WASHINGTON — Those with quick access to the Internet and the urge to                                    rant online ought to think twice – what you post could come                                    back to haunt you, in court.
As the number of Internet users and electronic bulletin boards soars,                  so has the tendency for people who use the perceived anonymity of                  the medium to lash out or "flame," as it is called in cyber-speak,                  against public and private figures, companies and institutions.
But with the increased venting comes more and more lawsuits from                  corporate lawyers who have discovered posters' identities and sued                  them, arguing that their flaming has crossed the line from free speech                  to defamation.
What you are talking about is more in line with copy-right infringment. The article I posted dealt with cases of defamation of character. Two different horses.
But you are right, a lot of people do post articles in violation of copyrights.
Pentagon police on Tuesday detained and handcuffed a Fox News Channel cameraman and confiscated his videotape after he was discovered documenting a traffic stop of an Iranian man along the highway that runs outside the building.
<
<Nineteen states have such statutes, which protect the right of citizens to publicly criticize a corporation, government or organization without fear of retribution.>>
We need statutes for this? What happened to the First Amendment?
I'd say it's in the News Muskwa and would qualify. I would think 1st amendment covers it but since it's in print and just opinion we shouldn't have to worry. But as that article pointed out there were some only using it to defame a person. It really is a sticky wicket when you think about it though, who determines what is opinion or defamation?
Stating an opinion, even if it's over and over and over again, is free speech. I think defamation should require A LOT of hard evidence that someone actively tried to affect someone's life physically or financially.
I agree Muskwa, it's prett freaky that someone could be sued for defamation because of something they wrote on a board. Yikes!
I don't know how I feel about this.
On one had I believe in free speech. On the other, people shouldn't be able to write just anything they wish about someone or a company for that matter.
On one had I believe in free speech. On the other, people shouldn't be able to write just anything they wish about someone or a company for that matter.
I know it's a conundrum isn't it. Is there a difference between this and just a bunch of people talking ? or is the fact because it's in "print" and a bit more permanent make a legal difference ? I don't know ? Anyone ?
If this is considered print can I now say I've been published?
Don't you get your monthly royalties check ? We all do, I am sure their is a mix up. ;)
I really want to find out what the legal opinion would be on this, although they must give it some different treatment over just talking since some lawsuits were won. It is really a bad precedent I think. I too consider it just conversation. Couldn't this be considered private and not public ? Where's a lawyer when you need one ?
I figure I should be able to say whatever I want on these boards, in e-mail, or in conversation with anyone else. If I violate the rules set down in this venue I can be kicked out, but that's a private matter and shouldn't come under some outfit's arbitrary choice if it has legal repercussions.
The point is this: no one should expect any different treatment for what they say or write simply because it is posted on these boards or written or said somewhere else.
Then how do we explain the recent cases involving people or companies suing for slander or defamation because of something written on a board ? How did those cases get through ? I really don't know and I am certainly no worry wart, but if they can do it to them where does it stop ? Seems like they are setting some legal precedence.
I think an awful lot of legal precedence is being set that should have been smacked down out of hand by honest judges. The tobacco settlement is a case in point. Inordinate amounts of money given by juries to people who got burned by spilled coffee is another. We badly need tort reform, and Congress will never do it because they're all lawyers.
I am not sure what else there is to be said. Why shouldn't people be held to the same standard whehter they write something here or in a book or letter etc.?
OK, but what standard? I think the First Amendment should be very widely interpreted, and the part about free association has been virtually destroyed. Look at the Boy Scouts.
There is a standard out there. I am not that familiar with it. There are differences in how private and public persons are treated. That is about as much as I know.
There is a distinction based on how a person holds themselves out to the public. Exactly what is I'm not able to say without looking it up. But it is much more difficult to prove defamation of a public person than it is a private person.
jethro, thats pretty much my understanding about the public/private divide. it takes a lot more to be considered defamation of the president than it does to be considered defamation of joe schmoe off the street.
