Nasty troll haters should read this

Message ID: 164142
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 13:26:00
Subject: Nasty troll haters should read this

Trust me, you will find it very interesting. Think of ledite.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3540778.stm

Message ID: 164150
Posted By: rex007can
Posted On: 2004-08-06 13:34:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

The US legal system never ceases to amaze me. Now what could be the damages for something like that? How do you plead that someone calling you names on the internet made you lose money or cause you psychological harm?

"yes your Honor, Terekhov called me a vegetable and I could work for days..."

I just don't get it...

Message ID: 164155
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 13:40:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

In the article, it says that some of the posters made "harassing, defamatory and abusive" comments. I am hoping he is focusing legally on the "defamatory" part in the sense of "to harm the reputation of by libel or slander" (m-w.com). If that is the case, it is illegal in the US (don't know about elsewhere) to do this. In other words, if I anonymously declare you molest children, that would be illegal.

If I just say you are stupid, I don't think (hope) that qualifies.

Message ID: 164159
Posted By: rex007can
Posted On: 2004-08-06 13:45:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

I just wonder though. Can a comment really be considered defamatory if the target of the comment presents him/herself under a 'handle" and doesn't show his/her real identity?

Say I post Div_2n is a child molester. I don't know who you really because everything about your true person is hidden and privaqte. Same for mine.

Under US law, can you really sue me for defamation? Since I have no idea who you truly are thus am in no position to either verify my statement or even know who it's actually aimed at?

For all I know you could be a set of 4 people all sharing the same handle. Where do you show harm?

Message ID: 164162
Posted By: phandsvrta
Posted On: 2004-08-06 13:48:00
Subject: Re: Nasty Darl haters should read this

Oh my God - That's it! Darl is going to hunt us down individually, and sue us too! And Groklaw posters - they even got repeated mention at the Scumfest....

Message ID: 164166
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 13:54:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

Sure it can. It need only meet these requirements:

(1) a defamatory statement;

(2) published to third parties; and

(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.

Read the following for more info:

www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html

Message ID: 164175
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:06:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

<< Sure it can. It need only meet these requirements:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.>>

If that's an accurate representation of US defamation law, then US defamation law is crazy.

The essence of British libel law, which I suddenly understand to be only the *second* worst on the planet, is that you must have damaged the reputation of an identifiable living individual.

http://www.urban75.com/Action/libel.html

"You can't defame nicknames when people don't know who they are [...] he can't sue, even if he knows you are referring to him - unless other people know him by the same nickname. On the internet the rules are exactly the same."

Other handy British defences include common abuse, fair comment (opinion), and a person's reputation already being so low that you can't possibly have made it worse.

Message ID: 164177
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:10:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

Damage must occur, yes. But for a damaging statment to be defamatory, those are the requirments. You can make a damaging statement and it NOT be defamatory. Statements that are not damaging are by default not defamatory. I do not know how "damaging" is measured.

Message ID: 164180
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:16:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

<< Damage must occur, yes. But for a damaging statment to be defamatory, those are the requirments. You can make a damaging statement and it NOT be defamatory. Statements that are not damaging are by default not defamatory. I do not know how "damaging" is measured. >>

Looks like a climbdown to me :D
You were just plain wrong about the nick issue.

Message ID: 164183
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:21:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

Actually I'm not. Here is another scenario that passes the litmus test. Assume I post under a random nickname that doesn't identify me specifically. I post here for years and become respected as an authority on the board. You make an untrue allegation that makes me loose respect here and as such, I suffer mental anguish over having lost my reputation. Bingo, defamatory.

For reference, check out:

The plaintiff must establish proof of damage to reputation in order to recover any damages for mental anguish; see Gobin v. Globe Publishing Co., 232 Kan. 1, 649 P.2d 1239, 1244 (1982); Swanson v. American Hardware Mutual Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 705, 707 (Minn. App. 1984) (rev. denied) ("To establish a claim in a defamation action [plaintiff] must prove that the [defendant] made false and defamatory statements about them which injured their reputation.").

Message ID: 164192
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:30:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

<< Assume I post under a random nickname that doesn't identify me specifically. I post here for years and become respected as an authority on the board. You make an untrue allegation that makes me loose respect here and as such, I suffer mental anguish over having lost my reputation. Bingo, defamatory. >>

Not so fast, first, who would sue? Who has standing? The nickname can't sue, it's not a legal entity (unless of course it's the trading name of a corporation). The person has no standing, as he or she has not been defamed. Suffered mental anguish, perhaps, but not libel. Which raises the second issue, what would they sue for? Damages for mental anguish is *NOT* the same thing as damages for libel.

Message ID: 164202
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:41:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

If what you say is true, then authors that write under pen names have no rights. By supplying my information with Yahoo that is attached to my onscreen nickname, that nickname becomes an extension of me. Just because you don't know the person behind the nickname doesn't mean their isn't one and doesn't mean that person is detached from the nick.

