Board Notice

[ttribe]

Can you please give more of your thoughts on the decision?

Nemesis

+1. Crockett is a good source.

[Ms. Jack]

I can only think of one person who would have a slam dunk lawsuit for libel right now because not everything that was published was true and the accuser actually published the damage she caused....either very brave or very stupid.

This piqued my curiosity. Tell me, Juliann: who exactly is this "very brave or very stupid" woman who is guilty (in your eyes) of libel over on "a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith"?

[Ralph Man]

This piqued my curiosity. Tell me, Juliann: who exactly is this "very brave or very stupid" woman who is guilty (in your eyes) of libel over on "a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith"?

Maybe she is unaware that truth is a defense against libel.

edit: Yes, I read the original comment.

[Skylla]

Let's keep this thread focused on the issues Nemesis has brought up and stick to hypothetical situations please.

Skylla

[Nemesis]

Maybe she is unaware that truth is a defense against libel.

It has to be 100% truthful for the defense to work. T's crossed and I's dotted. But do not drag this board into the mud we don't have those issues here and like it that way.

Nemesis

p.s. I moved this thread to the moderation folder so I can discuss it with the mods and cleaned out what wasn't needed in the thread. And also had to ban someone from trying to start a board war.

[ttribe]

Who was banned? All I see removed are the OT discussions about cinepro's status re: Church membership.

[juliann]

This piqued my curiosity. Tell me, Juliann: who exactly is this "very brave or very stupid" woman who is guilty (in your eyes) of libel over on "a certain board known for libeling Mormons who defend the faith"?

Hi Jack! Good to see you again! It looks like you are doing some impressive work. Perhaps the next Jan Shipps? Names are not only unnecessary, it will get the thread yanked. I think the bigger point is that internet lawsuits are building yet we act as if this we are on some uncharted island that will never be discovered. Lawsuits are common enough that it should be more of a concern for internet denizens.... or at least a topic of conversation for which I thank Nemesis.

If someone does something for a noble purpose it does not mean they will walk away unscathed. Anybody can sue. I think that is pretty frightening, especially when the person who has been damaged has vociferously claimed that not everything can be attributed to them which takes away the defense of being unaware anything published was untrue no matter how well intended the enterprise was. Publishing information to protect others is very brave in the big picture. But if a part of it does turn out to be untrue, or if the damaged person just decides to sue anyway then it might become stupid for a whistleblower to place their own fate in the hands of the damaged party.

From what I have observed over the years, internet squabbles are incredibly petty and meaningless regardless of who is doing what and the one who takes that out into real life situations often doesn't end up looking any better than the culprit. I suppose that I think more about what is ultimately at stake since the Tanner lawsuit. Plus, my son-in-law is attending a top ten law school on a scholarship. (Just had to brag.)

Just my unimportant and scientifically unsustainable random thoughts which will disappear into the rest of the endless internet chatter....

[ttribe]

Hi Jack! Good to see you again! It looks like you are doing some impressive work. Perhaps the next Jan Shipps? Names are not only unnecessary, it will get the thread yanked. I think the bigger point is that internet lawsuits are building yet we act as if this we are on some uncharted island that will never be discovered. Lawsuits are common enough that it should be more of a concern for internet denizens.... or at least a topic of conversation for which I thank Nemesis.

If someone does something for a noble purpose it does not mean they will walk away unscathed. Anybody can sue. I think that is pretty frightening, especially when the person who has been damaged has vociferously claimed that not everything can be attributed to them which takes away the defense of being unaware anything published was untrue no matter how well intended the enterprise was. Publishing information to protect others is very brave in the big picture. But if a part of it does turn out to be untrue, or if the damaged person just decides to sue anyway then it might become stupid for a whistleblower to place their own fate in the hands of the damaged party.

From what I have observed over the years, internet squabbles are incredibly petty and meaningless regardless of who is doing what and the one who takes that out into real life situations often doesn't end up looking any better than the culprit. I suppose that I think more about what is ultimately at stake since the Tanner lawsuit. Plus, my son-in-law is attending a top ten law school on a scholarship. (Just had to brag.)

Just my unimportant and scientifically unsustainable random thoughts which will disappear into the rest of the endless internet chatter....

