Hundreds who posted views on sex assault trial targeted in Tarrant suit

[Shogun]

FORT WORTH — Hundreds of people who posted their opinions of a sexual assault trial in an online forum are now the targets of a lawsuit.

The authors of those comments on a Web site thought they were anonymous, but this week, a judge ruled their names should be revealed.

Mark and Rhonda Lesher lived quietly in northeast Texas; Mark practiced law, Rhonda ran a beauty salon.

Then, last year, a woman accused the couple — along with another man — of sexually assaulting her. That's when the anonymous comments started appearing on Topix.com.

An estimated 1,700 statements were too graphic to be included in this story, going far beyond the criminal charges.

"They were perverted, sick, vile, inhumane accusations," said Mark Lesher in a telephone interview from Clarksville, Texas.

The Leshers' attorney, William Pieratt Demond, labeled the comments "a form of persecution."

Last month, the couple got their day in court. A jury found the Leshers, along with their alleged accomplice, not guilty. But in the online forum, it seemed, the trial had no end.

"It just ... basically made us both feel like common criminals," Lesher said. "It's like someone had basically raped us of our reputation and our standing in the community over and over and over again."

And so this month, the Leshers sued 178 anonymous posters on the Web site. A Tarrant County judge ordered Topix to turn over potentially identifying information about the users listed in the lawsuit.. The site has until March 6 to comply with the ruling.

"We do not just give up people's privacy," said the Web site's CEO Chris Tolles. "We're very, very careful about that."

But Tolles said the discussions are not necessarily a license to run people through the mud. "If there is a line that's been crossed from a libel standpoint — and it seems reasonable — we do, in fact, cooperate with the courts."

This lawsuit was brought in Tarrant County because it appears at least one anonymous poster lives here.

Internet libel suits have had success in the past. A few years ago a North Dakota professor was awarded $3 million over claims a student Web site defamed him.

Hundreds who posted views on sex assault trial targeted in Tarrant suit | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Breaking News for Dallas-Fort Worth | Dallas Morning News

 

[auditor0007]

Freedom of speech is one thing, but continually dragging someone falsely through the mud is another. If it can be proven that these people were the topic of the false statements, then the case would seem to be valid. At the same time, it seems that many of these people were followers. Who started this, and continued it, and for what purpose?

 

[Tech_Esq]

If a criminal case is in the public eye, which all of them are because they are all part of the public record and available to the public for review, then people have a right to express their opinion of that case. They can freely express in however vulgar a manner is allowed by the site or forum they render their opinion in whether by speech or by the written word, their opinion of the facts or law related to the case.

I think that people cross the line if they start saying things about the individuals involved and start making accusations about other incidents that they "probably" engaged in or other salacious remarks. Hopefully, the court will walk that line. There is nothing wrong with publicly commenting on court cases before, during or after the case is finished. Think OJ.

 

[Andrew2382]

Lets say I am in the paper one day and people read it online and all the comments are negative stuff about me that isn't true or what not...does that mean I have the right to sue each of those people?

 

[Tech_Esq]

Lets say I am in the paper one day and people read it online and all the comments are negative stuff about me that isn't true or what not...does that mean I have the right to sue each of those people?

The answer is: it depends. Sorry, I'm a lawyer. You can't have a straight answer....LOL.

It would depend on the story in the paper and what it said. Whether you were in the paper all time or otherwise some person in the public eye. Then it would depend on what the people said that was negative and how they said it.

 

[Andrew2382]

you know...all my childhood friends became lawyers....after reading that...I'm so glad i didn't join them
lol

 

[michiganFats]

In order for the Lesher's lawsuit to be successful, do they have to prove that they have been damaged in some way? And I'm not talking about hurt feelings.

 

[Tech_Esq]

In order for the Lesher's lawsuit to be successful, do they have to prove that they have been damaged in some way? And I'm not talking about hurt feelings.

Here is a brief primer on defamation and the elements of the tort. (What must be proven at trial. 51% standard it is more likely than not that each element is true or present.)

Specific requirements that a plaintiff must prove in order to recover in a defamation action differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which is drafted by the American Law Institute and has been influential among state courts, a plaintiff must prove four elements.

1. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff.
2. Second, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made an unprivileged publication to a third party.
3. Third, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher acted at least negligently in publishing the communication.
4. Fourth, in some cases, the plaintiff must prove special damages.

Defamatory Statements

One essential element in any defamation action is that the defendant published something defamatory about the plaintiff. The Restatement defines a communication as defamatory "if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him." Examples of defamatory statements are virtually limitless and may include any of the following:

* A communication that imputes a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony
* A communication that exposes a plaintiff to hatred
* A communication that reflects negatively on the plaintiff's character, morality, or integrity
* A communication that impairs the plaintiff's financial well-being
* A communication that suggests that the plaintiff suffers from a physical or mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with the plaintiff

That's why the old saw is that, "Truth is an absolute defense to defamation."

 

[michiganFats]

Thanks Tech. The Leshers' better hope that none of the defendants have any dirt on them.

 

[Ravi]

Wow.

 

[Arthur]

Hot topic for a forum.

 

[auditor0007]

Thanks Tech. The Leshers' better hope that none of the defendants have any dirt on them.

Well, they were aquitted. Had they been convicted, then we could assume much of what was said to be true. However, with an aquittal, it sounds more like certain individuals having a vendetta against these people.

 

[Arthur]

It's interesting. Does this forum have a position/concern about internet libel and lawsuits? Free speech includes the freedom to get sued for your speech--even 'anonymous' speech.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It's interesting. Does this forum have a position/concern about internet libel and lawsuits? Free speech includes the freedom to get sued for your speech--even 'anonymous' speech.

