Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

alias · 10-11-2006, 11:56 AM

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Rest of the story:

USATODAY.com - Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Wow. You guys better behave.

foundit66 · 10-11-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

Rest of the story:

USATODAY.com - Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Wow. You guys better behave.

Gee Alias.
I can't help but notice your propensity to throw slurs around...

You better watch out for the law-suit where a non-liberal sues somebody for calling him a liberal. You'll be in real trouble with that precedent...

foundit66 · 10-11-2006, 12:07 PM

"After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff."

"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."

She took him to court, and he never showed up.
She won by default.
I'm curious how this would have played out if he had put up a defense.
I can't help but think that in some ways, the judge should have just thrown this case out.

alias · 10-11-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Gee Alias.
I can't help but notice your propensity to throw slurs around...

You better watch out for the law-suit where a non-liberal sues somebody for calling him a liberal. You'll be in real trouble with that precedent...

Go for it. I don't toss any more slurs around here than you do pal. I dish out what I get. You're just another typical liberal who likes to dish it out but when it's given back you cry and run to mommy. Sue me.

foundit66 · 10-11-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Go for it. I don't toss any more slurs around here than you do pal. I dish out what I get.

If you believe that, you are seriously delusional.
You frequently dive in to name-calling against Muslims.
You toss around a LOT more slurs than I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

You're just another typical liberal who likes to dish it out but when it's given back you cry and run to mommy. Sue me.

And then alias PROVES MY POINT.
I was just talking about his propensity to slur.

In the post he was RESPONDING to, there were no slurs.
But in his reply, he tosses around slurs and insults with abandon.

Attacking when not attacked.

alias · 10-11-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

If you believe that, you are seriously delusional.
You frequently dive in to name-calling against Muslims.
You toss around a LOT more slurs than I do.

And then alias PROVES MY POINT.
I was just talking about his propensity to slur.

In the post he was RESPONDING to, there were no slurs.
But in his reply, he tosses around slurs and insults with abandon.

Attacking when not attacked.

If all I do is call Muslims names, at least I am not as evil as the muslims who are murdering innocent people all over the world. As usual, a resident liberal misses the target and focuses on the the one who tells it like it is. Pitiful.

Jaxian · 10-11-2006, 02:38 PM

In an effort to put this post back on track, let me say this:

Although I do not know the details of this case, I do not see how it was one. In order for this to have been defamation, the statements would have had to be proven false, and an intent to spread these falsehoods in an attempt to ruin someone's reputation would have to be shown.

This sort of thing is usually brought up against newspapers, not someone's individual blog. A blog is a place where someone writes his or her personal feelings about things, and no one would take a blog post like this one to be anything other than an individual opinion.

Or at least that's what it sounds like from what the story has revealed.

foundit66 · 10-11-2006, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

If all I do is call Muslims names, at least I am not as evil as the muslims who are murdering innocent people all over the world. As usual, a resident liberal misses the target and focuses on the the one who tells it like it is. Pitiful.

1) As usual, you change the focus of the discussion and ignore the previous point which you lost, and try to change the issue.
We were talking about your allegation that I slur as much as you do.
That is false.

2) You frequently show this standard whereby you feel that if you can show somebody who is worse than you, that absolves you of any ethical responsibility for your actions.
You advocate violating human rights? Well, the muslims do it worse.
You slur people? Well, the muslims are worse.

Have you ever stopped to think that not being as bad as the muslims still leaves you with the attribute of BEING BAD?

foundit66 · 10-11-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

Although I do not know the details of this case, I do not see how it was one. In order for this to have been defamation, the statements would have had to be proven false, and an intent to spread these falsehoods in an attempt to ruin someone's reputation would have to be shown.

EFF: Bloggers' FAQ: Online Defamation Law

"Can my opinion be defamatory?
No — but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").

What is a statement of verifiable fact?
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has cheated on his spouse.
...."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxian

This sort of thing is usually brought up against newspapers, not someone's individual blog. A blog is a place where someone writes his or her personal feelings about things, and no one would take a blog post like this one to be anything other than an individual opinion.

"How do courts look at the context of a statement?
For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.

Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense). "

It should also be noted that blogs are often looked to for a source of information and research. Definitely one to be taken with a grain of salt and requiring independent verification, but a source of more than opinion nonetheless.

Take the Jeff Gannon issue. That broke based on blogger research.
The Foley case is another example, although the web-site that first posted the e-mails may not be considered as technically a "blog".

alias · 10-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

1) As usual, you change the focus of the discussion and ignore the previous point which you lost, and try to change the issue.
We were talking about your allegation that I slur as much as you do.
That is false.

2) You frequently show this standard whereby you feel that if you can show somebody who is worse than you, that absolves you of any ethical responsibility for your actions.
You advocate violating human rights? Well, the muslims do it worse.
You slur people? Well, the muslims are worse.

Have you ever stopped to think that not being as bad as the muslims still leaves you with the attribute of BEING BAD?

According to who? You? Here's a news flash........you are not in any position of authority to judge me. I am a free American just like you and I am using my consitutional freedom of speech just like you do. Tough shit if you don't like it. Call your nanny Hillary and report me.