One - the publisher of the material would have to KNOW it was untrue (or been exceedingly reckless);

Two - Nothing in the actual fact pattern suggests the "slam-dunk" you mentioned earlier. Sorry.

[Nemesis]

One - the publisher of the material would have to KNOW it was untrue (or been exceedingly reckless);

Two - Nothing in the actual fact pattern suggests the "slam-dunk" you mentioned earlier. Sorry.

Id rather discuss the case I referenced and could careless about a petty personal squabble that I have been trying to keep off this board.

Nemesis aka Juliann aka Legion

p.s. cont. persistence in making it an issue here is not something I am going to tolerate.

[ttribe]

Id rather discuss the case I referenced and could careless about a petty personal squabble that I have been trying to keep off this board.

Nemesis aka Juliann aka Legion

p.s. cont. persistence in making it an issue here is not something I am going to tolerate.

My item "One" is a general statement and (I believe) it important to understanding libel going forward; and the extent to which I've engaged in the discussion is clearly applicable to the general issue at hand as well.

[Nemesis]

My item "One" is a general statement and (I believe) it important to understanding libel going forward; and the extent to which I've engaged in the discussion is clearly applicable to the general issue at hand as well.

Thanks ttribe what about ignorance of the law is not a defense? I mean anyone is responsible for what they post that is what makes this california decision so odd. It can really open a can of worms especially for anon.

Here is a case I found just quickly and I am quoting my thoughts on it.

ignorance of the law as a defense in libel suits.'Any student who is out there publishing on a Web site who doesn't understand the basic laws about being a publisher is courting disaster,' Cox said. 'Better safe than sorry ' understand what the rules are and then go have fun.' Cox also said that the general public often views the Internet as the 'Wild West' where users do not realize the possibilities or consequences of their speech. '[in general,] there's a basic rule of thumb that you don't do anything that ends up on the front page of the New York Times,' he added. 'Same goes for blogs.'But Bruce Fein, former general counsel for the Federal Communications Commission, and Marilyn Lashner, owner and principal researcher at Media Analysis & Communications Research,

[ttribe]

Thanks ttribe what about ignorance of the law is not a defense? I mean anyone is responsible for what they post that is what makes this california decision so odd. It can really open a can of worms especially for anon.

It's not "ignorance of the law" that's at issue (IMO), it's knowing what you are saying is untrue and acting with malice (or being so reckless in the act that it's virtually the same thing). See link for a layman's discussion: http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/libel.htm

[Nemesis]

It's not "ignorance of the law" that's at issue (IMO), it's knowing what you are saying is untrue and acting with malice (or being so reckless in the act that it's virtually the same thing). See link for a layman's discussion: http://injury-law.fr...ander/libel.htm

Acting with malice can it be interpreted as trying to ruin someones reputation? From the quick reporting on the article I posted from twitter it seems like anonymous people would have something to worry about now.

Nemesis

[Bob Crockett]

The newspaper case reports Twitter's reaction to a discovery request. It does not report the "law." The "law" from a case arises when a tribunal makes a decision and publishes it. The newspaper reports neither a judge's decision nor a reported decision and California Superior Courts don't publish their decisions.

But it is a simple principle of law that if you libel somebody, even anonymously, you are liable. It doesn't matter that you posted your libel on the internet.

A Board host has special protections against liability, but if its moderators chime in or encourage the libel (with or without sock puppets), the board and its owners can become liable for the libel. Frankly, it is my view that if a moderator says anything of substance (i.e., anything more than -- "stick to the rules or you're outta here") they are putting their board at risk, but I'm conservative.

In the reported case, it appears that some UK citizens are battling each other in a California Superior Court and one side has sought to determine the true identity of a sock puppet. I've seen too many cases permitting that kind of discovery to proceed, but there are some which don't as well. Twitter just finds it easier to comply rather than fight about it.

The guiding principle here is don't libel anybody.

Generally speaking it is impossible to libel anonymous sock puppets unless it is well understood that the sock puppet is a particular person. So if I were to call sock puppet2 a pervert and a child molester, that isn't libel. (There may be exceptions, such as if sock puppet2 becomes a trade name unto itself, I suppose, like Clorox or Windex.)

