Results 1 to 16 of 16
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649

    website owners can not be sued for libel

    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    969
    Il def have a look if you can find a link for that
    Jon Black

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,345
    Good..

    Nice...

    Hot...

    Beautiful...


    Peace,
    Testing 1.. Testing 1..2.. Testing 1..2..3...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    Good for once a United States court makes a half decent decision
    I could tell you a joke about UDP. But I'm not sure you would get it!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,649
    i am not sure if this is a smart thing or a dangerous precedent.

    on the one hand, people should be able to tell the truth.

    on the other hand, people are not always careful and may stretch the truth a little bit or even use this to truly libel people and get away with it.

    on the other other hand, libel is libel. that means it is a lie. how is that ok>?
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,235
    libel is libel, that's up to a court to prove. that's also between the author and the 'vicitim'.

    it has nothing to do with the publishers, who should now be left alone.
    <erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Kalamazoo
    Posts
    33,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Lauren Stephens
    i am not sure if this is a smart thing or a dangerous precedent...
    I don't see nuthin' wrong with having recourse against the originator of the statement.
    '... plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement.'
    Another report.
    There is no best host. There is only the host that's best for you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London UK
    Posts
    1,235

    *

    Quote Originally Posted by SoftWareRevue
    I don't see nuthin' wrong with having recourse against the originator of the statement.
    does this mean less of my posts will go missing?
    <erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Newport Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,923
    I agree with SoftWareRevue completely.
    Show your reciprocal links on your website. eReferrer

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    China
    Posts
    354
    Thank goodness they overturned that san francisco communist ruling. All this does is not make me liable for some idiot who posts libel on MY blog or forums.

    This does NOT mean you can't be sued if YOU PERSONALLY put on libel content (not a third party who posted it to your site).


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,499
    I don't agree with the premise that the webpage owner is analogous to a telephone company. We expect the phone company to not be monitoring every telephone conversation. A webpage owner is in a position to see what is posted. Even if it's too extensive to constantly monitor, there is an opportunity to respond to complaints, examine the disputed material, and to decide what material remains posted.
    I think that this ruling opens the door to protecting libel by pseudo-proxy. A person wanting to post libelous statements could offer an ostensibly "public" forum and then be his or her own anonymous "customer" to post the libelous statements.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    896
    The internet would effectivly shut down if carriers were held liable Im sure WHT would disappear!

    So would all other blogs, forums or anything thats allows for descussion.
    I could tell you a joke about UDP. But I'm not sure you would get it!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kuwait
    Posts
    5,104
    '... plaintiffs who contend they were defamed in an Internet posting may only seek recovery from the original source of the statement.'
    This makes sense, otherwise you would see people suing everyone that ever linked to, posted about, had a feed parsed on their website of the alleged libel.

    However, I don't know how this (or any other law) can be enforced on the net. If I write something about you from China on a server based in the US, and then it is copied onto a blog in the UK, you'll have a hard time trying to sue me

    Something to think about now that these laws are coming about trying to regulate the Internet. Law is useless unless you can enforce it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Newport Beach, CA
    Posts
    2,923
    Quote Originally Posted by Disgruntled
    I don't agree with the premise that the webpage owner is analogous to a telephone company. We expect the phone company to not be monitoring every telephone conversation. A webpage owner is in a position to see what is posted. Even if it's too extensive to constantly monitor, there is an opportunity to respond to complaints, examine the disputed material, and to decide what material remains posted.
    I think that this ruling opens the door to protecting libel by pseudo-proxy. A person wanting to post libelous statements could offer an ostensibly "public" forum and then be his or her own anonymous "customer" to post the libelous statements.
    My guess would be that you do not own a hosting company.

    There is NO WAY a host can monitor and track every single page of every single customer. even if they're small. it's a monumental task and it's just not feasable.

    Also, if you think they should hold the hosting company responsible you do realize that would effectively eliminate every forum on the web right? what host is going to take a chance at letting people post what they want if he knows that he can get sued if they say the wrong thing? What happens when a disgruntled user wants the forum to suffer when he gets banned?

    To make the host responsible is just not right.
    Show your reciprocal links on your website. eReferrer

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boise, ID U.S.A.
    Posts
    3,499
    The article says:
    Overturning a decision by the San Francisco appeal court, the court ruled that people claiming they were defamed online could now only seek damages from the original author of the comments - and not the website which re-posted it.
    and
    The lawsuit involved a health activist who posted someone else's letter on her web site. The subject of the letter sued the activist - as well as the author - for libel.

    A webpage owner is not as many steps removed from the content as the hosting company.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Europe - Asia - Usa
    Posts
    621
    I'm ok with this ruling. However I would hope this means that once person or site X finds their info to be false, they remove "said comment or statement" and in not doing so in X amount of time, should make them liable.
    Since April 2001 Atlantis Services - Proudly servicing everyone's web hosting needs!
    Quote: There is no such thing as "The Best" web hosting provider, but rather only what is best for YOU

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •