# Defamation: Spreading false rumors online can lead to BIG trouble.



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 26, 2015)

There are two main types of defamation: libel, or written defamation, and slander, or verbal defamation. When a potentially defamatory statement is made online or through social media that involves the written (or "posted") word, and so it is considered libel.



*The Problem of Online Defamation*
The internet and social media are certainly a great thing for people and society in general, but they are also a uniquely effective breeding ground for potentially libelous statements.

Many people have learned (to their dismay) that the internet allows people to speak their mind almost too easily. The internet is chock-full of interesting web sites where someone could intentionally or accidentally leave a potentially defamatory comment or post.

Just a few of these locations are:


letters to the editor of local newspapers
public comments on media (i.e., newspaper or magazine) web sites
blogs and comments to blog postings
social media 
chat rooms or listservers.
While some web sites screen posts for inflammatory or illegal content, the screening systems are not geared to examine every post for defamatory content, and so many defamatory postings end up online.

*What State’s Law Applies? Where Can I Sue?*
This is a complicated issue that depends on what state you live in, what state the alleged defamer lives in, and the contacts that the defamer has had with your state, if any. If you think that you have been defamed online, you should contact a qualified attorney as soon as possible to discuss your legal options and the best course of action.

*Can You Sue an Internet Service Provider?*
One reason you might want to sue the host or internet service provider (ISP) of the website that posted a defamatory statement is the "deep pockets" argument.

ISPs or website hosts might have more money -- and therefore more ability to pay a judgment -- than some blogger who posted a defamatory statement about you. But, for better or for worse, a federal law called the Communications Decency Act has specifically exempted website hosts and ISPs from most defamation claims.

*Examples of Online Defamation*
Let’s look at a couple of examples of the kinds of communications that might amount to online defamation. Let’s say that you have a blog and that you wrote that John Smith hit his wife two weeks ago. If this statement is not true (remember, truth is one of the absolute defenses to defamation), it is defamatory. There is no way that this statement, if false, is not defamatory.

But let’s qualify this statement. Let’s say that you wrote, “I think that John Smith hit his wife two weeks ago.” Statements of opinion are not statements of fact, and so theoretically are protected from libel suits. But is this really a statement of opinion? Sometimes statements of opinion really are viewed as statements of fact, depending on the circumstances. In this case, the average person may very well look at your statement as a statement of fact, depending on how well you know John Smith and his wife, and why you believe that Smith hit his wife.

The bottom line: Just because you phrase something as a statement of opinion -- "I think" or "I believe" -- does not automatically protect you from a defamation claim.

Let’s take another example. Let’s say that you wrote on someone else’s Facebook page that Mary Johnson was fired from her job because she made a serious mistake and, as a result, her company lost an important client. Again, if this is a false statement, it is almost certainly defamatory. But what if it is true that she made the mistake, but that the company did not lose the client? What if, in fact, her company fired her to appease the client? You have certainly written something that was false (at least in part), but maybe overall it was not defamatory.

The bottom line on this type of situation: If you are blogging or writing on your Facebook page, or submitting comments on someone else’s blog or Facebook page, make sure that you have all of your facts absolutely straight before posting your statement to the internet. Once you have clicked “send,” you can’t take it back.

Or, alternatively, if it is a close call, why say it at all? To use our example, why do you need to write on someone else’s Facebook page about Mary Johnson being fired? Unless you’re the one who fired her, you don’t know all the facts. In submitting posts or comments online or on social media, it is a good idea to exercise the utmost caution and avoid making any "gray area" statements that could be construed as defamation.

Social Media and Online Defamation Slander and Libel Nolo.com

Who knew?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 26, 2015)

Defamation all hinges on showing how the defamation cost you money. If the hit to reputation kept you from getting a job (and you can prove that it was the defamation and not something else) or something like that, you can win a defamation suit. But if you didn't suffer financially because of it, it's hard to win in court.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 26, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Defamation all hinges on showing how the defamation cost you money. If the hit to reputation kept you from getting a job (and you can prove that it was the defamation and not something else) or something like that, you can win a defamation suit. But if you didn't suffer financially because of it, it's hard to win in court.



This is incorrect. You most certainly can, especially if it caused emotional suffering.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Feb 26, 2015)

*Facebook Ex Trashing: It Can Cost You*

By Geoff Williams

(Reuters) - The old maxim goes: If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. For divorcing spouses, that may actually constitute legal advice in these days where Internet and social media sites have become a significant part of many people's daily lives. Divorce is an emotionally charged topic, but letting it all out in a public forum can lead you right into court, sued for libel or having a harsher judgment levied against you in a divorce settlement.