Again from Bartlesville OK- For the second time in a week, Washington County sheriff's deputies say a defendant charged in an alcohol-related crime showed up drunk for legal proceedings.
Deputies arrested Kenneth Dale Brumley this week in the courthouse parking lot on a complaint of public intoxication. Brumley was reporting to jail to serve a 10-day sentence for drunk driving.
Officers say Brumley could not stand and admitted he had been drinking vodka all day.
Late last week, deputies arrested Charles Ronald Laws in a courthouse hallway on a public intoxication complaint. Laws was there to be arraigned on drunken driving charges. ( I posted this story a couple of days ago)
A lawyer that does not deal in tort would say I am not sure but I could research it. For some reason ignorant people think a lawyer knows all the law. It doesn't work that way. There is way to much law out there to know it all.
88.5 has some pretty good tunes on it. Have you heard the local Ronny Lowe band on there ? They are great and man can that guy play a sax like no ones business.
Just thought I would let you know that the new stadium bill actually looks decent. I still don't think we should be getting involved in it since precedent is a bad thing, the Vikes will be next with thier hand out. I don't feel like it's governments business at all. But it's actually a digestible plan. From what I've seen the risk looks like it's very minimal. It looks to be essentially a loan paid for by bonds and a guarantee of at least 30 years. The pushed for so long it seems like we are going to get something crammed down our throats anyway. I give up, you win. But with my surrender comes an observation. First of all it proves that the contraction threat was nothing but blackmail. They won't do it now, it was blackmail by a corrupt commisioner and a corrupt financial situation that exists in baseball. 10 years from now they'll be back for more I guarntee it. Unless they fix their problems it will get worse. So I see it as a bandaid and people will finally have to say enough is enough. The current plan looks like it's at least tennable. And here's the great irony. Word has it that the stadium would be built on the riverfront in St.Paul,,,,I knew you'd love that ! ;) Welcome to St.Paul Mr. Lundstrom. Play ball.
Rick, he plays down at the Dakota, Jasmines and a few other places. I would say he plays a better sax or at least as good as Sanborn, he plays along his style with a little more grit to it.
NewsChannel 3 has learned that four Pakistanis are missing from a ship that was in Hampton Roads last week.
The INS emphasizes there's no reason to believe the four Pakistani nationals have an criminal intent. In fact, they checked out fine when the ship came into port.
We are suppose to believe the INS after they sent Visas to two of the twin tower bombers 6 months after it happened? What a joke.
WASHINGTON — Those with quick access to the Internet and the urge to
                                   rant online ought to think twice – what you post could come
                                   back to haunt you, in court.
As the number of Internet users and electronic bulletin boards soars,
                 so has the tendency for people who use the perceived anonymity of
                 the medium to lash out or "flame," as it is called in cyber-speak,
                 against public and private figures, companies and institutions.
But with the increased venting comes more and more lawsuits from
                 corporate lawyers who have discovered posters' identities and sued
                 them, arguing that their flaming has crossed the line from free speech
                 to defamation.
Be Careful What You Post
Bill,
What you are talking about is more in line with copy-right infringment. The article I posted dealt with cases of defamation of character. Two different horses.
But you are right, a lot of people do post articles in violation of copyrights.
But you are right, a lot of people do post articles in violation of copyrights.
That's why a link and a short blip will suffice.
Pentagon police on Tuesday detained and handcuffed a Fox News Channel cameraman and confiscated his videotape after he was discovered documenting a traffic stop of an Iranian man along the highway that runs outside the building.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48355,00.html
<
<Nineteen states have such statutes, which protect the right of citizens to publicly criticize a corporation, government or organization without fear of retribution.>>
We need statutes for this? What happened to the First Amendment?
Should I have posted this on the "Answer the Question with a Question" board?
I'd say it's in the News Muskwa and would qualify. I would think 1st amendment covers it but since it's in print and just opinion we shouldn't have to worry. But as that article pointed out there were some only using it to defame a person. It really is a sticky wicket when you think about it though, who determines what is opinion or defamation?