Well, I think the free speech argument is that you need to follow Thoreau's admonition: "Your right to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' ends at the tip of my nose." Meaning you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to injure others while you use it.

That is why there is restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot or damaging others characters through defamation.

 

[Ravi]

It's interesting. Does this forum have a position/concern about internet libel and lawsuits? Free speech includes the freedom to get sued for your speech--even 'anonymous' speech.

Well, I think the free speech argument is that you need to follow Thoreau's admonition: "Your right to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' ends at the tip of my nose." Meaning you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to injure others while you use it.

That is why there is restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot or damaging others characters through defamation.

So saying so and so is evil is something one could be sued for?

 

[Shogun]

It's interesting. Does this forum have a position/concern about internet libel and lawsuits? Free speech includes the freedom to get sued for your speech--even 'anonymous' speech.

Well, I think the free speech argument is that you need to follow Thoreau's admonition: "Your right to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' ends at the tip of my nose." Meaning you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to injure others while you use it.

That is why there is restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot or damaging others characters through defamation.

suuuure.... But if that is the gist of the standard then every election season the entire voting populace would be breaking the law given that the definition of where "tip of the nose" becomes a matter of perspective. Are political accusations slanderous in an election year? Should we expect people to NOT tell micheal jackson jokes or OJ jokes despite their trial verdict?

Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. There may have once been an actual reason why yelling fire in a theatre was more dangerous than the fire itself but this isn't 1803 where buckets and wells make up fire protection. And, in this age of messageboard fun it is completely ridiculous to imagine that the opinions of users on a message board on the internet promoted any more notoriety or public condemnation than the legal trial itself. It's not like a fucking internet forum is any kind of cultural bellwether.

 

[jillian]

Lets say I am in the paper one day and people read it online and all the comments are negative stuff about me that isn't true or what not...does that mean I have the right to sue each of those people?

The answer is: it depends. Sorry, I'm a lawyer. You can't have a straight answer....LOL.

It would depend on the story in the paper and what it said. Whether you were in the paper all time or otherwise some person in the public eye. Then it would depend on what the people said that was negative and how they said it.

would also depend on whether he's a public figure or, as in the case of a criminal defendant in a high profile trial, a limited public figure. and whether they knew or should have known what they were saying was untrue and were intentionally defamatory.

 

[Tech_Esq]

It's interesting. Does this forum have a position/concern about internet libel and lawsuits? Free speech includes the freedom to get sued for your speech--even 'anonymous' speech.

Well, I think the free speech argument is that you need to follow Thoreau's admonition: "Your right to the 'Pursuit of Happiness' ends at the tip of my nose." Meaning you have the right to free speech, but you do not have the right to injure others while you use it.

That is why there is restriction on yelling fire in a crowded theater, inciting to riot or damaging others characters through defamation.

suuuure.... But if that is the gist of the standard then every election season the entire voting populace would be breaking the law given that the definition of where "tip of the nose" becomes a matter of perspective. Are political accusations slanderous in an election year? Should we expect people to NOT tell micheal jackson jokes or OJ jokes despite their trial verdict?

Personally, I think it's a crock of shit. There may have once been an actual reason why yelling fire in a theatre was more dangerous than the fire itself but this isn't 1803 where buckets and wells make up fire protection. And, in this age of messageboard fun it is completely ridiculous to imagine that the opinions of users on a message board on the internet promoted any more notoriety or public condemnation than the legal trial itself. It's not like a fucking internet forum is any kind of cultural bellwether.

I think you misunderstand what I'm trying to say. All I'm saying is you cannot commit a tort against somebody and remain free from liability. If you defame their character as provided in the elements of the tort I provided above, then you are liable, in tort, for damages as assessed by the court. Sorry if you don't like it. But, that's the law.

Now, notice, I've been careful to carve out an exception for people that are in the public eye all the time. Celebrities, politicians, some businessmen like Bill Gates and Donald Trump. They are not afforded the same protection as the average private person. I've done all the legal research I care to on this thread, you can look up why if you are interested. I recommend Findlaw.com for research.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Lets say I am in the paper one day and people read it online and all the comments are negative stuff about me that isn't true or what not...does that mean I have the right to sue each of those people?

The answer is: it depends. Sorry, I'm a lawyer. You can't have a straight answer....LOL.

It would depend on the story in the paper and what it said. Whether you were in the paper all time or otherwise some person in the public eye. Then it would depend on what the people said that was negative and how they said it.

would also depend on whether he's a public figure or, as in the case of a criminal defendant in a high profile trial, a limited public figure. and whether they knew or should have known what they were saying was untrue and were intentionally defamatory.

Good point Jillian. I mentioned the "public figure" in saying "in the public eye" (I was trying to make it layman friendly) but you are right in the untrue and intentionally defamatory points. And I didn't mention the "limited public figure" point. Thanks

 

[Ravi]

Lets say I am in the paper one day and people read it online and all the comments are negative stuff about me that isn't true or what not...does that mean I have the right to sue each of those people?

The answer is: it depends. Sorry, I'm a lawyer. You can't have a straight answer....LOL.

It would depend on the story in the paper and what it said. Whether you were in the paper all time or otherwise some person in the public eye. Then it would depend on what the people said that was negative and how they said it.

would also depend on whether he's a public figure or, as in the case of a criminal defendant in a high profile trial, a limited public figure. and whether they knew or should have known what they were saying was untrue and were intentionally defamatory.

Thanks for explaining that, Jillian. I was starting to worry that Ann Coulter might be thinking of suing me.