ouch

Florida has been in the news a lot lately!!!

That's a ridiculous, ridiculous amount to award (even if it is symbolic only).
Man, I love my adopted country and all, but the justice system over here is whack.

On the flipside, I think the award demonstrates that threats inherent to a broadcast medium like the Internet, when viewed as an instrument of widespread damage, is being taken seriously.

There's a balance to be struck, to be sure. But for the longest time, it seems like people of all types viewed their own accountability as marginal, maybe because of perceived anonymity, or just because of the disconnection of the online environment. I think there are still private and public forums of discussion (its not all fair game, in other words), mind you, but this just shows that in some cases there are serious reprocussions, just as there is in the offline world.

DM out

For a while there, I thought America was loosing its touch when it came to frivolous lawsuits and then it comes roaring back

Seriously though, I agree with Moose that this has set a precedent, but I also agree with Nob. The amount rewarded is ridicolous. I've seen people called worse on the boards.

But at the end of the day, it's just words on a screen and if you don't like it, just press the OFF button.

After reading the entire article, I think we ought to take note of a couple of things... the defendant had no attornety, and did not appear at the trial. So, judgement was by default (the plaintiff can get whatever she asekd for).

Also, the two people involved had previously been involved in a business transaction which is what led to the name-calling. This wasn't just two people having a disagreement online like occurs on a forum such as this one.

The plaintiff could conceivably have suffered damage to her business reputation, thus giving the lawsuit merit. Of course, $11 million is ridculous, no one could lose that much in business.

Just my observations, of course...don't sue me, I'm broke....

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

uh-uh-uh-uh-eleven MILLION!?!?!?!
I hope she can afford to pay that, I am sure she has :Being Sued Insurance", like we all do.

I hope she can afford to pay that,

The news article says she has nothing. The plaintiff will never see a dime, IMO.

Kind of makes one wistful about the days when these sorts of things were settled with pistols at dawn.

Kind of makes one wistful about the days when these sorts of things were settled with pistols at dawn.

Or settle it over a friendly game of sabaac in a darkened cantina...

God Bless,

May the Force be with you...

There you have it kids. Play nice, don't be a troll and don't flame thy fellow posters - they might have a good lawyer

What some people will do for money these days...

Granny-Wan made a good point. These two people were involved in a business arrangement, so they actually met and knew each other. I know that some of the people here have made personal contact, but I'm sure they are in the minority. Anyway, be careful of what you post.

R, TFWBWY, A.

You know, it's funny. By winning this court case, she proved the libel to be true, she is a con artist, a crook, a fraud, and everything else.

Is she gonna read this? Oh well, I'm in Korea, come and get me!!!!

c'mon, someone call me a booger. C'mon!!

Seriously. I need a new yacht.

Seriously. I need a new yacht.
Yeah, I just realized how you suckered us in on your last blog

As an aside, DM makes some valid points, and I got down off my soapbox long enough to digest them, but one should ask if this is indeed setting a precident, or opening the flood gates, IMDb could become a breeding ground for lawsuits...

It seems like definitions are being rewritten every day - Free speech? Slander?

Actually, the more I write this, the more I realise I am on shaky ground, as this was case where someone's business was affected - but there's the germ of an argument here

This lawsuit proving once more that in America, you can sue whoever you want, for whatever reason, for any sum of money and pretty much get away with it.

yea thats a lot of money.

Man, I love my adopted country and all, but the justice system over here is whack.
I would agree, but I'm from America.

I should start sueing kids at highschool for all the stuff they said about me that ruined my rep than. Come on 11 million everyone has had stuff told about them. Celbs should sue tabloids too.

Oboe-Wan's a booger.


I'll go call my lawyer.

On the flipside, I think the award demonstrates that threats inherent to a broadcast medium like the Internet, when viewed as an instrument of widespread damage, is being taken seriously.

There's a balance to be struck, to be sure. But for the longest time, it seems like people of all types viewed their own accountability as marginal, maybe because of perceived anonymity, or just because of the disconnection of the online environment. I think there are still private and public forums of discussion (its not all fair game, in other words), mind you, but this just shows that in some cases there are serious reprocussions, just as there is in the offline world.

DM out

Exactly

Meh. This is hardly surprising anymore. As if the plaintif will see cash...

In other news:

Honestly, what I wanted to see was a visual hook. Raal laid out who would travel with who. But to see Raal and Kes in the same ship as a contradiction would've been a thing -- though it would've taken away from her internal and very isolated monologue. And would've set those two up too quickly. Yeah, you did right. Never mind me.

This is a scary situation! Just think if it happened to that woman. It can happen to anyone in this country. It has me shaken inside. I know I have argued with some members of a forum at rebelscum and star wars in the past. Never would of thought someone would go all the way to hire a lawyer and sue someone for that and even be awarded that much. I guess I better watch what I say from now on. Makes you think! What is the world coming to these days when people sue because of words on a internet message board. Usually if someone did that to me I would ignore them or leave the website. Then again I have never called anyone names on a message board.

SWEET! I can go after everyone whose called me a "hack"!

Whooooo!
Broward County represent!

That is all.

-LFL

It seems like definitions are being rewritten every day - Free speech? Slander?

The way I look at it, free speech continues (although lately, it has taken its share of bodyblows), in much the same way it always has - our right to it is protected until such time as exercising it infringes on other people's rights. There is a difference between idle opinion and an attempt to impact someone else's life negatively.

That's the way its been in the real world for a long time, and that's the way the perception of the Internet is catching up to reality. The days of the Wild Wild Web are fading into something more...civilized.

The ruling makes more sense in terms of something else: the defamatory comments were posted on the first site that ANY of the plaintiff's clients would visit. The legal damages are measurable, and important. Nobody on this site can possibly get sued for the same thing. (Well, maybe. But dissing another blogger isn't enough. An author, maybe)

That's the way its been in the real world for a long time, and that's the way the perception of the Internet is catching up to reality.
See, I knew I was shaky ground - lol

That's a ridiculous, ridiculous amount to award (even if it is symbolic only).
Man, I love my adopted country and all, but the justice system over here is whack.

I beg to differ. Freedom of speech in the United States is, by the very nature of speech, limited. For example, the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not give someone the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room. Nor does it give someone the right to libel or slander someone else. Slander is spoken falsehoods intended to defame or harm a person and/or their reputation. Libel is the same thing, only published. Juries in the U.S. have awarded similar sums of money in libel suits before. (continued)

What's unique about this case is that it appears to be the first time a jury has awarded damages based on items published online and that the defendant wasn't in court at the time of judgement. In this case, I feel that the court should have made sure that the defendant was available to present her side of the story before the jury reached a verdict, but really I have no quarrel with the sum awarded. Let this be a lesson to those who publish items either on or off the internet. Libelous comments have no place in published dialogue!

Celbs should sue tabloids too.

In case you haven't noticed, celeberties sue tabloids all the time and win. (It makes me wonder where tabloids find the money to continue publishing. )

I feel that the court should have made sure that the defendant was available to present her side of the story before the jury reached a verdict

That was the surprising part for me. Obviously, defendants (and sometimes plaintiffs!) don't turn up for court for nefarious reasons, but surely someone had noticed the big hurricane. A bit more effort be made to locate the defendant than sending a couple of letters to her old address...

A sensible judge should have simply refused to set a trail date until the defendant had been contacted. The ruling is only going to end up being appealed, wasting everyone's time.

Not to say she wasn't in the wrong! After all, she received the service she asked for.