Nor is it libel to cast aspersions on large groups of persons. "Oh yeah! Well, all apologists lie and twist the truth." (This is not libel on two fronts -- "all apologists" is a large group and "lie and twist the truth" is a vague sort of hyperbole and opinion.

It is impossible to libel dead people. Saying evil things about Gordon B. Hinkley is not libel.

Generally speaking, saying evil things about public figures is considered generally protected. "President Obama took bribes" is most likely not actionable. But "Carol Burnett cheated on her husband" was libel.

Targeting a known person's particular characterists can be libel. "Dr. Redskin Ute bribed his dissertation committee," or "Brig Jenson robbed a liquor store to publish his apologetic work". But saying things that are obviously opinions or hyperbole is not libel: "Jim Bingham is a liar." "Jane von Norstrand is a ******* [i.e, doesn't have a known father] and a **** [i.e., produces puppies rather than children]." This is not libel.

About 99% of what I see on anti-Mormon boards saying evil things about Dr. Peterson or Will Shryver or others does not remotely approach libel. Making fun of Dr. Peterson's academics, or appearance, or church assignments and doing so with nasty language shows poor moral character but is not libel.

Trying to ruin somebody's reputation alone is not libel. Book review critics or theatrical critics could be said to be ruining somebody's reputation.

Acting maliciously is not alone libel.

You have to say something that is not true, and you know it isn't true (or you're reckless about it) and it causes damage to reputation and it isn't opinion. "Bill's a child molester." "Jane stole money from the church." "Ben bribed a public official." "Evan beat his wife." Not "Dan's dissertation is a fraud." "Joe is a lousy bishop." "Brandt is a bad father." "You've alwasy been an idiot." "You were a poor student." "You left your mission too early for improper reasons."

[juliann]

Why so testy over a word, Ttribe? I will agree that few things in life are a slam dunk. Bad word choice on my part. You seem to be missing my main point that the merits of a case don't matteruntil the verdict. Even if it can be dealt with in a summary judgment it is still $$$$$ down the road. That is another problem with these internet wars, we likely have no idea what resources the other guy has if it starts to get serious.

[Nemesis]

The newspaper case reports Twitter's reaction to a discovery request. It does not report the "law." The "law" from a case arises when a tribunal makes a decision and publishes it. The newspaper reports neither a judge's decision nor a reported decision and California Superior Courts don't publish their decisions.

But it is a simple principle of law that if you libel somebody, even anonymously, you are liable. It doesn't matter that you posted your libel on the internet.

A Board host has special protections against liability, but if its moderators chime in or encourage the libel (with or without sock puppets), the board and its owners can become liable for the libel. Frankly, it is my view that if a moderator says anything of substance (i.e., anything more than -- "stick to the rules or you're outta here") they are putting their board at risk, but I'm conservative.

In the reported case, it appears that some UK citizens are battling each other in a California Superior Court and one side has sought to determine the true identity of a sock puppet. I've seen too many cases permitting that kind of discovery to proceed, but there are some which don't as well. Twitter just finds it easier to comply rather than fight about it.

The guiding principle here is don't libel anybody.

Generally speaking it is impossible to libel anonymous sock puppets unless it is well understood that the sock puppet is a particular person. So if I were to call sock puppet2 a pervert and a child molester, that isn't libel. (There may be exceptions, such as if sock puppet2 becomes a trade name unto itself, I suppose, like Clorox or Windex.)

Nor is it libel to cast aspersions on large groups of persons. "Oh yeah! Well, all apologists lie and twist the truth." (This is not libel on two fronts -- "all apologists" is a large group and "lie and twist the truth" is a vague sort of hyperbole and opinion.

It is impossible to libel dead people. Saying evil things about Gordon B. Hinkley is not libel.

Generally speaking, saying evil things about public figures is considered generally protected. "President Obama took bribes" is most likely not actionable. But "Carol Burnett cheated on her husband" was libel.

Targeting a known person's particular characterists can be libel. "Dr. Redskin Ute bribed his dissertation committee," or "Brig Jenson robbed a liquor store to publish his apologetic work". But saying things that are obviously opinions or hyperbole is not libel: "Jim Bingham is a liar." "Jane von Norstrand is a ******* [i.e, doesn't have a known father] and a **** [i.e., produces puppies rather than children]." This is not libel.

