rules

[Norman Albers]

Can a site like this be sued for slander?

[iNow]

Can a site like this be sued for slander?

 

No, you frakkin moron! I swear, I might find myself desiring to insult your intelligence if I was willing to spend the time trying to find it.

 

I mean, seriously... I won't insult your intelligence. There's so little of it that it's easier for me to just ignore it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Seriously, though... Norman, the assertions would have to be untrue to be considered slander. In your case, you really don't have to worry. Most of the negative comments directed at you are mere statements of fact... objective observations.

 

Finally, for your reference, it's not even remotely possible that "a site like this" could be sued for slander, since slander pertains ONLY to spoken statements or reports. Perhaps you instead intended to ask about libel, which is specific to written words or images?

 

Damn, this is a fun thread idea. Thanks!

Edited January 3, 2010 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I suppose it could be, but if there's libelous material here you'd be far better off reporting the post so we can take care of it. No need to jump right to hiring a lawyer.

[Norman Albers]

Like a lightenting rod, I was just curious.

[iNow]

Lighting rods are curious?

[ajb]

This article in the Guardian may be of interest.

 

A teenager who posted death threats on Facebook has become the first person in Britain to be jailed for bullying on a social networking site.

 

Though not quite what was originally asked, it does seem (rightly so) that one is responsible for ones actions in the cyber world.

 

Now, as this is an open forum could one sue for libel (or something similar) the owners of this site and/or the individual members?

[StringJunky]

It would appear that (in the US anyway) if a person makes negative written comments on the internet about someone that causes demonstrable harm to their business or reputation, which can't be substantiated with evidence, is liable to be sued. That seems fair to me.

 

LIBEL ON THE INTERNET

 

Internet users have been "flaming" others on Internet e-mail, news groups and in Chat lines for years. For those of you who are new to the Internet, "flaming" [as defined in Eric Raymond's Hacker's Dictionary] means posting messages "intended to insult and provoke". In other words, someone posts a message for others to read which insults and/or provokes readers against another person or company.

 

People and companies are now suing these "flame" posters and/or the Internet site host for Libel. Before we look at some of these lawsuits, let me explain what is legally defined as Libel.

 

DEFINITION: Libel is the publication of a false statement, (and is not a privileged communication) which injures one's business or personal reputation.

 

A plaintiff who sues for Libel must prove all of the above and be able to demonstrate some type of resulting damage. This could include being shunned by friends and associates, inability to obtain work because potential employers believed the false accusations. Some states allow for a jury to assess damages based generally on reputational harm.

 

Privileged communication means statements made during judicial proceedings, legislative proceedings, and those made between spouses (in most states). You can lie all you want under these circumstances and not be able to be successfully sued for Libel.

 

The U.S. Supreme Court also created a defense based on the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech to allow the media to freely report on the affairs of "public" persons unless the statements are made with "Malice". NY Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Malice means either knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. A "Public" person is one who has special prominence in the affairs of society. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). A politician, movie actor, and other "famous" people are "public figures". Other limitations and/or defenses to being able to successfully sue for Libel are:

 

1. It's the truth. If you have facts and evidence supporting your statement as being true, the plaintiff will not be able to prove that it is false.

 

2. The group being defamed is too large so as not to be defamatory to any individual. Let's say you write "Lawyers are crooks". John Lawyer will not be able to hold you liable for Libel because it does not specifically say "John Lawyer is a crook".

 

3. Statements of Opinion and not fact are generally immune from Libel. That's because an opinion can never be proven false. However, if your opinion implies your knowledge of an underlying set of facts which your opinion is based upon, Libel might exist. For instance, stating that a certain business in your opinion "is a fraud" implies that you know of some facts indicating the business has committed fraud. On the other hand, stating "I don't like that business' product" is merely expressing your individual tastes which is not

 

http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html

 

As long people attack the argument, on these boards, and not the person, they should have no fear whatsoever of libel, which is the attitude that's promoted here anyway.