Courts craking down on defamation sites.

[MP Guy]

Interesting read especially for bloggers:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm


And


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-10-02-bloggers-courts_x.htm

 

[Ken F.]

Thanks Jorge,

Yet, another fear to add to the list!

Cheers,
kf

 

[Todd.Hanz]

tread lightly

 

[dexdog]

I don't think that this is remarkable. Defamation, slander and libel cases have been around for a long time. This is only different in that the medium used to defame is the internet.

 

[dll927]

There's an old saying that you can't get blood out of a turnip. So if the lady who won the suit feels vindicated, she doesn't have much to show for it. Seems to me a rather long stretch just to prove a point.

I was once on a jury in a case that was a sideline to a child custody battle. Those can get vicious.

 

[BrianShaw]

Shouldn't this thread be in "off Topic"... there is no apparent rangefinder camera issue to discuss. Interesting to some, I suppose, but off topic it seems.

 

[ampguy]

if there is a point here, to me it is that if your house gets washed away, and you don't show up to court, or get a court appointed attorney, you will lose the case.

What is not a point here, at least not made clear to me in the article, is that justice was served in the original complaint.

 

[40oz]

I'm not sure this sets any precedent, as there was no defense. The winning side won by default, not on the strength of their arguments. As has been stated, the basis for the case is nothing new. The circumstances might be mildly unusual, and the award might be a tad high, but other than that, not worth thinking about.

 

[bob cole]

Courts cracking down on defamation sites

Courts cracking down on defamation sites

The sermon here is, Be Nice...