Chat room slander case

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/internet.defamation.ap/index.html

Doh, libel, not slander.

Interesting and of vital importance to folks like us.

[Ladewig]

Asked by Justice J. Michael Eakin what harm Melvin had suffered, her attorney replied that she was "humiliated, embarrassed. People shun her."

I am always amazed at the number of people who think the best available remedy for being humiliated and embarrassed is to file a lawsuit which exposes them to tens or hundreds of times more embarrassment and humiliation.

[Reginald]

They also imply that because the potential audience for any post is a gazzilion internet users, that the damages should somehow reflect this. People who read the post was probably 30, after the start of a trial it would be 3,000,000. Pathetic.


Allegedly.........(just in case LOL)

[fidiot]

"Just like the founders of this country did and they did it for a very good reason," Beeson said. "They wanted to be able to criticize the government and not suffer retaliation."

That's right.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by sundog
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/internet.defamation.ap/index.html

Doh, libel, not slander.

Interesting and of vital importance to folks like us.

Nah, that isn't important and vital to folks like us.

JK

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Nah, that isn't important and vital to folks like us.

JK

Yes it is, it's another precedent waiting to be set. There will be more cases like this, perhaps even ones with more "merit".

Once the genie is out of the bottle that's it.

[kittynh]

I find the Office of Homeland security helpful with tiresome posters......

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Reginald


Yes it is, it's another precedent waiting to be set. There will be more cases like this, perhaps even ones with more "merit".

Once the genie is out of the bottle that's it.

Nah, it is not a new precendent. Someone anonymously chatted about the judge being involved in issues that violate judicial ethics in a way that the person who made the statements is claiming some type of special knowledge. That is a direct attempt to get the judge in trouble and lose her job, etc.

That is much different than calling the judge a moron, or that the judge makes "moronic" decisions, etc. These are the types of things that are discussed on this forum and are fully supported by the 1st Amendment.

I agree with the judge pursuing that case. If someone accuses you personally in a public venue of committing a crime, you have the right to defend yourself, especially if it can harm you by losing your job, etc. That nonsense doesn't occur on this forum and it was old news before the article came out.

JK

[kittynh]

JUST KIDDING!!!

[Scorpy]

Asked by Justice J. Michael Eakin what harm Melvin had suffered, her attorney replied that she was "humiliated, embarrassed. People shun her."

I find it hard to believe that one comment made by one anonymous AOL user in a chat-room to a hand-full of people could cause that much damage.

"Public officials have to withstand criticism, sometimes brutal," Lampl said. "What they don't have to withstand is falsehood."

They do if they can't prove they were harmed by it.