Could the SDMB be sucessfully sued ?

The recent thread locking / pitting / ranting excerises I have engaged in, have given me pause for thought.

If the SDMB gave out info that could be used for illegal purposes, and someone used that information for illegal purposes, could the SDMB be successfully sued ?

I can’t believe that the suit would succeed - if it would, how could any manuals on survival / arms / hunting / lock-manufacture / toxicology et cetera be marketed and sold? Even books with more obvious malicious intent - e.g. “The Anarchists Cookbook”, survive to be sold in many countries… all without a law suit.

Someone please explain.

:confused:

Im guessing under the new patriot act, the SMBD could have a lot more done to it that sued if, for example, they could definitavely link it to a terroist activity. I suspect that there would be a law against providing illegal information but its not generally used since theres little point. Apart from that, theres hundreds of cases that are potential targets for slander and Im sure you could dig up a thread or two that could be construed as attempt to harm the president.

Information is never illegal - is it? * Using * the information may be, but surely possessing the information is not illegal in itself - as I said, what about “The Anarchists Cookbook” etc. ?

Tarantula wrote

It doesn’t really matter. A suit is a suit; doesn’t matter how frivolous it is. Every suit requires defense and defense costs money.

Bill H. No, you’re wrong. Firstly, you can choose to represent yourself in a court - in which case the defense costs nothing.

Secondly, the suit could be thrown out by the judge - no defense required, as the case never gets underway.

And anyway - I didn’t say that you wouldn’t have to defend yourself, I said the suit wouldn’t succeed.

So can anyone who knows the score opine on this ?

No, you’re wrong, which must particularly sting after making such a bold pronouncement about someone else being wrong.

However, I’m not going to make my usual demand that you cut off one of your own fingers as a penalty for posting incorrect information in GQ, since there is always one thread participant in GQ that’s entitled to a bit of ignorance: the OP, who, by definition of the forum’s purpose, is asking a question to which he doesn’t know the answer.

I will say that after getting the correct answer, though, your vociferous defense of the wrong answer should stop.

Now, to the meat of the matter: if you are sued as a natural person, it’s true you may legally represent yourself, even if you are not a lawyer. It’s not true that this defense is “free.” Wholly apart from the time you must take off whatever your real job is to prepare and present your defense, if you’re a lawyer, you are most likely ill-equipped to do a good job defending yourself. It’s as though you claimed that transmission overhauls are cheap because, after all, you can do the labor yourself. Yes – if you happen to know how to overhaul a transmission. If you don’t, you must pay someone who does have the knowledge.

All of the above is interestign as general background, but doesn’t apply in the Chicago Reader’s case. They are not a natural person. They are a legal person - a corporation - and must be represented by a lawyer. There is no Mr. Reader who may step up and act as his own attorney. A corporation must be represented by a licensed attorney.

Finally: would the lawsuit succeed? It’s not probable, but it’s not outside the bounds of reason, either, especially at the trial court level. That is to say, a conservative jury and judge may render a judgement that is legally unsound, and an appeals court may be required to step in and correct the problem.

There was considerable lawyer income on both sides of the famous “Hit Man” book case, in which a publisher was sued for publishing a book that gave explicit instructions on how to be a murderer for hire, and some nut bought the book, followed the instructions, and killed someone.

Keep in mind that it’s not a sufficient defense in such a case to say, “Uhhh… the First Amendment!” You must show relevant case law that supports the position that the First Amendment protects private parties from actions by aggrieved other private parties. You have to know how to find such case law, and prepare pleadings that reference it. In short, you need the services of a lawyer.

Since the Reader wishes to avoid the expense in the first place, the discussions are simply not permitted. They are not prepared to be a shining, but utterly financially ruined, beacon of press freedom.

  • Rick

** Bricker ** - many thanks for your well thought out answer.

But what could the charge be? What law could you be breaking? I’m sure the US Army have an engineers corp. and during training they teach engineers (or whoever) how to make bombs (I’m just using an example, which is probably wildly inaccurate - but you get what I talking about). Someone is taught to make bombs by the Army or whoever - if they go out and kill someone, using those skills - the Army couldn’t be sued - could it ?

In the case of the Washington Sniper a few months back, nobody suggested suing the US Army, even though it was the Army that taught that lunatic how to shoot.

I know I am missing something, but I don’t see how the issue of a lawsuit could possibly arise (and be entertained by the court to the extent that it would require a defense).

Some please shine a light into the cubby-hole of my ignorance.

Thanks all.

There’s a Mr. Reeder, though… would he do?

As for the cost of it all, there are always court costs that must be paid. For the defendent not to have to pay them, I would think that it must be made plain in the decision that the person doing the suing pays the costs. I don’t think this happens often.

This is only if the suit is rejected, and with the American legal process, appeals can go on for quite some time, all the while racking up bills and bills.

So, in short, even if you win, it’s still very likely that you’ll be paying some cash out - even if you do represent yourself.

So to avoid the potential for a high-cost legal hassle, the Reader does not permit the propagation of information on here that could likely be used for illegal purposes. Asking how to break a lock falls under this category, IMO.

There you go. The abbreviated version of Bricker’s post, with hardly any inaccuracies of note.

The Army teaches many, many things. If a school such as Big Al’s College O’ Bombin’ existed and a student graduated and went on to bomb people, I would think there might be legal issues for Big Al et al.

But the Army is much more general. Sure, you’re taught to fight and kill and such, but you’re also taught a lot of life-saving skills, too. In other words, it’s not an institution whose main goal is to teach people how to bomb - and, of course, when they do teach it, they don’t tell their “students” to bomb innocent people.