About 99% of what I see on anti-Mormon boards saying evil things about Dr. Peterson or Will Shryver or others does not remotely approach libel. Making fun of Dr. Peterson's academics, or appearance, or church assignments and doing so with nasty language shows poor moral character but is not libel.

Trying to ruin somebody's reputation alone is not libel. Book review critics or theatrical critics could be said to be ruining somebody's reputation.

Thanks for clearing it up. I'll have a few questions later but this one is the most important. So what about California Slap laws?

Nemesis

[ttribe]

Acting with malice can it be interpreted as trying to ruin someones reputation?

First, I'm not a lawyer and can't provide legal advice.

Second, to answer your question, as I understand the law the malice qualification still requires a demonstrable falsehood that was known to the publisher (or should have been known).

Third, rcrocket's post above mine is way better than anything I could assemble.

[ttribe]

Why so testy over a word, Ttribe? I will agree that few things in life are a slam dunk. Bad word choice on my part. You seem to be missing my main point that the merits of a case don't matteruntil the verdict. Even if it can be dealt with in a summary judgment it is still $$$$$ down the road. That is another problem with these internet wars, we likely have no idea what resources the other guy has if it starts to get serious.

I'm not testy. I just thought it was a bad idea to make such a statement given the very issue you are bringing up - people are litigious and you don't know what's going to land you in hot water.

ETA: The last thing this discussion needs is the attribution of a term implying a sure-fire example of libel to a fact pattern that just doesn't fit that bill. That was my objection, plain and simple.

[Ms. Jack]

Hi Jack! Good to see you again! It looks like you are doing some impressive work.

Thank you. It was exciting to publish this last year for the first time, and having The Washington Post and PBS Religion & Ethics Newsweekly both contact me out of the blue for interviews was a welcome surprise. I wasn't as busy as I would have liked to have been due to health issues, but hopefully this next year will be better. I'm glad to hear you're keeping up.

Perhaps the next Jan Shipps?

Jan Shipps is still, to my knowledge, alive and doing just fine being Jan Shipps. These days I prefer to be myself.

I think the bigger point is that internet lawsuits are building yet we act as if this we are on some uncharted island that will never be discovered. Lawsuits are common enough that it should be more of a concern for internet denizens....

Naturally. I discovered this early on in my blogging career when I received a threat of legal action for libel over a post I did on Joyce McKinney aka "Bernann McKinney," the woman who was accused of sexually assaulting a Mormon missionary back in 1977 (Wikipedia article here). The person who made the threats was anonymous, but I have good reason to believe it was McKinney herself.

In response, I did quite a bit of reading on libel law and a blogger's rights, responsibilities, and privileges. What I learned was that in order to successfully navigate a libel case, a plaintiff would have to:

(1) Demonstrate that I had published something defamatory that was verifiably false

(2) Demonstrate that I had done so negligently or with malice

There is a lot of good, accessible information about this for non-lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

If someone does something for a noble purpose it does not mean they will walk away unscathed. Anybody can sue.

[sNIP]

Publishing information to protect others is very brave in the big picture. But if a part of it does turn out to be untrue, or if the damaged person just decides to sue anyway then it might become stupid for a whistleblower to place their own fate in the hands of the damaged party.

Certainly. And I'm sure the world is full of tyrannical types who would use frivolous and expensive libel lawsuits to try and silence others from spreading unfavorable opinions about them---or worse, simply the truth about them. Take McKinney, for example. Several other bloggers received similar threats of libel lawsuits when publishing unfavorable opinions about her. I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there was cowed into taking down what s/he wrote about her.

However, I'm grateful to live in a country that has made great provisions to protect First Amendment speech and generally has very defendant-friendly defamation laws. I'm also grateful for pro bono organizations such as the EFF which take up the cases of bloggers and other Internet personalities who are being bullied by such antics.

I think that is pretty frightening, especially when the person who has been damaged has vociferously claimed that not everything can be attributed to them which takes away the defense of being unaware anything published was untrue no matter how well intended the enterprise was.

