain many assertions that would be understood by the reasonable reader as mere hypotheses premised on stated facts, there are also actionable charges made in the articles -- such as the charges that plaintiff engaged in cover-ups, directed the creation of "misleading" autopsy reports and was guilty of "possibly illegal" conduct -- that, although couched in the language of hypothesis or conclusion, actually would be understood by the reasonable reader as assertions of fact (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 42 NY2d 369, 382).”

So you see, the overall presentation of the allegations can negate any "technical" disclaimers.

BB wrote: The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that online publications enjoy the same protections of 'first amendment' as do legitimate publications and that even if they suspect or 'know' that the publishing of the information may be false, the plaintiff must also show INTENT on the part of the publication to enjoy the rights and privileges of libel.

Megan writes: The Supreme Court has made no ruling that requires a libel plaintiff to address "intent". If someone publishes defamatory material they suspect or know is false, WHY they did it is irrelevant to the cause of action (though it may affect the damage award).

BB may be referring to the requirement that a public figure libel plaintiff must show “actual malice” on the part of the publisher. “Actual malice” is either knowledge that a statement is false, or reckless disregard for truth or falsity of the statement. “Actual malice” has to do with the publisher’s attitude toward the truth, whereas “malice” has to do with the publisher’s attitude towards the person.

A public figure plaintiff needs to prove the statement was false, capable of defamatory meaning, communicated to a third party, who understood the defamation was about the plaintiff, and that the publisher acted either with malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth. If the defamation qualifies as Libel Per Se, the plaintiff need not prove actual damages.

I am not an attorney.