Brian Burke Wins Judgement Against Online Commenters

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

Thanks to the Streisand effect (probably the reason we're changing the goal song ) that information is readily available (page 3). The fact that a new-born child was brought into the mess was pretty low.

Thanks for posting that.

I didn't realize a CalgaryPuck member was involved till I saw point 6 of schedule A.

Yikes.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Then what was he after, and what will it matter to the defendants?

I'd guess that his main point was to clear his name, which he successfully did, though I'm sure that getting a few weasels to crap their pants was a nice added bonus.

Also, it speaks well of CalgaryPuck that Loob was the only person whose post couldn't be directly linked in the complaint, presumably because it had long since been deleted by a moderator.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think if it were me and someone was posting inaccurate information that could harm my family, I would want to make them pay in some way. Good for Burke.

[Vulcan]

From what I understand the Streisand effect is caused by trying to hide the truth or facts from the public, this was just the opposite as Burke wanted the truth to come out. Good on him.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Considering that he still doesn’t even know who the defendants are, and has basically zero chance of ever collecting any damages, it strikes me as a pretty useless thing to do. And to the extent that he gave publicity to the original claims, it was downright counterproductive.

That sort of thing is hard for me to applaud.

So, people should not be impugned for breaking the law and defaming others when there is no apparent tangible effect of them doing so. But those they defame should not pursue their legal rights and sue because there is no apparent tangible effect of them doing so.

Is that right?

[Fry]

I haven't followed it by any means, and I don't believe it for a second, just wondering how Burke is clearing his name, other than launching a lawsuit. I know nothing about slander and the law, but did he provide proof that what was written was incorrect, or is it up to the Internet trolls to prove the story they spread was true?
What if the Internet trolls asked for a paternity test?

[cowtown75]

Originally Posted by Hells Bells

or c) cowtown75

LOL, nice one Hells Bells.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by fatso

So, people should not be impugned for breaking the law and defaming others when there is no apparent tangible effect of them doing so.

People should certainly be impugned. In this case, PEOPLE have not been impugned. Anonymous accounts on Internet boards have been impugned. What's the point? The culprits went free.

But those they defame should not pursue their legal rights and sue because there is no apparent tangible effect of them doing so.

There is no effect AT ALL of their doing so. Burke now has a judgement against people that cannot be found or identified, the judgement will never be enforced — and the already overburdened resources of the court system have been tied up in a Looney-Tunes case instead of being used where they might actually, you know, right a wrong, punish the guilty, and give restitution to the victim.

Is that right?

No, but neither is it right to waste resources on pointless litigation. There ought to be a remedy for what Burke has suffered, and there ought to be a punishment for what those idiots did — but this wasn’t it.

[fatso]

I take your point about scarcity of judicial resources, but I think it is misplaced. Just because some of these individuals elected not to defend does not mean the process was futile or that Burke shouldn't exercise his legal rights.

I would argue the individual defamers were in fact publicly impugned. There was a suit filed outlining Burke's allegations and some of those defendants chose not to respond to them. Because of their choice, he has obtained judgment against them and so they may be 'punished' in some way. It is still available to him to try and enforce that judgment, including trying to personally identify those individuals - and he'll have a long time to do that. Will he be able to do so? It is certainly not impossible.

Further, there are still other defendants, some of whom have been personally identified. It remains to see what they will do in terms of defending.

Finally, its a defamation case which is solely about reputation. I would argue much of the remedy exists in filing his claim and obtaining default judgment, all of which is public record. No one ever really makes that much money or obtains apologies in defamation awards anyway, so to the extent you may think such remedies are more appropriate, it makes no difference as they are not available anyway.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Yeah, and it was Brian Burke who created this particular Streisand effect by taking a bunch of Internet trolls to court. I suspect he did more damage to his own reputation by publicizing these idiots than the idiots could ever have done on their own.

They destroyed his marriage. The damage has been done. That alone is damaging enough for this to continue.

[Street Pharmacist]

This kind of judgement was not done for traditional justice on the perpetrators IMO. Burke wanted to show "anonymous" forum tough guys that there is consequences. Maybe he'll never find them, but he sure put the fear into a few of them. I guarantee people will be second guessing making up slander and posting it