Merely denying that one said something does not make the matter verifiably false. People are allowed to marshal evidence that a person did say something even when s/he denies it. Furthermore, my understanding is that Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230) does a good job of protecting Internet bloggers and message board owners and users from liability when using information that was provided by other Internet owners and users. Or in other words, it's very difficult to hold one Internet participant responsible for merely repeating information that was provided by other Internet participants.

I suppose that I think more about what is ultimately at stake since the Tanner lawsuit. Plus, my son-in-law is attending a top ten law school on a scholarship. (Just had to brag.)

Congratulations to your son.

My four year-old daughter said "I wanna be a NINJA!" the other day. That's almost as good, right?

[Fifth Columnist]

The newspaper case reports Twitter's reaction to a discovery request. It does not report the "law." The "law" from a case arises when a tribunal makes a decision and publishes it. The newspaper reports neither a judge's decision nor a reported decision and California Superior Courts don't publish their decisions.

But it is a simple principle of law that if you libel somebody, even anonymously, you are liable. It doesn't matter that you posted your libel on the internet.

A Board host has special protections against liability, but if its moderators chime in or encourage the libel (with or without sock puppets), the board and its owners can become liable for the libel. Frankly, it is my view that if a moderator says anything of substance (i.e., anything more than -- "stick to the rules or you're outta here") they are putting their board at risk, but I'm conservative.

In the reported case, it appears that some UK citizens are battling each other in a California Superior Court and one side has sought to determine the true identity of a sock puppet. I've seen too many cases permitting that kind of discovery to proceed, but there are some which don't as well. Twitter just finds it easier to comply rather than fight about it.

The guiding principle here is don't libel anybody.

Generally speaking it is impossible to libel anonymous sock puppets unless it is well understood that the sock puppet is a particular person. So if I were to call sock puppet2 a pervert and a child molester, that isn't libel. (There may be exceptions, such as if sock puppet2 becomes a trade name unto itself, I suppose, like Clorox or Windex.)

Nor is it libel to cast aspersions on large groups of persons. "Oh yeah! Well, all apologists lie and twist the truth." (This is not libel on two fronts -- "all apologists" is a large group and "lie and twist the truth" is a vague sort of hyperbole and opinion.

It is impossible to libel dead people. Saying evil things about Gordon B. Hinkley is not libel.

Generally speaking, saying evil things about public figures is considered generally protected. "President Obama took bribes" is most likely not actionable. But "Carol Burnett cheated on her husband" was libel.

Targeting a known person's particular characterists can be libel. "Dr. Redskin Ute bribed his dissertation committee," or "Brig Jenson robbed a liquor store to publish his apologetic work". But saying things that are obviously opinions or hyperbole is not libel: "Jim Bingham is a liar." "Jane von Norstrand is a ******* [i.e, doesn't have a known father] and a **** [i.e., produces puppies rather than children]." This is not libel.

About 99% of what I see on anti-Mormon boards saying evil things about Dr. Peterson or Will Shryver or others does not remotely approach libel. Making fun of Dr. Peterson's academics, or appearance, or church assignments and doing so with nasty language shows poor moral character but is not libel.

Trying to ruin somebody's reputation alone is not libel. Book review critics or theatrical critics could be said to be ruining somebody's reputation.

Acting maliciously is not alone libel.

You have to say something that is not true, and you know it isn't true (or you're reckless about it) and it causes damage to reputation and it isn't opinion. "Bill's a child molester." "Jane stole money from the church." "Ben bribed a public official." "Evan beat his wife." Not "Dan's dissertation is a fraud." "Joe is a lousy bishop." "Brandt is a bad father." "You've alwasy been an idiot." "You were a poor student." "You left your mission too early for improper reasons."

I agree. I haven't seen an actionable case for defamation on any of these boards and I've been hanging around since 2004.

[Nemesis]

However, I'm grateful to live in a country that has made great provisions to protect First Amendment speech

Try yelling fire in a building and test the 1st amendment. Free speech is a responsibility. Game changers happen all the time.

Nemesis

[juliann]

The newspaper case reports Twitter's reaction to a discovery request. It does not report the "law." The "law" from a case arises when a tribunal makes a decision and publishes it. The newspaper reports neither a judge's decision nor a reported decision and California Superior Courts don't publish their decisions.