"You give up so much privacy, and if you don't understand the consequences of it, you can really have problems," says Adam Swickle, a divorce attorney in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "The Internet is a dangerous place to comment on your divorce."

According to a 2010 survey conducted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 81 percent of their members said that they had seen an increase in the number of cases using social networking evidence during the last five years. So if you use social media sites frequently, and you're in the midst of breaking up a marriage, consider the following:

1. What you write can get you sued.

"You can call someone an idiot or a jerk, and you're okay because it's your opinion," Swickle says. "We have freedom of speech in this country. Even if it affects your reputation, if it's the truth, you can't sue for it."

But where you might get in trouble is if you lie, warns Swickle. For instance, if you call your ex a deadbeat dad who is behind on his child support payments, or an abusive alcoholic, and none of this is true - and he or she can prove it isn't true - then you could be successfully sued for libel. But those cases are rare because they're hard to prove, says Swickle.

It's also hard to prove that a barrage of Facebook or blog posts are, say, harassment or even a form of Internet stalking, says Jacqueline Newman, the managing partner at a New York City matrimonial and divorce law firm. She says that you'd have to show evidence of damages.

But she recommends that if you have an ex who is going off the deep end, ask your lawyer to talk to your ex's lawyer. "The hope is that the lawyer will be able to control the client and explain to the client that all of this ranting online isn't going to be beneficial to their case," says Newman.

2. Even if legal, some statements can hurt you.

Short of libel, there's still a lot of trouble that you can get into. Newman once had a client who wrote a blog post trashing her soon-to-be ex. "She said he was a liar, a cheat, a thief and couldn't be trusted," Newman says.

While it may have felt good for Newman's client to get all of that off her chest, the blog was read by her client's husband's boss. "It had a direct impact on his career which therefore had a direct impact on his financial ability to provide for her and their children in the future," says Newman. "It was a very expensive blog for both of them."

Also, those rants, missives and photographs are now often getting handed over in paper form to a grim-faced judge who is deciding which parent is the more deserving of full custody, or how much alimony should be shelled out.

"Judges don't like reading those blog posts, tweets or Facebook status updates," Newman says. "Especially if you have children. These things don't go away, and a judge will tell you that your children will learn to tweet, and they'll read what you write in the heat of the moment. It's awful. Loose fingers can be worse than loose lips....."

Facebook Ex Trashing It Can Cost You


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Feb 26, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Defamation all hinges on showing how the defamation cost you money. If the hit to reputation kept you from getting a job (and you can prove that it was the defamation and not something else) or something like that, you can win a defamation suit. But if you didn't suffer financially because of it, it's hard to win in court.
> ...



Can sue for anything. Whether you're likely to win is another question.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 26, 2015)

Interesting thread.


----------



## Tom Sweetnam (Feb 26, 2015)

I've been defamed by every one of you Marxist curs, so pay up! Now!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 26, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie wears women's underwear


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 26, 2015)

. . . that he stole from Tom's dresser.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 26, 2015)

Is Mad Cabbie STTAB's Ex?


----------



## Roadrunner (Feb 26, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


If you win, you still have to collect.

Life's a bitch sometimes.


----------



## InfoQuest (Mar 2, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


One of the earliest cases involving online defamation was Slater vs. Paolini in Ohio (1994). The defendant (Paolini) made defamatory remarks about the plaintiff (Slater), who claimed the remarks damaged his reputation. The remarks by Paolini were untrue and he settled out of court (a five-figure settlement).


----------



## Gracie (Mar 2, 2015)

Hogwash. I know a guy that sued...and lost. Why? Because he did not have "clean hands". In short, he dished much worse than what was dished at him. If he woulda kept his yapper shut and just collected what was said against him and not respond, he would have won. His hands were "dirty" too.


----------



## HenryBHough (Mar 2, 2015)

If one wishes to sue for defamation he or she must first be defamed.

How many hours might it take for the entire population of a courtroom to quit laughing were a plaintiff whose real name bears no semblance to an imaginary screen name concerning which shit was spoken?  

Or would it be a matter of days?

Moral:  If you want to have grounds for a suit, blog under your real name.  First name, middle initial, surname.  Know anybody who even might be doing that?


----------



## InfoQuest (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Hogwash. I know a guy that sued...and lost. Why? Because he did not have "clean hands". In short, he dished much worse than what was dished at him. If he woulda kept his yapper shut and just collected what was said against him and not respond, he would have won. His hands were "dirty" too.


Yes, you are unlikely to succeed in a legal action if you are also guilty of defamation.

