Just curious

[Statistikhengst]

Some deep thoughts here.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Listen, you can turn your PM's off or to only folks on your friends list, you can do the same via VM, if someone is @ you all the time, report them.

Why write all the code. Just deal with it like adults and none of this shit would be necessary.

Yes, but why should I as a member have to restrict myself? What about someone out their whom I don't know yet, who could perhaps in the future become a friend? Why pass the chance at contact just become so asshole is trolling me or someone else?

No, the answer, imo, is not to restrict a person's "freedom of movement".

I still contend that a software tweak is the best way.

 

[Mertex]

Since it only affects those that are on ignore....I think the onus falls on the person putting someone on "ignore" - they have to advice that person via PM or Mod that they have placed them on ignore. Those that just don't want to be on multiple @mentions, they just need to tell the person that @mentioned them to quit. If they don't, and the person is really bothered by it, then he/she should put that person on ignore and advice the @mentioner that they are on ignore and no more @mentions will be tolerated.

That way those of us who don't mind a now-and-then @mention can handle them like adults.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

One guy somewhere else chatted recently that his son is going to school to be a mortician. One not-very-nice-guy then claimed the kid (his son just finished high school) was a necrophiliac. Why else would someone choose to take care of the deceased?
I found that disgusting. I also find it disgusting that one gal here is constantly called a crack whore that sells herself.
Now, humor me for a minute. Let's say this lady gets in a car wreck, her family looks on her computer to let her friends know she has passed, and they find comments that she is a crack whore? Or...the person that constantly calls her this, takes it further...and not announcing it...and stalks until he finds her real name and location and contacts child protective services? Is this board not responsible in some way for allowing that to take place here?

Sure, calling people dick, asshole, tard, moron, stupid, idiot, c word, snot, crazy, liar, etc etc etc...but crack whore and pedophile are the same in the disgust department. And....the net is going through changes as we speak. One guy I know sued another for defamation. Go Daddy was sued too. The guy won. Over a mil, if I remember correctly.

Someone has to be the mortician. More vital members of society than trash collectors. Though they're close behind. Would assume most people's objection to such work lies simply in not liking to be reminded of their own mortality.

 

[Sarah G]

It takes two people to argue.

If someone is bugging you and won't stop, if you ignore it and don't respond, they'll get bored of talking to themselves and stop.

I have 7 sisters and our mom used to say that but not as nicely as you just did.

If one shuts up, the other one has to. Now here, some take things way beyond that, they keep talking just so everyone else is sure to hear their arguments over and over.

I don't like having people mention me, that feature is just annoying so it's my responsibility to ignore the mention. If you hate the mention, just ignore it. I agree with Mertex in her last post, you should also inform the poster that he is on ignore but you can't really expect admin to do all of this paperwork so to speak. It's supposed to be a positive feature but somehow it got to be something else.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Listen, you can turn your PM's off or to only folks on your friends list, you can do the same via VM, if someone is @ you all the time, report them.

Why write all the code. Just deal with it like adults and none of this shit would be necessary.

Yes, but why should I as a member have to restrict myself? What about someone out their whom I don't know yet, who could perhaps in the future become a friend? Why pass the chance at contact just become so asshole is trolling me or someone else?

No, the answer, imo, is not to restrict a person's "freedom of movement".

I still contend that a software tweak is the best way.

Have yet to ignore anyone or Neg them. If I intended to suppress opposition I sure wouldn't have joined a discussion site. While I find many people annoying, I've also found that everyone has something beneficial to contribute, ignore them and you'll never learn that lesson.

 

[Connery]

What's said online is catching up to what shows up in printed mediums legally. But more and more what we say online is resulting in our being held legally responsible and accountable as with Twitter and Facebook rants and slurs and bullying. Can envision sites allowing such things to eventually become libel for slander providing the medium like. Not like you need to be able to win to get sued

Do you have case law, law review articles and other authoritative material? I would be very interested in how this applies to social media sites such as USMB.

currently

zimmermans parents are suing Roseanne Barr over some of her

twitter comments

Orlando Sentinel

Thanks for answering, but, this does not address the issues raised by the poster and this is not the material I am requesting.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

What's said online is catching up to what shows up in printed mediums legally. But more and more what we say online is resulting in our being held legally responsible and accountable as with Twitter and Facebook rants and slurs and bullying. Can envision sites allowing such things to eventually become libel for slander providing the medium like. Not like you need to be able to win to get sued

Do you have case law, law review articles and other authoritative material? I would be very interested in how this applies to social media sites such as USMB.