Therefore, if you write a message that isn't true, you know it isn't true (or likely isn't) and it harms the reputation of my nickname, but extension you have harmed me and I can sue. Will I win? That is up to the courts.

Message ID: 164209
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:49:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

<< If what you say is true, then authors that write under pen names have no rights. >>

Rubbish. Presumably at least the publisher, and quite probably the author's family, can associate the person with the pen name. That suffices for defamation.

http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml#identity

----

IDENTITY

To win a case for libel the plaintiff must prove:
1. The words complained of are defamatory.
2. The words complained of refer to him.
3. The words complained of have been published to a third party.

The test for identity: "Are the words such as would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to."

"We're safe if we don't name them."
Not always. All a claimant has to demonstrate to the court is that his family and friends understood the offending article to refer to him. Therefore if, say, you allege that an unnamed police constable, aged 30, working out of the town's central police station, had mistreated a prisoner in the cells, there is the chance of all the constables in their 30s at the station suing. During the 1980s and 90s the Police Federation made good use of this aspect of libel law. The more detailed the description the better. Get the constable named in an official police statement - that way it's privileged. (see Privilege later)

Group Defamation.
The law allows groups of people, rather than individuals, to sue as a body but the courts keep the numbers as low as possible. Example: If you wrote "All lawyers are crooks" then plainly all the members of the legal profession could not sue because the reasonable man would know that many lawyers could not be crooks. But when a former policeman alleged that he had been forced out of a police dog-handling team because of anti-semitism, all 12 members of the team sued for libel and won. Watch out for similar small groups like trustees, school governors, etc.

----

[snipped opinions that are rendered moot by the above]

Message ID: 164214
Posted By: div_2n
Posted On: 2004-08-06 14:55:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

Ok, so then what you said wasn't true. After all, Yahoo could easily vouch that I am the person behind my nickname.

Message ID: 164221
Posted By: nobbutl
Posted On: 2004-08-06 15:15:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

<< Ok, so then what you said wasn't true. After all, Yahoo could easily vouch that I am the person behind my nickname.>>

Huh? Like Yahoo has a real name and address for everyone? Like there's a real live Mr Yahoo person looking that up every time someone types a rude word and decrementing a reputation-O-meter? No. All Yahoo has is an IP. They can't vouch *who* was on a third party IP addy at a particular date and time. Don't be daft.

And if *you*, having seen something that defames your nick, go to Yahoo and say "I'm Spartacus!", then you're the one publishing your identity and thereby defaming yourself - not the original poster.

I know we could go on like this all night, but it's really not productive. Bye-bye.

Message ID: 164257
Posted By: spamsux99
Posted On: 2004-08-06 16:27:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

I guess you may have missed my earlier post. A California lawyer has filed a potential class action lawsuit against yahoo for being subjected to abusive messages on yahoo boards.

From www.metnews.com/articles/2004/galt080604.htm

Yahoo repeatedly rebuffed Galton?s requests that it identify the abusive posters, Weinstein said, responding that its policy was to provide user information only in response to a subpoena or court order. The lawyer eventually filed a suit naming Doe defendants and succeeded in tracking down ?mumioler? in North Carolina.

That user is now being sued for defamation, Weinstein said.

Message ID: 164259
Posted By: mcbride4prison
Posted On: 2004-08-06 16:29:00
Subject: Re: Nasty troll haters should read this

> That user is now being sued for defamation, Weinstein said.

Oddly enough, no-one has ever been successfully sued for calling Rob Enderle a bullshiting idiot.

Message ID: 164372
Posted By: karl_w_lewis
Posted On: 2004-08-06 21:57:00
Subject: OT: Yahoo being sued.

Regards to the board.

I've been away most all the day, and I'm late for bed as it is, so I haven't had time to search to see if anyone posted this gem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3540778.stm

It seems a lawyer is suing Yahoo because someone posted something mean about one of his clients and then, (and I know this will shock you folks), it seems the other posters on the message board all *attacked* him. His feelings were hurt, I suppose, and Yahoo did nothing about it....

KWL

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger...

Message ID: 164384
Posted By: walterbyrd
Posted On: 2004-08-06 23:27:00
Subject: Re: OT: Yahoo being sued.

Believe it or not, yahoo removed the offending messages.

According to the lawyer: yahoo promises to remove offending posts.

Actually, I think what yahoo states that if you post offenses messages, then you can be removed.

The texts of these Yahoo Message Board posts have been licensed for copying and distribution by the Yahoo Message Board users "div_2n", "rex007can", "phandsvrta", "nobbutl", "spamsux99", "mcbride4prison", "karl_w_lewis", "walterbyrd" under the following license: License: CCL Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike v2.0.