That wasn't the situation in the Slater vs. Paolini case in Ohio. Paolini was angry during an online discussion and made false claims about Slater, but not vice-versa.


----------



## InfoQuest (Mar 3, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> If one wishes to sue for defamation he or she must first be defamed.


For the sake of accuracy:

If one wishes _to win a suit for defamation_ he or she must first be defamed.



> blog under your real name. First name, middle initial, surname.


True. Loss of reputation or other damage is not provable if you are posting messages using a screen name and your real identity remains hidden.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

Can't defame a user name if it isn't your real name. Which is why most message boards do not allow personal info to be posted i.e. first and last name, place of employment, address, google map showing persons home or business, phone numbers, etc.

In short...getting all pissed off on a message board and going to that extent due to a verbal argument means the one doing that shit is unstable and a jackass.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Cyberstalking is a fourth degree felony in some states. Just prove pattern of conduct involving 2 or more incidents directly or through third parties ...of monitoring, following or threatening.

They are starting to crack down on internet crimes.


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

excuse me....turn the computer off and get up and go do something.....suing over computer bullshit....really....how fucking immature are you people?


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

People online should just not do anything illegal and they won't have to worry about  it. Just like in offline life. Problem solved.


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> People online should just not do anything illegal and they won't have to worry about  it. Just like in offline life. Problem solved.


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)




----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)




----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

the day i let internet bullshit get to me ...to the point that i would even consider a lawyer is the day i realize how fucked i have become and that studies are right...the longer you are on the net the more depressed one becomes and apparently the more sucked into a cyber world of nothing ....one becomes


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

strollingbones said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > People online should just not do anything illegal and they won't have to worry about  it. Just like in offline life. Problem solved.


You first


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

i am not the one on here whining about internet gossip and how illegal it is?  really......use the damn on off button....


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

strollingbones said:


> i am not the one on here whining about internet gossip and how illegal it is?  really......use the damn on off button....


Why should others be forced offline because trolls want to cyberstalk with free reign?


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

pussies on the net


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

strollingbones said:


> pussies on the net


Yeah . They usually fight in packs and with email alerts for help.


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

when one takes trolls so seriously that they consider court action...then they need to step away...simple as that.....do you really think the net is productive in any way....or perhaps i should say ...message boards..what does one get from chatting on a message board....entertainment at best.....people are putting way too much into threads on a message board...


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > pussies on the net
> ...



what the hell are you going on about.....now you are paranoid......packs and email alerts....wtf.....you really need to step away or simply realize you are too invested in this mess


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

strollingbones said:


> when one takes trolls so seriously that they consider court action...then they need to step away...simple as that.....do you really think the net is productive in any way....or perhaps i should say ...message boards..what does one get from chatting on a message board....entertainment at best.....people are putting way too much into threads on a message
> 
> 
> strollingbones said:
> ...


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

Netflix can be yer friend. Sometimes people just suck. Watch what you say and if it gets too gnarly..walk away. Like, it ain't as if yer life is over when battling with a complete stranger.


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> strollingbones said:
> 
> 
> > when one takes trolls so seriously that they consider court action...then they need to step away...simple as that.....do you really think the net is productive in any way....or perhaps i should say ...message boards..what does one get from chatting on a message board....entertainment at best.....people are putting way too much into threads on a message
> ...



yes there is a reason...cyber pussies like you and mad

but i digress you are saying there are packs and email alerts...do go on...who are these packs and where do i get these email alerts that you seem to be so sure of.....till you are called on it


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

I feel so left out. No alerts, no pms, no secret hidey holes to plot and plan.


----------



## strollingbones (Mar 3, 2015)




----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

People don't want to be held accountable for their behavior. That's why they like the protection of being anon online. And that's why they don't want people to seek legal action. With social media being  so popular you can definately expect these laws to expand. Some states actually have task forces set up to investigate cyberstalking accusations.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

Ever read the rants and raves in Craigslist when bored? How about Yelp? Talk about slander and defamation. But it is still alive and well.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> I feel so left out. No alerts, no pms, no secret hidey holes to plot and plan.


No? Never heard if such a thing? Pretty sure you melted down about someone else having said hidey holes in the past. Interesting.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > I feel so left out. No alerts, no pms, no secret hidey holes to plot and plan.
> ...


Oh yeah, I used to be in the loop and was actually in that hidey hole for a while. Actually, two hidey holes. Stupid shit so I bailed. But that was then. This is now. No meltdown on my end either. Some just can't handle the truth.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Ever read the rants and raves in Craigslist when bored? How about Yelp? Talk about slander and defamation. But it is still alive and well.