How Courtney Love and U.S.?s first Twitter libel trial could impact journalists | Poynter.

14jan14:

"How does defamation law apply in the context of Twitter?

We may find out very soon thanks to Courtney Love, who is the first person to defend an allegedly defamatory tweet in a U.S. courtroom when the Gordon & Holmes v. Love trial began yesterday.

Last month, Love argued that her tweet was not defamatory because it should be considered an opinion — given the hyperbole and exaggeration associated with the Internet. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson rejected Love’s argument and set the case for trial. Now a jury will determine how defamation should be applied in the context of the casual online communications found on Twitter."

In other words, "it's just the internet, it doesn't matter." isn't a sentiment being upheld by Judges. In this case, the outcome was 'not guilty:'

Blog Law Online: In the End, Love Wins

Still, unless you want the hassle of having to go to trial in the first place an ounce of prevention...

 

[Connery]

What's said online is catching up to what shows up in printed mediums legally. But more and more what we say online is resulting in our being held legally responsible and accountable as with Twitter and Facebook rants and slurs and bullying. Can envision sites allowing such things to eventually become libel for slander providing the medium like. Not like you need to be able to win to get sued

Do you have case law, law review articles and other authoritative material? I would be very interested in how this applies to social media sites such as USMB.

How Courtney Love and U.S.?s first Twitter libel trial could impact journalists | Poynter.

14jan14:

"How does defamation law apply in the context of Twitter?

We may find out very soon thanks to Courtney Love, who is the first person to defend an allegedly defamatory tweet in a U.S. courtroom when the Gordon & Holmes v. Love trial began yesterday.

Last month, Love argued that her tweet was not defamatory because it should be considered an opinion — given the hyperbole and exaggeration associated with the Internet. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson rejected Love’s argument and set the case for trial. Now a jury will determine how defamation should be applied in the context of the casual online communications found on Twitter."

In other words, "it's just the internet, it doesn't matter." isn't a sentiment being upheld by Judges. In this case, the outcome was 'not guilty:'

Blog Law Online: In the End, Love Wins

Still, unless you want the hassle of having to go to trial in the first place an ounce of prevention...

I am not talking about twitter I am talking about USMB...and sites such as this.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Do you have case law, law review articles and other authoritative material? I would be very interested in how this applies to social media sites such as USMB.

How Courtney Love and U.S.?s first Twitter libel trial could impact journalists | Poynter.

14jan14:

"How does defamation law apply in the context of Twitter?

We may find out very soon thanks to Courtney Love, who is the first person to defend an allegedly defamatory tweet in a U.S. courtroom when the Gordon & Holmes v. Love trial began yesterday.

Last month, Love argued that her tweet was not defamatory because it should be considered an opinion — given the hyperbole and exaggeration associated with the Internet. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson rejected Love’s argument and set the case for trial. Now a jury will determine how defamation should be applied in the context of the casual online communications found on Twitter."

In other words, "it's just the internet, it doesn't matter." isn't a sentiment being upheld by Judges. In this case, the outcome was 'not guilty:'

Blog Law Online: In the End, Love Wins

Still, unless you want the hassle of having to go to trial in the first place an ounce of prevention...

I am not talking about twitter I am talking about USMB...and sites such as this.

Doesn't matter if it's Twitter, FB, Youtube, or a discussion site. Anything publicly accessible online is the same insofar as defamation and libel goes. As to 'has it happened yet on a discussion site' I'll check but it wont matter.

Site below addresses the issue,
https://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=2314


"Defamation has always been sanctioned, and it is not different when the Internet is the publication forum. Tort law applies to defamation cases, and state case law usually sets precedent (please note that most states have adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts). This article provides an example of two companies engaged in a defamation case under Arizona state law."