** Dantheman ** - no indeed they don’t, but I think we’re missing the point. The SDMB’d sole raison d’etre is not to disseminate information that could be used for illegal purposes.

What I am trying to get at, is what would the charge be? What about the Washington Sniper case, that I mentioned earlier? Or the book “The Anarchists Cookbook” - or howstuffworks.com for that matter…

I am not really interested in the issue of lock-picking info per se, but rather the possible legal ramifications that could result from anyone disseminating information that could be used in an illegal way.

The cubby-hole of my ignorance is still pitch black…

Thanks for the responses, by the way…

If it’s a civil suit, someone is suing for damages, not a criminal charge.

** Telemark ** that doesn’t answer any of the questions I asked.

Sorry.

Actually, it does address something you said: “What I am trying to get at, is what would the charge be?”

A civil suit has no charges, per se. Criminal cases do. A civil suit is formed on particular grounds that must be proven, but there do not have to be specific laws broken in order for a civil suit to commence.

Where are our lawyer Dopers? I think the above’s correct…

Dantheman - fine, but what I am getting at is, what could anyone claim had possibly been done to injure them, simply by providing a medium of education. It is a preposterous idea.

Telemark’s correction is of note. In a criminal case, the government - state or federal - is bringing charges against a person (or, sometimes, a corporation) for the violation of a criminal law.

In civil case, one private party alleges that another private party breached a duty that was owed, and that as a result of that breach, they have been damaged, and now ask for money to repair that damage.

Again, the question isn’t “what law are you breaking” but “what duty of care or contract did you breach?”

There are other problems associated with suing the US Army, but assuming they didn’t exist, it’s perfectly plausible to envision a suit against the Army for training a bomber or sniper. For example, let us say that it developed that the Army had recruited people from mental institutions, people with delusions and rampant paranoia, such as one might find working for Lyndon LaRouche. Let us say that the Army taught those people to build bombs and shoot sniper rifles, and then let them out for a month-long leave with free access to the armory during their vacation.

If one such person shot and killed your wife, you might well say, "The Army was grossly negligent in the supervision of their shooters. They recruited totally unsuitable people, gave them access to dangerous weapons, and utterly failed to supervise them in any meaningful way. This was an accident waiting to happen. Any reasonable person could have foreseen that an injury or death would result. The Army had a general duty of care towards me and my family, a duty not to put us in danger through their carelessness. They failed in that duty.

“But for their carelessness, my wife would not have been killed. The actual killer is criminally liable for the murder – but I say the Army is civilly liable to me for the unlawful death of my wife, because their reckless conduct made it happen.”

Now, the above set of facts is obviously a far cry from what we’re talking about here. But the basic concept is the same. To sue the Reader, someone would have to allege only that the Reader had a duty not to post dangerous material on its website, that the posting of such material led to harm, that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, and that the person suing suffered the harm and should be compensated for it.

The Reader cannot simply say, “Uh… First Amendment!” A two-word defense hardly ever prevails. They would have to show that the harm wasn’t reasonably foreseeable, or that even if it was, they are shielded from liability by some other principle of law,
or offer some other defense.

And, as I suggested above, offering detailed defense isn’t cheap.

  • Rick

It’s not preposterous. Anyone can claim anything at all, at any time. I could go into the nearest courthouse right this minute and file a lawsuit against the Reader for… anything.

I would later need to prove this in order to win a judgment in my favor.

But whether I won or lost the Reader would need to defend itself, and that’s what they want to avoid. Even a victory wouldn’t be good enough, because defense would require resources and finances they don’t want to apply to this board.

Tarantula - You tread so lightly on the fringes of being called a troll. Do you understand what that means? Your question has been answered, you certainly do not understand that. Why not shine some light upon your own abyssal cubby hole and stop insulting others answers. dantheman has repeatedly come to your saving graces, not only about the lock picking thread but right here in this thread. And even when you decided to pit the deacon of these boards Dr.Matrix. I sometimes feel like I’m reading an angry fifth-grader’s post who’s not getting his way…

This is, by the way, one of the factors that lead people to scream, “We need tort reform!” and others to scream, “No, we don’t!”

The merits of tort reform are undoubtedly a GD subject. But in the GQ arena, we can safely say a thing or two.

Proponents of tort reform point to cases like this, and the fact that even if the Reader won a baseless lawsuit, they’d be out some $5,000-$15,000 in costs. They favor a system in which the loser would bear the costs of the winner’s defense, and point out that this would discourage baseless lawsuits.

Opponents of tort reform fear that with such a system in place, big companies would gain an unfair advantage over small, poorer litigants, who would be fearful of pursuing a meritorious claim, because if they lose, they might be responsible for huge legal fees. This would have a chilling effect on the ability of legitimate litigants to seek redress through the court system.

  • Rick

In most cases (here in Ireland anyway), if you bring a civil suit against someone, and loose, you are liable for the costs of the party you sued. It makes sense, and gives the most litigious elements in our society something to think about. Sounds like you guys could do with something similar…

Anyhoo, thanks for the clarification - I thought it was the same set-up in the US…

Thanks all

:slight_smile:

From what I’ve seen, the SDMB has done an admirable job in protecting themselves from a potential lawsuit, by banning troublesome posters, locking threads that discuss illegal activity, etc. That doesn’t prevent some deluded nutjob from suing them out of spite, but every corporation/person is vulnerable to that.

But if they ever start selling coffee…well, then they’re in real trouble! :smiley: