Quote:Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously.

Some postings have even led to criminal charges.

Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, faces up to 10 years in prison for posting a comment that three Chicago judges "deserve to be killed" for having rejected a 2^nd Amendment challenge to the city's handgun ban in 2009. Turner, who also ran his own Web-based radio show, thought it "was political trash talk," his lawyer said. But this month a jury in Brooklyn, N.Y., convicted him of threatening the lives of the judges on the U.S. 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In western Pennsylvania, a judge recently ruled a community website must identify the Internet address of individuals who posted comments calling a township official a "jerk" who put money from the taxpayers in "his pocket." The official also owned a used car dealership, and one commenter called his cars "junk." The official sued for defamation, saying the comments were false and damaged his reputation.

In April, a North Carolina county official won a similar ruling after some anonymous bloggers on a local website called him a slumlord.

"Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online," said Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University. "A whole new generation can publish now, but they don't understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, 'My dentist stinks.' "

Under federal law, websites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster's identity if the post includes false information presented as fact.

Calling someone a "jerk" and a "buffoon" may be safe from a lawsuit because it states an opinion. Saying he wrongly "pocketed" public money could lead to a defamation claim because it asserts something as a fact.

...

Last month, the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Nevada judge's order requiring the disclosure of the identity of three people accused of conducting an "Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings" against Quixtar, the successor to the well-known Amway Corp.

oh give it a rest. obsession is unhealthy for you.

:boredom:

(08-24-2010, 05:44 AM)Duchess Wrote:

I still don't give a fuck.

well why should you when you, and all of us, have been addressed as morons?
i wish she'd just go ahead and sue. then she'd have to shut up on advice of counsel. :blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:

but...uh oh...how does a high-echelon government hack...er...employee, complain about some lowlife site like mock when she was posting on it from her highly-classified top secret job?

(08-24-2010, 11:42 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Why would she even bring this up after 7-8 months?

I told her she is welcome to return.

(05-07-2011, 10:09 AM)Cracker Wrote: She is the reason I jointed Mock. I just read before. So, OP, you can blame the nog.