Internet forum admin, posters sued for "Emotional Distr

[Dominus Atheos]

Slashdot

Reuters reports that two women at Yale Law School have filed suit for defamation and infliction of emotional distress against an administrator and 28 anonymous posters on AutoAdmit (a.k.a. Xoxohth), a popular law student discussion site. Experts are watching to see if the suit will unmask the posters, who are identified in the complaint only by their pseudonyms. Since AutoAdmit's administrators have previously said that they do not retain IP logs of posters, identifying the defendants may test the limits of the legal system and anonymity on the Internet. So far, one method tried was to post the summons on the message board itself and ask the defendants to step forward.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any emotional distress I may have caused on this board since I signed up, and point out that I use Tor.

[Dominus Atheos]

I swear the title had the "ess" on the end of it when I hit submit.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Jerry Falwell Vs. Larry Flynt could protect quite a bit of what we do here.

[Crown]

Jerry Falwell Vs. Larry Flynt could protect quite a bit of what we do here.

That was (if the movie was accurate) due to the fact that the case came down to if anyone could believe the accusations printed in 'Hustler' as being in anyway credible.

On the issue at hand, this isn't surprising that it happend (that it occured on a Law forum is just poetic justice) and frankly it's not something that we should mock off. As much as we like to say 'have a thick skin' and 'it's only words', say the wrong thing to Mike (and I'm even thinking about a racial slur here) and he will ban your ass (rightfully so) faster than you could blink.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Jerry Falwell Vs. Larry Flynt could protect quite a bit of what we do here.

That was (if the movie was accurate) due to the fact that the case came down to if anyone could believe the accusations printed in 'Hustler' as being in anyway credible.

On the issue at hand, this isn't surprising that it happend (that it occured on a Law forum is just poetic justice) and frankly it's not something that we should mock off. As much as we like to say 'have a thick skin' and 'it's only words', say the wrong thing to Mike (and I'm even thinking about a racial slur here) and he will ban your ass (rightfully so) faster than you could blink.

I was thinking about the vicious riffing of people and the open posting of their humiliaitions, which can be seen as a form of satire. Definitely protected would be the old GSDA awards shows, for instance.

[Crown]

... say the wrong thing to Mike (and I'm even thinking about a racial slur here) and he ...

Egetto Edit :: Sorry the above should read;

... say the wrong thing to Mike (and I'm not even thinking about a racial slur here) and he

[Solauren]

I believe the forums polices are quite rather well stated in the rules forums, including the fact you can, and WILL be mocked, humilatied and so forth.

Plus, it's in Canada, therefore Canadian Law.

[Surlethe]

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for any emotional distress I may have caused on this board since I signed up, and point out that I use Tor.

I'm gonna fucking sue you. And SirNitram. And Darth Wong. And everyone else who's flamed me in the past two years. I could have been an emotionally well-adjusted person instead of the callous asshole that I am!

On a more serious note, ironically, according to the NPR story on ATC yesterday, the only person who has actually felt any real-life effects is a moderator named in the suit. He had a job offer retracted once the hiring law firm heard he was mixed up in this. I don't recall that either of the chicks who are suing had any hard evidence that they'd lost possible jobs because of being flamed or insulted anonymously on the forum.

[Edi]

Free speech protections do not cover libel, but libel protection does not exist in the US because the laws there require proof of negative as default for establishing that libel has been committed.

[Soontir C'boath]

AutoAdmit's administrators have previously said that they do not retain IP logs of posters, identifying the defendants may test the limits of the legal system and anonymity on the Internet. So far, one method tried was to post the summons on the message board itself and ask the defendants to step forward.

That if those users aren't stupid, will never happen.

[Glocksman]

Free speech protections do not cover libel, but libel protection does not exist in the US because the laws there require proof of negative as default for establishing that libel has been committed.

While libel laws vary somewhat from state to state, here's a good summary of US libel laws.
The Florida bar has a much simpler one up as well. Link

Generally, defamation consists of: (1) a false statement of fact about another; (2) an unprivileged publication of that statement to a third party; (3) some degree of fault, depending on the type of case; and (4) some harm or damage. Libel is defamation by the printed word and slander is defamation by the spoken word.

If the statement is made about a public official - for example, a police officer, mayor, school superintendent - or a public figure - that is a generally prominent person or a person who is actively involved in a public controversy, then it must be proven that the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether the statement was true or false. In other words, the fact that the statement was false is not enough to recover for defamation. On the other hand, if the statement was made about a private person, then it must be proven that the false statement was made without reasonable care as to whether the statement was true or false.

My understanding is that in the US the presumption is on the plaintiff to prove that the statements are both false and defamatory (along with actual malice if the person suing is a 'public figure'), whereas in many other countries the onus is on the speaker to prove the statements are true.

