Slashdot Mirror
Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "In a legal case being watched closely by bloggers, an Internet company has sued the owner of a blog for comments posted to his site by readers, the Wall Street Journal Online reports. Traffic-Power.com, which sells tools for boosting Web traffic, sued Aaron Wall, age 25, over statements posted in the comments section of Wall's search-engine-optimization blog, SEOBook.com. (Wall also has posted about the case.) 'Legal analysts said the case falls into somewhat murky legal territory, but that Mr. Wall may have some protection from liability under federal law,' WSJ.com says. 'Courts generally have held that the operators of computer message boards and mailing lists cannot be held liable for statements posted by other people. Blogs might be viewed in a similar light, they said.' However, Daniel Perry, a lawyer who has followed the case, says that Wall's case is complicated by his own negative comments about Traffic-Power, which could be seen as a competitor to his site. 'To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller,' Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'"
'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'
/.
This guy has obviously never been to
Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
So, honestly, two operators in a dirty business go at each other, my personal feeling is I hope they both go down. It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I'd spout off some disparaging comments about lawyers, but am now afraid to ....
'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'
I beg to differ.
Hurting someone else's feelings is my spaghetti-god-given right.
And Daniel Perry can only have an orgasm if he kills a dog.
from posting on someone's forum or blog, who I don't like, and hope they get sued.
/., saying how bad a big company is, and have them sue CmdrTaco :) W000T!!! CmdrTaco I want my mod points or else!
ALright, with luck I can post as an AC on
This just shows how stupid courts can get, and I swear, judges should really just smack some people around.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Very decent.
Look! there is even a mailinglist I can subscribe to. Quick let's do it before someone else does it.
Hmm, what do I get for a page:
What a losers
Everyone on this site is a convicted murderer who eats babies.
Just libeled all of you! (I hope). You may begin suing Slashdot now.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
the_raptor (652941) has kiddie porn and uses the marijuana. Tell a friend.
I wonder about that... The real solution to the free speech problem isn't censorship, but to keep track of reputation. If people knew that what they say would matter, and that saying stupid things will mean fewer listeners, then we would solve many problems.
Give every poster an ID. Log all messages from each ID, and allow others to invest their own reputation in people and donate points. In short, a reputation market. Of course, there will be karma whores, and stuff like that...
2008 XX-XX
United Press International
In a landmark case, a recent civil action has resulted in a person being successfully sued for having a negative opinion. Said the plaintiff's attorney: "Look, everyone knew that the defendant had a poor opinion of my client. He didn't precisely say this explicitly, but it was evident in his conduct and manner. The defendant is a well-respected member of his community, and so this implied reputation had a direct negative effect on my client, both from a social and (more importantly) fiscal perspective. Knowing that the defendant didn't like my client in the least, prospective employers would view this negatively, either preventing my client from getting a good job, or reducing the scope of compensation offers. We are fortunate to have found a judge who understood the nuances of this case."
Based on extensive precedent set in the Civil Rights litigation of the 20th century, it became de facto illegal to dislike someone if they were of an oppressed minority of any type. It was practically foreordained that this would be expanded to eventually apply regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. What happened here today is expected to be repeated across the country shortly.
-Styopa
"Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have."
Welcome to the Soviet States of America... Or hadn't you noticed?
--
www.nitemarecafe.com