Legal definitions of defamation (online libel vs print or spoken versions.)
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

"Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?

Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities.""

(in other words, online or not doesn't matter legally.)

Looking for any actual discussion site cases but finding a search string to get that and not everything else is proving a challenge. Will chew on it a bit more though. Stay tuned.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Here's something more directly applicable. Goes into the difficulty of distinguishing between a site hosting a defamation accusation, and the actual user/poster citing the CDA section 230:
Internet and Online Defamation - Stopping It

This might be what ya want, cases and precedents with decisions:
Online Defamation/Libel/Communications Decency Act - Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions

Search down to "Robert Novak" and you'll see a relevant case:

"The Court also held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act ("CDA") immunized an ISP hosting an online discussion group from claims that its failure to remove objectionable content posted on the discussion group's web page gave rise to claims of tortious interference with contractual relations. "

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And finally, and back to my original point, what we say online can be actionable (get you sued.) We are NOT anonymous.

Libel Online - Lawyers.com

"You Aren't Anonymous

Let's get this straight. Web sites track IP addresses. Web sites will give up IP addresses to law enforcement and to subpoenas issued in civil cases. Your internet service provider will provide account details of IP addresses under the same circumstances. So what you say on the internet easily can be tracked to you.
The Internet Didn't Repeal the Law of Defamation

Yes, you can be held liable for defamatory things you say on the internet. It happens all the time now. Many examples come from negative feedback left by parties to transactions on internet auction sites, like eBay. In one case, a Florida attorney sued a dissatisfied buyer for libel. The buyer left negative feedback on eBay, saying the attorney was a "bad seller, he has the ethics of a used car salesman." The attorney sued the buyer for defamation of character.

The internet differs somewhat from traditional mainstream media when it comes to defamation and related lawsuits. The Communications Decency Act gives immunity to internet service providers for comments posted by their users. This immunity extends as well to web sites that permit user comments. If the web site doesn't prompt the illegal comments or behavior, it will not be liable for it. Of course, this doesn't protect the person leaving the offending comment. "


In other words, and again, on-point, while usmb may not be held liable for posts of its users, if your users keep getting hauled into court because you allow defamation that might have negative consequences for you when it comes to selling ads. So forbidding certain things is in your business-model best interest.

 

[Wolfsister77]

Listen, you can turn your PM's off or to only folks on your friends list, you can do the same via VM, if someone is @ you all the time, report them.

Why write all the code. Just deal with it like adults and none of this shit would be necessary.

Yes, but why should I as a member have to restrict myself? What about someone out their whom I don't know yet, who could perhaps in the future become a friend? Why pass the chance at contact just become so asshole is trolling me or someone else?

No, the answer, imo, is not to restrict a person's "freedom of movement".

I still contend that a software tweak is the best way.

Well, from what I gather they are not going to do a software tweak and we have it in our ability to deal with it ourselves by ignoring someone, or restricting PM's VM's and if you see a potential friend, nothing is stopping you from sending them a friend request or talking to them in the forums.

 

[cereal_killer]

There's no such thing as libel or defamation of character in regards to message boards where people use and post under aliases.

I can see it now.."cereal killer is being sued by sockpuppet02 for defamation of character" The charge: cereal killer accused sockpuppet02 of smacking babies and donkey punching old women

 

[Connery]

And finally, and back to my original point, what we say online can be actionable (get you sued.) We are NOT anonymous.

Libel Online - Lawyers.com

"You Aren't Anonymous

Let's get this straight. Web sites track IP addresses. Web sites will give up IP addresses to law enforcement and to subpoenas issued in civil cases. Your internet service provider will provide account details of IP addresses under the same circumstances. So what you say on the internet easily can be tracked to you.
The Internet Didn't Repeal the Law of Defamation

Yes, you can be held liable for defamatory things you say on the internet. It happens all the time now. Many examples come from negative feedback left by parties to transactions on internet auction sites, like eBay. In one case, a Florida attorney sued a dissatisfied buyer for libel. The buyer left negative feedback on eBay, saying the attorney was a "bad seller, he has the ethics of a used car salesman." The attorney sued the buyer for defamation of character.

