# I pit Nik Ritchie, the noble "Librarian" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 10, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506 "2011-11-10T14:30:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/1 "2011-11-10T14:30:01Z")
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](http://www.andersoncooper.com/2011/11/09/sarah-jones-nik-richie-bengals-cheerleader-confronts-website-owner-for-defamation-of-character/) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/2 "2011-11-10T14:40:23Z")
> [@Love\_Rhombus](#): > > 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. Riiight. And sites where kiddie porn gets distributed are just mailing lists. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/3 "2011-11-10T14:55:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/4 "2011-11-10T15:02:02Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/5 "2011-11-10T15:13:30Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Dude’s in National Enquierer territory. And? So is the National Enquirer. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/6 "2011-11-10T15:13:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/7 "2011-11-10T15:17:45Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/8 "2011-11-10T15:19:01Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/9 "2011-11-10T15:20:47Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/10 "2011-11-10T15:29:32Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > 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). > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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? From [SUNY Buffalo Law School](http://www.law.buffalo.edu/Academics/courses/629/computer_law_policy_articles/CompLawPapers/holland.htm): > [@](#): > > Michael Holland > Computers and the Law > Professor Meyer > 5/10/96 > > Recent trends indicate that the owners and operators of on-line services will sometimes be held liable for what is placed on their services. Recent case law in the United States considering the liability of owners and operators of on-line services for items posted upon bulletin boards exemplify the evolving area of computer law. > > CUBBY, INC. V. COMPUSERVE, INC., the court granted CompuServe Inc. summary judgment based upon the court’s finding that CompuServe served the same purpose as a library. The court stated that CompuServe would have been held liable only if the company knew or had reason to know of the defamatory statement. (Internet and the Law, p. 166). The court found that an agency relationship had not been established since CompuServe did not directly regulate the materials placed upon the electronic bulletin boards. (Internet and the Law, p. 168). > > STRATTON OAKMONT, INC. V. PRODIGY SERVICES CO., the court found that unlike CompuServe, Inc., Prodigy Services Co. did hold itself out to the general public as a publisher because it used software to prescreen messages that were offensive, and therefore was liable for materials that appeared on the Prodigy computer bulletin board. (Internet and the Law, p. 168). Thus, in the United States, the definition of the owner/operator as either a publisher or common carrier will be definitive as to the liability of the owner/operator. (_Internet Publishing Raises Legal Questions; Copyright violations are possible_, Business Insurance, February 26, 1996, p. 21). ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/11 "2011-11-10T15:34:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/12 "2011-11-10T16:05:20Z")
> [@](#): > > "Here’s the thing, Anderson. It’s more than just lies. [TheDirty.com](http://TheDirty.com) is the first ever reality Internet site. Reality TV is so big, I thought of an idea like no one’s doing reality Internet. Let me start the site.” Three things wrong with this quote 1. There are other “reality” websites out there 2. Sarah Jones isn’t a celebrity 3. 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. > **[JuicyCampus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JuicyCampus)** > > JuicyCampus.com was a website focusing on gossip, rumors, and rants related to colleges and universities in the United States. As of February 5, 2009, it is out of business. > JuicyCampus described itself as an enabler of "online anonymous free speech on college campuses". Through strict privacy policies, it allowed users to post messages and comments without having to worry about identification. Readers were able to vote on which posts they found "juiciest", or most provocative. As of March 1... ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/13 "2011-11-10T16:45:17Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/14 "2011-11-10T16:54:52Z")
Nik Ritchie: [“I’m basically a rock star of the internet generation.”](http://abcnews.go.com/2020/We_Find_Them/pro-cheerleader-fights-nasty-online-sex-rumors/story?id=13915596#.TrwAqXKwXPI) “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.” ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/15 "2011-11-10T17:07:18Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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. Maybe it’s [political](http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38540). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/16 "2011-11-10T17:28:22Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > But what I don’t agree with is that this editor is somehow morally culpable for that Morally? Nah. Financially and legally? Sue the prick. Sue him hard. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/17 "2011-11-10T17:38:08Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > 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. Tabloid articles aren’t posted anonymously, and tabloids get sued regularly. ---
**Author:** ![FlyingDragonFan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c89c15/32.png) [@FlyingDragonFan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingDragonFan)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/18 "2011-11-10T17:52:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![DCnDC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dcndc/32/2842_2.png) [@DCnDC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DCnDC)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/19 "2011-11-10T18:02:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Morally? Nah. Financially and legally? Sue the prick. Sue him hard. [She did](http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100826/NEWS010704/308260041/Bengals-cheerleader-wins-11-million-libel-award-from-gossip-website). 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. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2011, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506/20 "2011-11-10T18:11:12Z")
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). [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-nik-ritchie-the-noble-librarian/602506.md?page=2)