I know there are far worse people out there (I live in PA, so we’re getting to know one of them). But this guy just pisses me off to no end. He basically builds a site that lets you torpedo someone without challenge and then has the balls to say it’s part of his First Amendment rights and that he’s no different than a librarian. And it doesn’t help his case that he LOOKS like a giant throbbing pustule either. Arrogant, jerky little swine.
Riiight. And sites where kiddie porn gets distributed are just mailing lists.
Yeah! I can’t believe there are forums on the internet solely dedicated to saying bad things about other people. It’s a good thing the SDMB doesn’t have anything like that.
Did you not bother to read the article? There are no pictures here. Dude’s in National Enquierer territory.
And? So is the National Enquirer.
Actually, the National Enquirer has more ethics than this guy. Basically, it sounds like a site where someone can find a picture and post whatever story s/he wants based on the picture. Sadly, as long as none of the content, objectionable though it may be, is illegal in nature, he’s protected by the First Amendment. There are also safe harbor* provisions to protect him from charges of libel if he is not authoring the content (which I don’t think he is).
At least AC knocked the librarian comment.
*Not being an lawyer, I may be using the incorrect term, but it is the same concept that protects YouTube and the SDMB from being liable for slanderous or libelous material posted by a third party.
If someone has a problem with something written about them, they can sue the authors for libel. If it’s true, then tough noogies. That’s the law. How does this have anything to do with the website’s creator?
Well, if someone here on SDMB posted photos of another person, and also posted things that are verifiable LIES about that person, and those photos and lies had a negative impact on that person’s life… Banning would be the best outcome they could expect.
If this guy (website creator) is simply posting anonymously submitted crap that slags other people, then he is the editor. The editor can be sued for libel, along with the anonymous author. He want’s to publish anonymous crap? Fine. Then he can take the heat when the anonymous crap is a pack of lies that damages other people’s reputations.
From SUNY Buffalo Law School:
Specifically (and I think the OP should have posted a summary), a high school teacher and Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader is the victim of anonymously-posted stories on Ritchie’s site, claiming she’s a total slut who fucked the whole team. That story was taken down, but a few months later, another story goes up claiming she has sex in her classroom and has STDs. She has mental anguish from this, especially since things happen like a student telling her he can’t learn in that classroom because she’s a slut who has sex in their classroom. She had to try to clear her name with her students, saying those are lies, but parents are still saying they don’t want their kids in her classroom.
So this poor gal is dealing with some anonymous asshole posting stuff repeatedly on a popular “gossip” site that is causing trouble for her in her job, and even if there’s no basis in fact, she has to deal with gossip, students disrespecting her over this, parents causing trouble for her, and the worry that her school district may find even an innocent teacher to be too much trouble to deal with keeping on their staff. Meanwhile the editor of the site shrugs and claims it’s not his problem.
Three things wrong with this quote
- There are other “reality” websites out there
- Sarah Jones isn’t a celebrity
- Reality TV and gossip mags don’t give their audience free reign to create any story they want.
This website is the same concept as JuicyCampus and I expect it to meet the same decline be it for lack of funds or getting sued out of existence.
Oh, believe me, I agree that it’s terrible what this woman is going through. She’s being libeled, clearly, and that’s completely illegal. But what I don’t agree with is that this editor is somehow morally culpable for that, especially when there is an entire tabloid industry built up to do precisely this same thing. It’s like Anderson singled out this one guy because he runs a website instead of a magazine.
Nik Ritchie: “I’m basically a rock star of the internet generation.”
“Who’s to know what’s real and what’s fake? There could be truth behind it.”
ABC: “You can’t say you’re sorry if you would do it again.”
Nik: “Well, I’m not *really *sorry.”
Maybe it’s political.
Morally? Nah. Financially and legally? Sue the prick. Sue him hard.
Tabloid articles aren’t posted anonymously, and tabloids get sued regularly.
I used to know an editor for the Weekly World News (are they still around?), and he said they had an army of lawyers go through every ridiculous story they wrote to make sure there was the minimum of sue-able material printed.
She did. She won $11 million, which that article fails to mention. I don’t think she’s collected yet, which probably explains her appearance on Anderson Cooper.
It was a default judgment, which means she’ll probably never collect; the website will move to set it aside once they get a garnishment order, and they’ll go back and actually have a trial (or settle, more likely).