[Edi]

My understanding is that in the US the presumption is on the plaintiff to prove that the statements are both false and defamatory (along with actual malice if the person suing is a 'public figure'), whereas in many other countries the onus is on the speaker to prove the statements are true.

I.e. to establish that libel has been committed, proof of a negative is required. Hence no protection against libel exists.

[Glocksman]

My understanding is that in the US the presumption is on the plaintiff to prove that the statements are both false and defamatory (along with actual malice if the person suing is a 'public figure'), whereas in many other countries the onus is on the speaker to prove the statements are true.

I.e. to establish that libel has been committed, proof of a negative is required. Hence no protection against libel exists.

The US standard makes it more difficult for the plaintiff but does not make it impossible, thus there is protection.

A successful suit was pursued by Carol Burnett. and there are others mentioned in this piece

In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.

Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.

It's a balancing act between the right to be free from slander or defamation and the chilling effect that even meritless suits (due to the costs of defense) would have on free speech.

This Salon piece on why 'House of Bush, House of Saud' wasn't initally published in Britain is an illustration of such a chilling effect.

March 23, 2004 | A controversial new book that casts a critical eye on the three-decade-old relationship between the Bush and Saud families, "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties," by Craig Unger, has been dropped by its British publisher just weeks before it was scheduled to arrive in stores. Making its decision in the shadow of the aggressive use of the British legal system and its plaintiff-friendly libel laws by wealthy Saudis, the publisher has backed down from issuing the book.

"We've had to withdraw it for legal reasons," says an editor at Secker & Warburg, a U.K. division of Random House. "We expected we would be able to publish it with a degree of risk. But regrettably in the final analysis we decided we could not."

"Essentially it's been quashed," says author Craig Unger. Scribner published the book in the United States on March 16. (Shortly before that, Salon ran exclusive excerpts from the book.)

Unger's literary agent Elizabeth Sheinkman stresses the decision had nothing to do with the book's quality and that Secker & Warburg editors "were very excited about" the manuscript. "But they were concerned that it could be very costly for them," she says. "In the process of having it legally vetted they were ultimately advised it would be dangerous to publish the book. Or rather, the likelihood of Random House [U.K.] being sued by the Saudis was too likely for them to go forward."

The allure of the British libel laws has spawned a new practice, dubbed "libel tourism," conducted by foreigners who fly to England to file lawsuits against press outlets. The Guardian newspaper reported one case last year, having to do with the Sept. 11 attacks: "A group of wealthy Saudi businessmen are suing for libel in the high court over separate allegations that they may have helped to finance Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. The Saudis, who say the allegations are untrue, have made London the venue of choice for their defamation actions because of the globally recognized reputation of a judgment under English law, which is notoriously claimant friendly in libel cases."

Perhaps the most important of those cases stems from a 2002 article in the Wall Street's Journal's European edition, "Saudi Officials Monitor Certain Bank Accounts." It reported Saudi authorities were monitoring about 150 bank accounts for possible suspicious activity related to terrorism. Among the accounts being watched, according to the Journal, were two maintained by the Jeddah-based Jameel family, which operates the world's largest independent Toyota dealership.

Mohammed Jameel, president of the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, sued the Journal for defamation. In part because the Journal could not independently prove the article's accusation, London's high court ruled in Jameel's favor late last year

While US libel laws could be improved, I'd much rather have the US's basic presumption than the UK's WRT who has to prove what.

[Keevan_Colton]

Except Veritas is absolute protection in the UK, if you have evidence to support your claims or statements then you are totally protected from any action.

There are further protections for fair comment/parody and reasonable assumptions. But in the end, you have to show that you knew what you said was reasonable.

That's without even getting into the more complex defenses. All you need to do is show that what you say is true and you are free and clear in the UK with regards to any defemation suits.

The US where someone can say shit about you without any proof and then you must prove that their claims are false in order to recieve justice is frankly retarded, and any moaning about chilling effects is just so much bullshit. Frankly, a chilling effect on BS without evidence is a GOOD thing.

[Keevan_Colton]

The fact is that WSJ case you mention flat out says they couldnt provide evidence to support their claims. That is classic defemation...

[Glocksman]

The fact is that WSJ case you mention flat out says they couldnt provide evidence to support their claims. That is classic defemation...

The House of Lords disagrees

Journalists have won the freedom to publish news articles that contain allegations about public figures without the threat from libel.

As long as their reporting is in the public interest, and has been undertaken in a seriously responsible manner, then it can be published without repercussions under English law.

Such is the verdict of The House of Lords, which yesterday found that even if newsworthy allegations later emerge as defamatory and false, journalists can publish without fear of reprisals.

The Lords were concerned with an article published in 2002 by the Wall Street Journal, “an unsensational newspaper,” they said, which stated that Saudi officials were cooperating with the US government in monitoring bank accounts.

The February 2 article, entitled, "Saudi Officials Monitor Certain Bank Accounts," was found to have defamed a Saudi businessman and a company belonging to his business group, of which he is president, two courts found.

