Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,073 posts)
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 03:13 PM Jun 2014

Gossip site wins appeal of cheerleader's lawsuit

Source: AP-EXCITE

By AMANDA LEE MYERS

CINCINNATI (AP) — A former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader should not have been allowed to sue an Arizona-based gossip website over online posts about her sexual history, an appeals court ruled Monday in a case watched closely by Internet giants including Google and Facebook.

The ruling from the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a Kentucky federal judge's decision that allowed the cheerleader's lawsuit to proceed and further strengthens broad immunities enjoyed by Internet providers for content posted by third parties.

Former Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones sued thedirty.com and its owner, Nik Richie, over graphic posts about her and her ex-husband's sexual history. Jones said the posts were untrue and caused her severe mental anguish and embarrassment.

In July, federal Judge William Bertelsman rejected arguments from Richie's attorneys that the publisher should be immune from lawsuit. A jury later found the posts about Jones were substantially false and that Richie had acted with malice or reckless disregard by publishing them, and awarded Jones $338,000.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140616/us--cheerleader_libel_lawsuit-bdd2728022.html





FILE - In this July 11, 2013 file photo, Nik Richie, left, owner of the gossip website TheDirty.com, leaves the Federal Courthouse in Covington, Ky., with his lawyer, David Gingra. An appeals court found Monday, June 16, 2014 that an Arizona-based gossip website should have been immune from being sued by Jones over online posts that she was promiscuous and had sexually transmitted diseases.The decision from the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a federal Kentucky judge's decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed. (AP Photo/Cincinnati Enquirer, Patrick Reddy) MANDATORY CREDIT; NO SALES
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
1. Eventually Richie will be in trouble.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 07:43 PM
Jun 2014
Richie's website allows users to submit anonymous posts about anyone from the girl next door to professional athletes and politicians, often accusing them of promiscuity, criticizing their plastic surgery or picking apart their looks. Richie screens each post, decides what goes up and frequently adds commentary.

This does not meet the normal definition of "third-party content". As a result, the laws will eventually be updated to prevent this.

Until then....
 

AngryAmish

(25,704 posts)
4. Nope. However sleazy, he is in the clear.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:06 PM
Jun 2014

If here I say Bush is Hitler should Skinner get sued because of my shit headed Ness?

Ash_F

(5,861 posts)
5. What if Skinner asked you for more Bush=Hitler posts?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:14 PM
Jun 2014

If Richie had not done this directly, he certainly encouraged it. It was red meat for his site. It is a fine line and the law may not be adequate.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
6. Yes, if Skinner is doing active editing/approving of the posts.
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:00 PM
Jun 2014

The point of the law is to protect the admins of the site when the admins are not the posters.

LisaL

(44,962 posts)
7. What does "editing/approving" actually means?
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:10 PM
Jun 2014

If a jury system on DU decides a post needs to be removed, is that editing/approving?
What if jury system decides post doesn't have to be removed, and somebody takes offense?

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
8. It means that nothing gets seen by the public
Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:13 PM
Jun 2014

without active steps from the site owner/management. See the linked article in the OP.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
14. Yes, that would be editing because he did not create the comments.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 06:05 AM
Jun 2014

If he had created the comments, that would be "authoring".

"Editing" is when the original author or someone else changes the post. In this case Richie is the someone else. The would be the same as Skinner changing one of your posts by adding his own comments to it.

"Approving" is what Skinner does in the ATA forum.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
10. But DU is not comparable to TheDirty.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:12 AM
Jun 2014

TheDirty is INTENTIONAL defamation. It's pretty clear the site owner of thedirty knows what he's up to.

LisaL

(44,962 posts)
11. It doesn't matter what the intent is (or isn't).
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:27 AM
Jun 2014

The website didn't create the comments. Therefore he can't be sued.

alp227

(31,962 posts)
13. But the website explicitly invites them.
Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:57 AM
Jun 2014

A strict liability principle would hold the site accountable.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Gossip site wins appeal o...