Law suits over message board comments?

[Frank the Tank]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ion-case_x.htm

Wow. 11.3 million? Wow. Watch what you say, I guess.....

[Looger]

coming soon: two internets, both boring.

[Bobblehead]

So there was no defense offered? Is there any sort of public defender for civil suits like this?

Something sounds wrong.

[JohnnyFlame]

Only in the good old US of A eh? What a freakin idiotic decision -- Laughable.

The only thing the court case does is point out how stupid the judical system is in the US. It's beyond stupid and really makes the country look bad.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Looger

coming soon: two internets, both boring.

Yup. All blood and gore and no boobies. Just like US network TV.

[MattyK]

Coming up next: Members of parliament being sued $11million for calling members of opposite parties crooks!

[OilersBaby]

this doesnt surprise me...anything goes in the USA...my husband is a lawyer (criminal prosecutor) so I hear about stuff like this all the time.

In fact, for those of you who are in the CPHL...you know how you write those press releases after games, I was just telling my bro the other day not to quote players because if you make em say something and put it in quotes, they could sue you for defamation. and wouldnt it suck to get sued by a hockey player for making up a quote in regards to a cphl game?

[burn_baby_burn]

Look for Chris Pronger to file a similar lawsuit, against thousands of people in Edmonton, in Florida.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MattyK

Coming up next: Members of parliament being sued $11million for calling members of opposite parties crooks!

Cant. Politicians are protected in all forms of speech when in the HoC. One could call another a baby raping nazi and nothing could be done.

As far as lawsuits go, I have been told in the past that a certain unpopular member of the Calgary sports journalism scene has been known to threaten message boards with legal action.

[Reaper]

Word to the wise: Preface all comments alleging another party's douchbaggery with the phrase "I think" as opposed to trying to present them as facts.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Only in the good old US of A eh? What a freakin idiotic decision -- Laughable.

The only thing the court case does is point out how stupid the judical system is in the US. It's beyond stupid and really makes the country look bad.

Why is it laughable, the fact that you can sue for defamation of the fact that she got so much money?

If its the money part - I agree with you but if the lady can show she has been financially damaged by this then some monetary compensation is in order.

If its the fact you can sue, just because the Internet is an anonomys place doesnt make it outised the law. If I went on the news and said that xy chinese bakery has rats and insects that bakery would likely not be open very long. If that statement is false than the bakery should sue and should win.

The real case will come with the ratings and comments section in Ebay. Sellers have gotten so bad now that they wont leave you feedback until you leave them some. When I sell an item I always leave feedback as soon as the item is shipped. I do look at past ebay history to see users feedback so it does have a buisness effect - proving monetary damage would be difficult unless you went out of your way to hurt the persons buisness.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Cant. Politicians are protected in all forms of speech when in the HoC. One could call another a baby raping nazi and nothing could be done.

As far as lawsuits go, I have been told in the past that a certain unpopular member of the Calgary sports journalism scene has been known to threaten message boards with legal action.

True but a politician who called another politician that wouldnt last long in politics. Politics doesnt need the courts to police it, the media and public scrutiny is the best kind of police dog there is.

MYK

[Kev]

I think it's a good precedence to set. Too many punks/idiots hide behind their monitors thinking anything goes. If you read the article you'll see she doesn't expect to get the money, and in fact didn't ask for a certain amount in the first place, it was the principle.

I have a buddy from Albania, who says the WWW stands for Wild Wild West because of how unregulated it is, and it's true compared to real society. And before you say "that's freedom of speech" ask yourself do you like getting viruses, or being hacked, because the more the governments start to regulate the internet, the better chance we have of elminating, or at the very least reducing this crap.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Kev

I think it's a good precedence to set. Too many punks/idiots hide behind their monitors thinking anything goes. If you read the article you'll see she doesn't expect to get the money, and in fact didn't ask for a certain amount in the first place, it was the principle.

I have a buddy from Albania, who says the WWW stands for Wild Wild West because of how unregulated it is, and it's true compared to real society. And before you say "that's freedom of speech" ask yourself do you like getting viruses, or being hacked, because the more the governments start to regulate the internet, the better chance we have of elminating, or at the very least reducing this crap.

I agree but 11 million is just stupid. 1 million is probably just as stupid depending on how much his business suffered.

[blankall]

you can be found quite liable for this kind of stuff. Its just usually more work than it's worth. Reading a lot about this for a paper I'm writing.

It's just like any other form of slander in a public medium and can be just as damaging...

11 million does seem like a lot though. In canada you actually have to prove you suffered that much

[Flame On]

Originally Posted by Kev

I think it's a good precedence to set. Too many punks/idiots hide behind their monitors thinking anything goes. If you read the article you'll see she doesn't expect to get the money, and in fact didn't ask for a certain amount in the first place, it was the principle.

I have a buddy from Albania, who says the WWW stands for Wild Wild West because of how unregulated it is, and it's true compared to real society. And before you say "that's freedom of speech" ask yourself do you like getting viruses, or being hacked, because the more the governments start to regulate the internet, the better chance we have of elminating, or at the very least reducing this crap.

Or you just get compitent at arming your computer with ways to stop that. Or don't go to dodgy sites or accept loser emails. Regulation means fees and taxes to the government. Which I don't want to pay more of regardless.

[redforever]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyK
Coming up next: Members of parliament being sued $11million for calling members of opposite parties crooks!


Cant. Politicians are protected in all forms of speech when in the HoC. One could call another a baby raping nazi and nothing could be done.

That is not true. There are limitations on what they can say and what they can not say in the House of Parliament. That does not excuse the fact that many times the whole lot of them act like a lot of cry babies, but they can not say anything they want in the House of Commons.

[icarus]

Well this is ridiculous and it is certain to be overturned on appeal. Juries are notorious for awarding nonsensical damages in defamation cases.

Originally Posted by blankall

11 million does seem like a lot though. In canada you actually have to prove you suffered that much

You do in Florida as well.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by redforever

That is not true. There are limitations on what they can say and what they can not say in the House of Parliament. That does not excuse the fact that many times the whole lot of them act like a lot of cry babies, but they can not say anything they want in the House of Commons.

Do you have an authority for this? Besides being reprimanded by the speaker, I do not know of any limitation on the freedom of speech in Parliament.

In Australia, a senator was able to accuse a homosexual High Court of Australia judge of "trawling for rough trade" with utter legal impunity because the comments were made in session.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by Kev

I think it's a good precedence to set. Too many punks/idiots hide behind their monitors thinking anything goes. If you read the article you'll see she doesn't expect to get the money, and in fact didn't ask for a certain amount in the first place, it was the principle.

I agree and I applaud this woman. Why are some saying, only in the good old USA? This basically comes down to what type of behaviour is condoned in society, and do laws from society apply to the internet? Why shouldnt they? Why should you be able to defame someone and slander them on the internet but not in so called "real" life?

And I dont know if it is the fact that they hide behind their monitors. Too many think the internet is not the "real" world, that they can say things and do things on the internet that they would never think of doing or imagine doing in so called "real" life. And I think the main reason they act this way is they are of the belief no one will ever meet them, get to know them etc. In other words, they almost feel like they can behave like that anonymously. So they take a lot of leeway, assume almost a new identity that they get kicks out of, they get to feel very self important. If you would actually meet people who acted like that, they would get the cold shoulder in a big hurry.

Well, the internet is real people, real feelings do get hurt, and no matter if on the internet or in so called "real" life, people should not act and behave so that they get their jollies at the expense of hurting other's feelings.