But it is a simple principle of law that if you libel somebody, even anonymously, you are liable. It doesn't matter that you posted your libel on the internet.

A Board host has special protections against liability, but if its moderators chime in or encourage the libel (with or without sock puppets), the board and its owners can become liable for the libel. Frankly, it is my view that if a moderator says anything of substance (i.e., anything more than -- "stick to the rules or you're outta here") they are putting their board at risk, but I'm conservative.

In the reported case, it appears that some UK citizens are battling each other in a California Superior Court and one side has sought to determine the true identity of a sock puppet. I've seen too many cases permitting that kind of discovery to proceed, but there are some which don't as well. Twitter just finds it easier to comply rather than fight about it.

The guiding principle here is don't libel anybody.

Generally speaking it is impossible to libel anonymous sock puppets unless it is well understood that the sock puppet is a particular person. So if I were to call sock puppet2 a pervert and a child molester, that isn't libel. (There may be exceptions, such as if sock puppet2 becomes a trade name unto itself, I suppose, like Clorox or Windex.)

Nor is it libel to cast aspersions on large groups of persons. "Oh yeah! Well, all apologists lie and twist the truth." (This is not libel on two fronts -- "all apologists" is a large group and "lie and twist the truth" is a vague sort of hyperbole and opinion.

It is impossible to libel dead people. Saying evil things about Gordon B. Hinkley is not libel.

Generally speaking, saying evil things about public figures is considered generally protected. "President Obama took bribes" is most likely not actionable. But "Carol Burnett cheated on her husband" was libel.

Targeting a known person's particular characterists can be libel. "Dr. Redskin Ute bribed his dissertation committee," or "Brig Jenson robbed a liquor store to publish his apologetic work". But saying things that are obviously opinions or hyperbole is not libel: "Jim Bingham is a liar." "Jane von Norstrand is a ******* [i.e, doesn't have a known father] and a **** [i.e., produces puppies rather than children]." This is not libel.

About 99% of what I see on anti-Mormon boards saying evil things about Dr. Peterson or Will Shryver or others does not remotely approach libel. Making fun of Dr. Peterson's academics, or appearance, or church assignments and doing so with nasty language shows poor moral character but is not libel.

Trying to ruin somebody's reputation alone is not libel. Book review critics or theatrical critics could be said to be ruining somebody's reputation.

Acting maliciously is not alone libel.

You have to say something that is not true, and you know it isn't true (or you're reckless about it) and it causes damage to reputation and it isn't opinion. "Bill's a child molester." "Jane stole money from the church." "Ben bribed a public official." "Evan beat his wife." Not "Dan's dissertation is a fraud." "Joe is a lousy bishop." "Brandt is a bad father." "You've alwasy been an idiot." "You were a poor student." "You left your mission too early for improper reasons."

I had to sue someone who stopped payments on a loan. They countersued for libel based on a letter. The first question the judge asked was if everything in the letter wasn't true, which they danced around, then he asked how they had been damaged, they came up with some fuzzy claim about a potential client they lost. That was the end of that. They settled.

The conditions you mention are not what is being questioned. But whether these conditions are met or not is why we go to court, isn't it? Which brings me back to my point about risking that when you know next to nothing about the person you are messing with.

[juliann]

Furthermore, my understanding is that Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230) does a good job of protecting Internet bloggers and message board owners and users from liability when using information that was provided by other Internet owners and users.

But it still comes back to how much it costs to get that protection. I'm sorry to keep harping on that but the Tanner lawsuit was laughable. It still required a defense.

[Nemesis]

But it still comes back to how much it costs to get that protection. I'm sorry to keep harping on that but the Tanner lawsuit was laughable. It still required a defense.

And the EFF will only protect you as long as it furthers their agenda and/or the impact of it will make case law. Our board has been threatened with suits before, thankfully their has never been any standing and we do a good job protecting the board.

Nemesis

[Nemesis]

I agree. I haven't seen an actionable case for defamation on any of these boards and I've been hanging around since 2004.

This isn't about defamation its about a major online resource not fighting a supeona for anonymous poster information. How does this change the internet game?

Nemesis