The New Announcement by Ed

[Tranquilis]

Sunuvabitch.

Minty, are you trying to educate us? In the Pit?! There’s got to be a rule against that!

[Larry_Mudd]

Feh on the litiguous creep, and feh on the ignorant doofus who aroused his/her ire.

But double-feh on the litiguous creep, for forcing folks at the Chicago Reader to question wether maintaining this database is worth the potential liability.

Feh, Feh, I say.

[zut]

*Originally posted by reprise *
I hate to point out the obvious, but the CR doesn’t consider this messageboard as having enough “goodwill” value to spend money on replacing the server - they sure as heck can’t be expected to regard it as being worth the cost of either legal fees spent on defending defamation actions or increased insurance premiums…

This is probably a silly question, but suppose, on an off chance, that “Poster A” continues threatening the message board, and the Chicago Reader the decides that the hassle ain’t worth it and shuts down the message board. Would I (or any other member) have a case against “Poster A” for essentially using a frivolous lawsuit to shut down the board and therby depriving me of hours of fun and enjoyment, and making my life a duller place? Just how tenuous would that be?

[reprise]

Nope, you wouldn’t have a damages claim at all.

And nor should you.

Can I sue the publishing company if my favourite magazine shuts down? No, I can’t.

The CR could - if they wished - take legal action against the lodging of a frivolous lawsuit against them, but it would be economic insanity to do so unless they had the resources of Bill Gates or Ted Turner at their disposal.

[Biggirl]

What causes usually O.K. people to freak out like that? I don’t remember Poster B[sup]anned[/sup] being so damned thin-skinned before. Poster A[sup]t large[/sup] has slipped people’s minds because he may have been more of a newbie.

Sheesh. That B guy, whatta maroon.

[Una_Persson]

*Originally posted by reprise *
The devil with defamation actions is that they are extremely expensive to defend even if the court vindicates you in the end - something which the insurers of media outlets (and the CR is most certainly one of those) take into account when deciding their premiums.

All the more reason to move to a “loser pays” system for defamation actions.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
Poster A[sup]t large[/sup] has slipped people’s minds because he may have been more of a newbie.

Newbishness was not a problem there.

[reprise]

Neither party was a “newbie”.

[Enderw24]

Libel is a defamatory statement expressed in a permanent medium. Generally speaking, there are two different levels for libel: that of public and that of private individuals. The standards for a private individual is that the libelous statement must be untruthful and cause damage. For a public individual there must be malice in the false statement. The interesting question here is whether the private individual is actually a public individual with regards to these boards.

[Enderw24]

*Originally posted by Enderw24 *
Libel is a when I tell all the assholes nerds geeks and goat felchers on these boards that they can suck my dog’s teat. For the guys on these boards, a gorrilla after going three rounds with Lorena Bobbit has a penis bigger than yours. If the women that posted in this thread were any flatter, they’d be concave. I even heard that a few of you claim to be trimaphrodites: people with three sets of genitalia. I have it on good authority you use it to fuck yourselves.

Ender, that wasn’t very nice at all. I demand an apology.

[Michael_Ellis]

My God! Ender’s his own sock puppet! RUN!!!

[reprise]

Ender, my love; I think it’s been pretty well established that should poster B choose to sue the CR the action would not succeed but would cost the CR enough in either legal charges or increased insurance premiums that the action alone would pretty much spell the death of the SDMB.

As minty has pointed out, there are some way odd laws relating to defamation still on the books world-wide, and while no sane court court would make judgements on the basis of archaic laws, it’s not always open to judges to INTERPRET the law.

There’s a whole new, and very funny, thread which could be started about “laws which still exist which it would be totally stupid to enforce and I’d like to see someone try”. God knows, this country still has laws on it’s books which date from 200 years before Australia was even DISCOVERED (let me talk to you international lawyers about the abolition of tenures ordinance which dates from the reign of Charles the First).
Let’s just use the term “defamation” here, instead of “libel” or “slander”. A messageboard is no less a “permanent” form because the admins can delete it’s whole existence at the push of a button than a newsletter isn’t “permanent” isn’t permanent because all known copies of it have been shredded.

I know and understand the legal point you are trying to make Ender, but would I somehow be in LESS violation of copyright laws should I choose to post someone else’s work here just because this messageboard is “temporary”. You and I both know that for the purposes of copyright laws messageboards can be held to be “permanent” publication. If they can held to be permanent in respect of copyright, then they can most certainly be held to be permanent in terms of defamation, if anyone really wants to spend the money to pursue the issue…

[Typo_Negative]

If put-near everybody already knows whose these folks are, what’s the harm in telling the rest of us who they are in this thread?

I’m dying to know. PLEEASE TELLMEEEEEEEEE!!!

[reprise]

spooje, the cabal ™ doesn’t exist. We have no idea what you are talking about…(although you were online at the time…).

[Efrem]

I can’t stand it, I need to know who A/B are. Please email me… EMAIL ME… EMAIL ME!!! Please

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by Enderw24 *
The interesting question here is whether the private individual is actually a public individual with regards to these boards. **

No. Here’s a good description of the two types of public figures:

General-purpose public figures are those individuals who have achieved such pervasive fame or notoriety that they become public figures for all purposes and in all contexts. See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 351, 94 S.Ct. 2997. Limited-purpose public figures, on the other hand, are only public figures for a limited range of issues surrounding a particular public controversy. See id.

    To determine whether an individual is a limited-purpose public figure, the Fifth Circuit has adopted a three-part test:

(1) the controversy at issue must be public both in the sense that people are discussing it and people other than the immediate participants in the controversy are likely to feel the impact of its resolution;

(2) the plaintiff must have more than a trivial or tangential role in the controversy; and

(3) the alleged defamation must be germane to the plaintiff’s participation in the controversy.

    Trotter, 818 F.2d at 433 (citing Tavoulareas v. Piro, 817 F.2d 762, 772-73 (D.C.Cir.1987) (en banc)); see also Waldbaum v. Fairchild Pub., Inc. 627 F.2d 1287, 1296-98 (D.C.Cir.1980).

WFAA-TV, Inc. v. McLemore, 978 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. 1998).

[Geobabe]

In case nobody else has noticed this yet, the lawsuit threat has been withdrawn. Ed posted an update to the announcement.

[minty_green]

Yay! Sanity prevails!

[Biggirl]

I didn’t say his problem was newbiness. I’m saying people who read the thread don’t remember him because he is a relative newbie.

I’m glad B has calmed down.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**I’m glad B has calmed down. **

Ditto,

But is he allowed back?

The previous “I don’t like what someone said, so I’m gonna suuuue the SDMB!” person wasn’t allowed back. So I’m curious.

Fenris