I pit Nik Ritchie, the noble "Librarian"

[Bryan_Ekers]

Well, what can she collect from some college schmuck with a computer, anyway? His collection of rare and vintage Family Guy downloads?

[Skywatcher]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, what can she collect from some college schmuck with a computer, anyway?

The schmuck is allegedly in cahoots with Ben Quayle (Dan’s son).

[curlcoat]

@Love_Rhombus

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.

The guy is a jackass, but that Anderson Cooper site isn’t doing her a lot of favors either, continuing to say she is a CHEERLEADER and only occasionally adding oh, yeah, and a teacher.

[saoirse]

@curlcoat

The guy is a jackass, but that Anderson Cooper site isn’t doing her a lot of favors either, continuing to say she is a CHEERLEADER and only occasionally adding oh, yeah, and a teacher.

I think the issue is that she’s a cheerleader, which Ritchie thinks makes her a public figure, with less legal protections. I’m not sure what the legality of it is, put it certanly is disgusting. Funny thing is, it’s almost certainly not true at all. Cheerleaders aren’t allowed to have sex with the players (which they could probably manage to do anyway) or to go on dates them (which they definitely couldn’t). If the guy posts something demonstrably untrue, he ought to get ruined over it.

[curlcoat]

@saoirse

I think the issue is that she’s a cheerleader, which Ritchie thinks makes her a public figure, with less legal protections.

Ah! Hmmm. But why would Anderson Cooper keep harping on the fact she is a cheerleader, and occasionally mention she is also a teacher?

(Of course I have no idea who Cooper is so maybe he is a sleaze too - he just doesn’t look like one. :D)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Because cheerleaders are newsworthy and sexy and teachers aren’t. Cooper is in the ratings business.

[Little_Nemo]

@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.

A tabloid newspaper or magazine would be liable if they did the same thing Ritchie did.

[curlcoat]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Because cheerleaders are newsworthy and sexy and teachers aren’t. Cooper is in the ratings business.

Oh yeah, duh. Guess I should have realized that.

[D_Odds]

@DCnDC

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.

She won because the site did not defend itself.

Despite Lute’s postings, I think (not knowing fully how the website is run) that it may not have been liable. To the best of my layman’s knowledge, it comes down to whether or not ‘Nik Ritchie’ exercises editorial control. I also know that requests can be made to remove material, but I don’t know what the owner’s duty is to determine fact. If someone wanted to write that D_Odds is an overweight, middle-aged man, I can claim its a lie and ask for it to be removed even though it may be true. If it is true, that is an absolute defense against libel. Is the owner responsible for determining truth in this case?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Hey guys, quick note to those wondering. The difference between that site and The Pit? If your opinion is bullshit in the pit, it quickly gets buried under the many people who will tell you such.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Lute Skywatcher

From SUNY Buffalo Law School:

In other words, the guy has MORE legal liability if he makes any attempt to filter or edit the posts.

So if he continues in business, he’s not going to change him MO at all.

[Darth_Panda]

@D_Odds

She won because the site did not defend itself.

Unfortunately, it looks like she won because she sued the wrong website…

Boston | Blogs & Videos | Barstool Sports

lastangryfan.com

This things looks really old, what’s going on here?

[Justin_Bailey]

I just looked at TheDirty.com (I can practically smell the stink of Axe coming off my computer) and it looks like every post is approved and edited by Nik himself. So he’s not a librarian, he’s a content creator, and it’s only a matter of time until he gets sued into oblivion.

Though, if we must look at the other side, he does include a button to report a post that contains untruthful material on every single story. So any future litigation would likely point to that as his “out.”

[D_Odds]

@Justin_Bailey

I just looked at TheDirty.com (I can practically smell the stink of Axe coming off my computer) and it looks like every post is approved and edited by Nik himself. So he’s not a librarian, he’s a content creator, and it’s only a matter of time until he gets sued into oblivion.

Though, if we must look at the other side, he does include a button to report a post that contains untruthful material on every single story. So any future litigation would likely point to that as his “out.”

If that is true, I agree. The “out” will only work if he removes “untruthful material” (although how he might determine what is untruthful versus just hurtful truth is beyond me) in a timely fashion. If he is editing and approving, he might be liable if he is consistently negligent in vetting stories (IANAL). This isn’t talk around the watercooler. This is widely disseminated and easily accessed information that has great potential to be defaming. National Enquirer does get sued (though sometimes it comes back to bite the plaintiff in the ass, aka The Streisand Effect). I doubt this Ritchie character can afford the legal resources the Enquirer has.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Boyo_Jim

In other words, the guy has MORE legal liability if he makes any attempt to filter or edit the posts.

