Suit lists chat room posters in libel action

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/06/08/news-jdlibel-06-08.html
Suit lists chat room posters in libel action

I created this voy forum prior to DU's creation of the State forums.
I stopped posting there and moderating the site when DU created the State forums. I gave the site to a community activist to moderate.

Anyway, some of the posters at the site are being sued.

I wasn't named in the suit. A fellow DU'er was (he is also the chair of our dem committee).

God bless the First Amendment! Frivolous lawsuits make me :mad: I think that this is a frivolous lawsuit.

Time to frog-march Karl Rove, then...past time, in fact!

The article says they can sue the forum owner. It says they might have trouble getting the forum owner to turn over the names because of First Amendment issues.

From what I could see the individual claims that because of posts on a political forum he lost a construction contract. That would qualify him for monetary damages but he'd still have to prove that he lost the contract due to the internet posts and he'd still have to prove that what was posted was false. Right to free speech is not the same thing as right to libel. The problem for the people who posted the information was that their posts were repeated or quoted in a more public setting, resulting in (allegedly) loss of a contract. His lawsuit goes after people who post under screen names too:



You know, there's a rumor that Brad Friedman was asking questions about his right to sue because someone posted libel on a message board claiming that Brad is being investigated for murder. The Black Box Voting organization seems to be taking things a step further. I tried to get an interview yesterday, couldn't get much time, but from what I could get their lawyer recently hit someone with a libel suit on an internet matter. I guess there have to be limits.

I've been playing around with the idea of doing a short subject film on the shadowy world of how corporations use the internet. Little side trails lead hither and yon, hard to keep track of it all.

This forum was already a partial subject for a short film titled "Saving Newburgh". Here is a link to the forum http://www.voy.com/166166/

:thumbsup:

I'm wrestling with this. On the one hand we want citizens to become involved. If we don't control our own government all is lost. On the other hand we don't want anonymous libelers roaming the online community.

What are your thoughts on how to strike a balance? How does one draw the line between online citizen investigation and digital defamation?

personally, I think that the slander / libel laws that are in effect are acceptable and to put it simply, they work. I also think that on some level, the source of the info has to be taken into account. Something that is stated in Doonesbury should be given more "slack" then something written in the New York Times.

In this instance, Mike Gabor was criticizing the way that the city government failed to follow protocol. For some reason the developer took this as a negative comment against him.

There is a local discussion forum at www.recordonline.com that is strictly moderated. The voy forum is less formal, and should be taken less seriously, imho.

and a decisionmaker jettisoned a construction contract based on that it would be a bad reflection on their decisionmaking skills.

But in real life, the protocols were not actually followed, resulting in a work stoppage. Online, many of the NAGS (newburghers for accountability in government) love people that come into the city and rebuild the broken ghetto. They dislike the fact that the city government tries to take short cuts / cuts corners.

This case will be dismissed, and the building will be refurbished. The proper permits will be secured / issued.

I guess the bottom line is no one is above the law.

I know you've been here a while.. but still