The internet differs somewhat from traditional mainstream media when it comes to defamation and related lawsuits. The Communications Decency Act gives immunity to internet service providers for comments posted by their users. This immunity extends as well to web sites that permit user comments. If the web site doesn't prompt the illegal comments or behavior, it will not be liable for it. Of course, this doesn't protect the person leaving the offending comment. "


In other words, and again, on-point, while usmb may not be held liable for posts of its users, if your users keep getting hauled into court because you allow defamation that might have negative consequences for you when it comes to selling ads. So forbidding certain things is in your business-model best interest.

So what are the "mechanics" of this assumed lawsuit. Who are the parties, who do you serve, how are they served, where is the situs of the action?

 

[BDBoop]

Oh, hell; there's a lawyer in the house.

/puts own self in corner

"I'll be back out when I've learned my lesson ...."

 

[Statistikhengst]

There's no such thing as libel or defamation of character in regards to message boards where people use and post under aliases.

I can see it now.."cereal killer is being sued by sockpuppet02 for defamation of character" The charge: cereal killer accused sockpuppet02 of smacking babies and donkey punching old women

Must breathe.... stiill.... laughing....

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And finally, and back to my original point, what we say online can be actionable (get you sued.) We are NOT anonymous.

Libel Online - Lawyers.com

"You Aren't Anonymous

Let's get this straight. Web sites track IP addresses. Web sites will give up IP addresses to law enforcement and to subpoenas issued in civil cases. Your internet service provider will provide account details of IP addresses under the same circumstances. So what you say on the internet easily can be tracked to you.
The Internet Didn't Repeal the Law of Defamation

Yes, you can be held liable for defamatory things you say on the internet. It happens all the time now. Many examples come from negative feedback left by parties to transactions on internet auction sites, like eBay. In one case, a Florida attorney sued a dissatisfied buyer for libel. The buyer left negative feedback on eBay, saying the attorney was a "bad seller, he has the ethics of a used car salesman." The attorney sued the buyer for defamation of character.

The internet differs somewhat from traditional mainstream media when it comes to defamation and related lawsuits. The Communications Decency Act gives immunity to internet service providers for comments posted by their users. This immunity extends as well to web sites that permit user comments. If the web site doesn't prompt the illegal comments or behavior, it will not be liable for it. Of course, this doesn't protect the person leaving the offending comment. "


In other words, and again, on-point, while usmb may not be held liable for posts of its users, if your users keep getting hauled into court because you allow defamation that might have negative consequences for you when it comes to selling ads. So forbidding certain things is in your business-model best interest.

So what are the "mechanics" of this assumed lawsuit. Who are the parties, who do you serve, how are they served, where is the situs of the action?

Using the original example in a hypothetical:

User A calls user B a pedophile.

Because this is a charged term and unproven, user B sues user A for defamation. The lawyer for user B gets a subpoena and usmb.com is legally compelled to hand over data logs of user A's IP address, and an additional subpoena is filed to user A's ISP to resolve their IP into a real-world account and ID information. Then user B's attorney charges user A, now known in the real-world with defamation of character and they go to court. Meanwhile, as with the Courtney Love case, the site where the issue arose gets mentioned along with everything else. While that might initially result in more users and thus more ad revenue, if it keeps happening eventually advertisers may not wanna be associated with a controversial website so in the long-run it'd be a bad thing.

Easy to prevent though forbidding such words being used as insults. Don't think forbidding all insults is feasible though. Though unfounded accusations might always be actionable, other than draconian script-censorship I don't see how you could prevent it.

My opinion is that the reason it isn't happening regularly already is most people don't realize they even have the option to sue for such things.

 

[longknife]

if some pussy has us on ignore, they can't see our posts to know we are fucking with them.

so how can they go cry that we are doing so?

All they have to do is look at the far right and either click on View the reply or remove the ignore completely.

And the Ignoree won't have an idea.

 

[Gracie]

And furthermore..I thought it an interesting question AND discussion. However, since it seems to be childish to some to discuss whether websites can be sued by nutbars, neverfriggingmind. No more questions.

I am picking up my ball and going home. To Eye Candy or some such.

Y'all wanna keep playing in the proverbial sandpile, I will leave the toys you can play with.