This is what happens when people quote old articles on rapidly evolving areas of law. The Prodigy decision is no longer good law, having been reversed by Congress.

[Skywatcher]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

This is what happens when people quote old articles on rapidly evolving areas of law. The Prodigy decision is no longer good law, having been reversed by Congress.

Okay, but what about the two badbusinessbureau cases mentioned in that link?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The what now?

[Skywatcher]

@Wikipedia

Defamatory information

MCW, Inc. v. badbusinessbureau.com(RipOff Report/Ed Magedson/XCENTRIC Ventures LLC) 2004 WL 833595, No. Civ.A.3:02-CV-2727-G, (N.D. Tex. April 19, 2004).[8]
The court rejected the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the grounds of Section 230 immunity, ruling that the plaintiff’s allegations that the defendants wrote disparaging report titles and headings, and themselves wrote disparaging editorial messages about the plaintiff, rendered them information content providers. The Web site, www.badbusinessbureau.com, allows users to upload “reports” containing complaints about businesses they have dealt with.

Hy Cite Corp. v. badbusinessbureau.com (RipOff Report/Ed Magedson/XCENTRIC Ventures LLC), 418 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (D. Ariz. 2005).[9]
The court rejected immunity and found the defendant was an “information content provider” under Section 230 using much of the same reasoning as the MCW case.

..

[Simplicio]

@Lute Skywatcher

The schmuck is allegedly in cahoots with Ben Quayle (Dan’s son).

Well, the source for that seems to be the self-same schmuck. Who is a schmuck because he’s helping people spread damaging rumors about others. So I think I’d view those allegations with the same skepticism as those involving Sarah Jones having sex with the football team.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Lute Skywatcher

Okay, but what about the two badbusinessbureau cases mentioned in that link?

Different facts.

I’m not sure what Ritchie contributes to the posts on his sites, but badbusinessbureau.com contributed actual content themselves (editorials and headings for user-generated content). The key for the purposes of §230 is just that: whether the defendant is a content generator itself. From Nemet Chevrolet v. Consumeraffairs.com, 564 F.Supp.2d 544:

Factually, MCW [one of the badbusiness cases] is very similar to this case. There, the plaintiff was a corporation engaged in the business of helping individuals seeking individual job and career counseling. Defendant operated an internet-based consumer complaint forum. In addition to posting consumer complaints, Defendants used the site to “solicit donations, sell advertising space, assist and encourage the formation of class action law suits, charge promotional fees on amounts collected by consumers, and advertise and sell ‘rip-off revenge’ packs that encourage consumers to avenge themselves on companies.” The complaint in MCW alleged that the defendants “reproduce[d] and/or us[ed] the Bernard Haldane marks and confusingly similar variations thereof-without any consent or authorization-in connection with the publishing and posting of false, misleading and disparaging statements about MCW and its goods or services on the defendants web sites.” Defendant asserted five causes of action: 1) unfair competition under the Lanham Act; 2) false advertising under the Lanham Act; 3) unfair competition under Texas common law; 4) business disparagement under Texas common law; and 5) trademark infringement under Texas common law. Id. In MCW, the Court found that immunity did not exist because “MCWs claims are clearly based on the disparaging titles, headings, and editorial messages that MCW alleges the defendants created.”

Plaintiffs point to MCW in their Opposition in support of their argument that Defendant’s creation of titles and headings and solicitation of comments and dissemination of information to attorneys serves to strip Defendant of any asserted immunity. MCW is easily distinguished on this issue in several ways. Nowhere in the Complaint in this matter have Plaintiffs made any claims pertaining to the creation of titles and headings by Defendant, let alone any injury suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of such headings. The Court in MCW also found the defendants to be information content providers, however the active conduct alleged pertaining to the defendants in that matter are far more severe and sufficiently distinct from the conduct alleged in the Complaint here. In MCW, the defendants were encouraging posters to take pictures to add to the website, and were actively soliciting postings. There have been no allegations as to any such active solicitation of information by Defendants in this matter.

My bolding. The fact that TheDirty solicits postings might work against it here, as the court notes. The fact that it edits user generated content probably doesn’t, unless it is adding stuff.