OT: Court case in Idaho worth watching

[615dawg]

<div>http://www.spokesman.com/...nfo-anonymous-commenter/</div><div>
</div><div>A judge has ruled that a newspaper must provide information to identify an anonymous commenter that made a defamatory comment about a woman. Much worse has been said on boards like this, every day.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

 

[Hump4Hoops]

While I don't think it's a good idea to be a tool on the internet, it's certainly not something you should be prosecuted for. If a host has the proper safeguards in place (deleting posts, the banhammer, adequate moderators) this type of thing can be cleared up.

I hate that everything under the sun is lawsuit worthy. Making jokes anonymously on the internet is now apparently illegal.

 

[patdog]

Slandering or defaming someone on the Internet or anywhere else has never been legal.

 

[ClintonInHelen]

hitnoku

 

[Hump4Hoops]

When did everyone become so sensitive?

 

[Johnson85]

It came close to accusing her of embezzling money, which would have been an actionable statement (assuming it wasn't true), but with her being a public figure, and also the part about looking in her blouse, which would indicate that it's a joke, I don't see how the judge could have been correct in his ruling.

People on here should just be glad that some of the regular characters such as Xena, DD, etc. don't take an interest in suing for defamation. I think there have been some pretty clear factual assertions related to infidelity, drug use, etc. that could be actionable if they aren't true.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

because public figures are not afforded the same protections from hurtful speech. The standard is much higher. She will have to prove that the poster knew the statement was false and made it with malicious intent. Very hard to prove. The statement itself starts with the word "Maybe" (the money is in her blouse) which clearly indicates that the poster does not "know" whether it is or is not. If this wasn't the rule, every public figure would just sue to keep anyone from criticizing them, or questioning their motives, etc. They don't because they know they can't win, as the standard of proof is just too high. <div>
</div><div>Regardless, she will get to harass them in discovery until it gets dismissed.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

 

[patdog]

Under the name “almostinnocentbystander,” the commenter questioned whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be “stuffed inside Tina’sblouse.”

Falsly accusing someone of stealing $10,000 when you have no information to support your statement is just not something you can do. The judge didn't rule that he did slander her, just that the newspaper has to give his name up so that issue can be decided in court. Which to this amateur lawyer is the right ruling in this case. </p>

 

[RobbieRandolph]

.

 

[patdog]

but boob joke or not, the argument can definitely be made that he publicly accused her of embezzling money.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

It was a boob joke that was clever because it also included the missing money.

Nobody seems to have a sense of humor any more. It just seems like a really petty thing to try to sue someone over, especially since it was a comment that was quickly deleted.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Click on any link to any story on any news website on the planet. Read the comments section. You'll see 1,000 comments that are each 100 times worse than that one, on a daily bases.

It just makes the councilwoman in question look just as petty and cowardly as the poster.

 

[00dog]

I mean, who knows anything about the incident - not saying there was one. But, if money is missing...

“Almostinnocentbystander,” didn't accuse anyone of anything. Do you know who, if anyone, took the money?

Can you say that the chairwoman didn't take it, or doesn't have it? If you don't know, would you charcterizeas true, or false the "might be," statement referred to? If you cannot say it is false, wouldn't you have to agree that it is possible?

I don't know anything about the alleged incident,so I definitelycannot say that the "might be" statement is false. But, even if I know that "might be" is accurate I cannot admit it. Wouldn't want to be sued for acknowledging reality.

To make it football related, some of us should never attend a football game in that state. Some of you guys might yell out, "Ref, you earned your money on that call," or "Number 68, you're slow." And, you might be right. But, isa statementbeing correct, being true,and being uttered without malice aforethought any defencein that state? (I'm saying neither yea, nor nay - too risky; just sayin'...)

<font size="2">Disclaimer: I may or may not be sober as this is being posted. I may notbe the one who posted it. This post may have been posted from an Iphone (I do notown, use or possessan Iphone). There may be an explanation for this post that may not yet have been discovered. Any resemblance between this post and anything is unintentional and coincidental. This post was not intended to offendany entity (real, imaginary, real/imaginary combination, or not real, not imaginary, nor real/imaginary combination) or part thereof any living person, any person who has lived, any person who may live, any place, or any thing, any where in any form at any time.</font>