Stating an opinion, even if it's over and over and over again, is free speech. I think defamation should require A LOT of hard evidence that someone actively tried to affect someone's life physically or financially.
I agree Muskwa, it's pretty freaky that someone could be sued for defamation because of something they wrote on a board. Yikes!
this just in Enron to sue Martin Heldt of Iowa.
I agree Muskwa, it's prett freaky that someone could be sued for defamation because of something they wrote on a board. Yikes!
I don't know how I feel about this.
On one had I believe in free speech. On the other, people shouldn't be able to write just anything they wish about someone or a company for that matter.
I agree THX,
I know it's a conundrum isn't it. Is there a difference between this and just a bunch of people talking ? or is the fact because it's in "print" and a bit more permanent make a legal difference ? I don't know ? Anyone ?
I don't know. Good question. I think of these forums as simply conversations, not as "Print".
If this is considered print can I now say I've been published?
Don't you get your monthly royalties check ? We all do, I am sure their is a mix up. ;)
I really want to find out what the legal opinion would be on this, although they must give it some different treatment over just talking since some lawsuits were won. It is really a bad precedent I think. I too consider it just conversation. Couldn't this be considered private and not public ? Where's a lawyer when you need one ?
Whether you call it libel or defamation what is the real difference?
You're the lawyer, you tell me ?
There really isn't any to worry about.
Any what to worry about?
I figure I should be able to say whatever I want on these boards, in e-mail, or in conversation with anyone else. If I violate the rules set down in this venue I can be kicked out, but that's a private matter and shouldn't come under some outfit's arbitrary choice if it has legal repercussions.
There should be no difference in the consequences for what you say here as what you say anywhere else.
Do you mean libel or slander? They are both a defamation of character. I'm not a lawyer but I do remember this from my high school law course.
The point is this: no one should expect any different treatment for what they say or write simply because it is posted on these boards or written or said somewhere else.
Jethro:
I was just correcting you on your earlier post.
"Whether you call it libel or defamation what is the real difference?"
I was saying it should read "libel or slander".
You are correct, whatever is said here is no different than any other venue.
CSC,
Then how do we explain the recent cases involving people or companies suing for slander or defamation because of something written on a board ? How did those cases get through ? I really don't know and I am certainly no worry wart, but if they can do it to them where does it stop ? Seems like they are setting some legal precedence.
I think an awful lot of legal precedence is being set that should have been smacked down out of hand by honest judges. The tobacco settlement is a case in point. Inordinate amounts of money given by juries to people who got burned by spilled coffee is another. We badly need tort reform, and Congress will never do it because they're all lawyers.
Amen Muskwa.
I don't think there is any new legal precedence being set by holding people that post on these boards to the same standards outside of the boards.
Can you elaborate, jethro?
I am not sure what else there is to be said. Why shouldn't people be held to the same standard whehter they write something here or in a book or letter etc.?
OK, but what standard? I think the First Amendment should be very widely interpreted, and the part about free association has been virtually destroyed. Look at the Boy Scouts.
There is a standard out there. I am not that familiar with it. There are differences in how private and public persons are treated. That is about as much as I know.
Are there definitions of private and public persons?
There is a distinction based on how a person holds themselves out to the public. Exactly what is I'm not able to say without looking it up. But it is much more difficult to prove defamation of a public person than it is a private person.
jethro, thats pretty much my understanding about the public/private divide. it takes a lot more to be considered defamation of the president than it does to be considered defamation of joe schmoe off the street.
Again from Bartlesville OK- For the second time in a week, Washington County sheriff's deputies say a defendant charged in an alcohol-related crime showed up drunk for legal proceedings.
Deputies arrested Kenneth Dale Brumley this week in the courthouse parking lot on a complaint of public intoxication. Brumley was reporting to jail to serve a 10-day sentence for drunk driving.
Officers say Brumley could not stand and admitted he had been drinking vodka all day.