But the Lords dismissed these verdicts, disagreeing with both the High Court and the Appeal Court, which stated the WSJ should pay £40,000 to the defamed businessman, Mohammed Jameel.

[General Zod]

As long as their reporting is in the public interest, and has been undertaken in a seriously responsible manner, then it can be published without repercussions under English law.

Such is the verdict of The House of Lords, which yesterday found that even if newsworthy allegations later emerge as defamatory and false, journalists can publish without fear of reprisals.

This only seems to apply to public figures, and only when dealing with reporting that follows specific guidelines, not private individuals. I don't see how this contradicts Keevan's statement.

[Glocksman]

As long as their reporting is in the public interest, and has been undertaken in a seriously responsible manner, then it can be published without repercussions under English law.

Such is the verdict of The House of Lords, which yesterday found that even if newsworthy allegations later emerge as defamatory and false, journalists can publish without fear of reprisals.

This only seems to apply to public figures, and only when dealing with reporting that follows specific guidelines, not private individuals. I don't see how this contradicts Keevan's statement.

He appeared to be agreeing with the ruling that the WSJ was liable for the defamation and the Lords are saying they weren't.
If I read more into that than he intended, then it doesn't contradict his statement.

[Keevan_Colton]

Perhaps you missed this bit:

As long as their reporting is in the public interest, and has been undertaken in a seriously responsible manner, then it can be published without repercussions under English law.

I touched upon this by saying there are other defenses, particularly for reasonable assumptions based upon evidence. Providing the evidence was reasonable and credible at the time, and all due care was taken to verify it, AND reasonable chance to respond was afforded at the time...then you can be clear. The standard is that of the reasonable man, given the evidence available, is the conclusion one that would be reached by a reasonable person with the same information?

If the answer is yes, then you're probably okay...unless you fail to exercise all the options open to you to verify or falsify the information.

There are further paramaters relating to who the public interest refers to, which generally include the usual issues of crime, corruption and hypocracy...but an issue being in the public interest does not exempt it from due care.

[Glocksman]

The US where someone can say shit about you without any proof and then you must prove that their claims are false in order to recieve justice is frankly retarded, and any moaning about chilling effects is just so much bullshit. Frankly, a chilling effect on BS without evidence is a GOOD thing.

The chilling effect even losing suits would have in the US under the UK standards would be substantial due to the fact that we don't have a 'loser pays' rule.
In fact, we even have an acronym ffor lawsuits filed just to silence or bankrupt critics: SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

If we had a national 'loser pays' rule along with a strong anti SLAPP statute, I'd be more comfortable with the UK standard.

[Keevan_Colton]

So if it actually was like the UK system then it would be fine?

...then again the fact the US doesnt have a loser pays style system in place for lawsuits is a major failing in the first place, without even getting in to defamation.

[Glocksman]

So if it actually was like the UK system then it would be fine?

...then again the fact the US doesnt have a loser pays style system in place for lawsuits is a major failing in the first place, without even getting in to defamation.

To a degree, yes, though Lipstadt's headaches dealing with David Irving's lawsuit* would prevent me from saying we should adopt it wholesale.
Probably some kind of hybrid would be best, though what form it'd take would be up to the lawyers.

*I read a book about the case and she spent hundreds of hours dealing with the lawsuit. Money doesn't compensate for everything.

[Edi]

The US where someone can say shit about you without any proof and then you must prove that their claims are false in order to recieve justice is frankly retarded, and any moaning about chilling effects is just so much bullshit. Frankly, a chilling effect on BS without evidence is a GOOD thing.

The chilling effect even losing suits would have in the US under the UK standards would be substantial due to the fact that we don't have a 'loser pays' rule.
In fact, we even have an acronym ffor lawsuits filed just to silence or bankrupt critics: SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

If we had a national 'loser pays' rule along with a strong anti SLAPP statute, I'd be more comfortable with the UK standard.

Just more evidence that your so-called justice system is completely fucked up from top to bottom and stacked in favor of those with the deepest pockets, who can then do whatever they fucking will.

The de facto status quo is that under the US system, you have no protection against libel unless you have seriously deep pockets to pursue it in court against parties that will have at the very least hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw away on it, probably more.

Theoretically, Ferrari cars are available to anyone who wants them. In practice, they are available to only those with enough money. See the analogy?

[Glocksman]

Just more evidence that your so-called justice system is completely fucked up from top to bottom and stacked in favor of those with the deepest pockets, who can then do whatever they fucking will.

You know, I initially was going to try to disprove this statement but I realized that I believe the same thing and have said we have a fucked up system any number of times.
I guess it was a reflexive 'defend the US against foreign critics' reaction.

That said, the system does work at times but it's damning that the instances of when it does are news, not when the instances of when it doesn't.

[Superman]

I wonder if anyone here in the States has tried to sue for something like this (not just the silly shit heads who threaten to do it).