Of course it is.  That's why laws are set up. When people are given the opportunity to police themselves they always fail.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

Laws may be set up, but most don't get very far on an online defamation lawsuit. Gotta have "clean hands" yerself and most don't. So it's tossed out.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...


Depends on if the truth you tout is actually the "truth" I would imagine.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

I don't know which is more stupid....threatening a lawsuit over message board crap, or puffing up ones chest and thumping it to meet the person for fisticuffs. Both are idiotic in my opinion. But entertaining to watch.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> Laws may be set up, but most don't get very far on an online defamation lawsuit. Gotta have "clean hands" yerself and most don't. So it's tossed out.


Depends on what you mean by clean hands.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> I don't know which is more stupid....threatening a lawsuit over message board crap, or puffing up ones chest and thumping it to meet the person for fisticuffs. Both are idiotic in my opinion. But entertaining to watch.


Lawsuits have been threatened before. Why do you think the flame zone is hidden and for members only?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know which is more stupid....threatening a lawsuit over message board crap, or puffing up ones chest and thumping it to meet the person for fisticuffs. Both are idiotic in my opinion. But entertaining to watch.
> ...


That isn't why.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > Laws may be set up, but most don't get very far on an online defamation lawsuit. Gotta have "clean hands" yerself and most don't. So it's tossed out.
> ...


Long story, short synopsis: Dude online sued another dude online for slander and defamation. Went to court. Lost. Why? Because judge saw ALL that went down that started the battle to begin with and how it progressed. Dude suing did just as bad as the one that slandered him. Judge tossed it out and said "your hands are no cleaner than the guy you are wanting to sue. Both of you are guilty of taking up my time". End of story.


----------



## Gracie (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know which is more stupid....threatening a lawsuit over message board crap, or puffing up ones chest and thumping it to meet the person for fisticuffs. Both are idiotic in my opinion. But entertaining to watch.
> ...


Maybe because the owners don't want lurkers thinking about joining seeing the dorks that live here?


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...


That's one case. Doesn't apply to all.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Gracie said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Gracie said:
> ...


That too no doubt.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Defamation all hinges on showing how the defamation cost you money. If the hit to reputation kept you from getting a job (and you can prove that it was the defamation and not something else) or something like that, you can win a defamation suit. But if you didn't suffer financially because of it, it's hard to win in court.
> ...


Or if it crossed two or more different venues.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Then again the more an individual is caught in the act of perpetrating illegal cyber activity ... the charges go up from a misdemeanor to a felony.

So maybe they will think twice before doing it again in the future.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Cyberstalking is a fourth degree felony in some states. Just prove pattern of conduct involving 2 or more incidents directly or through third parties ...of monitoring, following or threatening.
> 
> They are starting to crack down on internet crimes.



This. Laws very from state to state. The laws are changing to reflect changing technologies. An online threat, if dreamed credible could result in jail time.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Mar 3, 2015)

strollingbones said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > strollingbones said:
> ...



This isn't the fz. Please keep the stupid out if this thread, thanks.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Cyberstalking is a fourth degree felony in some states. Just prove pattern of conduct involving 2 or more incidents directly or through third parties ...of monitoring, following or threatening.
> ...


Yep. My state actually added chat rooms and social media in 2009 to the stalking laws already in place. I'm sure others have as well.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie (Mar 3, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> > BlueGin said:
> ...



Never! The internet is a safe haven for stalkers.


----------



## BlueGin (Mar 3, 2015)

Mad_Cabbie said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> > Mad_Cabbie said:
> ...


Apparently one of the colleges here was having issues of this nature with students so they pushed for the stalking laws to be modified.


----------



## pillars (Mar 3, 2015)

One of the funniest threads I've read in a looooonnng time.


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 3, 2015)

pillars said:


> One of the funniest threads I've read in a looooonnng time.




Quite amusing.

Start shit spread rumors, hurt people. then sue when called on your bullshit.


----------



## rdean (Mar 3, 2015)

without Defamation, Republicans would cease to exist


----------



## SmarterThanTheAverageBear (Mar 3, 2015)

rdean said:


> without Defamation, Republicans would cease to exist




This thread has ZERO to do with your stupid Republican obsession. Fuck off.


----------



## MeBelle (Mar 24, 2015)

BlueGin said:


> Cyberstalking is a fourth degree felony in some states. Just prove pattern of conduct involving 2 or more incidents directly or through third parties ...of monitoring, following or threatening.
> 
> They are starting to crack down on internet crimes.


In my state the mere accusation of calling someone a stalker, is  grounds for a case of stalking harassment for the 'accused'


----------