Late last week, deputies arrested Charles Ronald Laws in a courthouse hallway on a public intoxication complaint. Laws was there to be arraigned on drunken driving charges. ( I posted this story a couple of days ago)
Just goes to show, some people just don't get it.
arguing with someone on the internet is like competing in the 'special olympics'....at the end of the race you are both STILL retarded!!!
kqrs morning show 3-21-02
That KQRS:
Compelling radio
::rolls eyes::
Meanwhile, no spate of sex scandals is engulfing the Boy Scouts of America. Inasmuch as the Boy Scouts were not taking risk-assessment advice from Norman Mineta, they decided to eliminate a whole category of potential problems by refusing to allow gay men to be scout leaders. Perhaps gay scout leaders just really liked camping. But it was also possible that gay men who wanted to lead troops of adolescent boys into the woods were up to no good.
I wonder what a Lawyer would say?
A lawyer that does not deal in tort would say I am not sure but I could research it. For some reason ignorant people think a lawyer knows all the law. It doesn't work that way. There is way to much law out there to know it all.
I believed the Clinton White House was headed for serious trouble. I was especially worried about national security, which had taken a back seat to political correctness... I found the poor condition of the administration to be a shame and believed that the Clinton people had broken well founded policies, and even some federal laws, in order to bulldoze their flawed agenda into place.
C'mon Rick, KQ' is great radio.............If you're 14 years old :)
The station can sure pull in the listeners, though.
Some people must stay 14 for decades. Drive cars, make large purchases.
To each their own I guess. I used to listen but haven't for quite a few years. You're right though apparently there's a market for it.
93X all the way! KQRS plays all the songs of those long stoned or dead.
I listen to talk radio. The only local music station I'd listen to is 88.5 KBEM.
Jazz and traffic information.
Rick,
88.5 has some pretty good tunes on it. Have you heard the local Ronny Lowe band on there ? They are great and man can that guy play a sax like no ones business.
Haven't heard of Ronny Lowe. I should get out and hear more local jazz. Maybe this weekend.
On the Internet, I'll sometimes turn on a jazz station in Berlin that plays pretty good music.
Rick,
Just thought I would let you know that the new stadium bill actually looks decent. I still don't think we should be getting involved in it since precedent is a bad thing, the Vikes will be next with thier hand out. I don't feel like it's governments business at all. But it's actually a digestible plan. From what I've seen the risk looks like it's very minimal. It looks to be essentially a loan paid for by bonds and a guarantee of at least 30 years. The pushed for so long it seems like we are going to get something crammed down our throats anyway. I give up, you win. But with my surrender comes an observation. First of all it proves that the contraction threat was nothing but blackmail. They won't do it now, it was blackmail by a corrupt commisioner and a corrupt financial situation that exists in baseball. 10 years from now they'll be back for more I guarntee it. Unless they fix their problems it will get worse. So I see it as a bandaid and people will finally have to say enough is enough. The current plan looks like it's at least tennable. And here's the great irony. Word has it that the stadium would be built on the riverfront in St.Paul,,,,I knew you'd love that ! ;) Welcome to St.Paul Mr. Lundstrom. Play ball.
Rick, he plays down at the Dakota, Jasmines and a few other places. I would say he plays a better sax or at least as good as Sanborn, he plays along his style with a little more grit to it.
"Without the pioneers of Rock, the ones like Clapton, Waters, Hendrix"
How about Buddy Holly who everyone copied? Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard?
You're talking second generation, fold.
You can't throw a rock in any direction in this city without hitting a Classic Rock station.
Don't some of those songs deserve to die with a little dignity?
How many times can you hear The Eagles sing "Take it Easy."
I can't listen to FM rock anymore.
Pakistanis Jump Ship
NewsChannel 3 has learned that four Pakistanis are missing from a ship that was in Hampton Roads last week.
The INS emphasizes there's no reason to believe the four Pakistani nationals have an criminal intent. In fact, they checked out fine when the ship came into port.
We are suppose to believe the INS after they sent Visas to two of the twin tower bombers 6 months after it happened? What a joke.