Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Website Immune From Suit For Defamatory Posting
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "RipoffReport.com contained an admittedly defamatory posting, by one of its users, about a person who operated a Florida corporation providing addiction treatment services. Although the site was asked by the poster herself to remove the post, it refused. A Florida appeals court has ruled that the site is absolutely immune from suit (pdf), and cannot even be directed to remove the offending post, since under the Communications Decency Act (47 USC 230) 'no cause of action may be brought' against a provider of an "interactive computer service" based upon information provided by a 3rd party."
hell breaks loose
Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".
The argument could be made that if they *did* take it down, it was admission of responsibility for content. ISPs wrestled with this a few years ago. (The "common carrier" thing.)
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
They state up front that they NEVER delete a report from their database once it's been entered. They do have a fairly prominent link for updating &/or rebutting. I guess that'll have to do ...
If you read the PDF, they actually cite similar cases which had already been decided by the Florida supreme court. So it appears that the precedent has already been set, if only in that one state.
Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?
I fail to see how respecting the poster's implicit copyright over their statement allows the web site operator to refuse to remove the comment.
By insisting on keeping the defamatory post up despite the wishes of the poster, I would argue that the web site owners are assuming responsibility for that content, and are therefore liable for future lawsuits. They are not liable for the opinions of their users, but once they claim ownership of the content by refusing to take it down at the poster's request, that "who's responsible" game shifts focus rather dramatically.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Well, its only binding precedent on lower courts in Florida. Anywhere else, its merely persuasive precedent, which can be considerably more significant than "nothing at all".
Although the site was asked by the poster herself
Wow. I mean ... it's almost as if some hyper-emotional female was spreading rumors and causing drama and regretted it only when it finally caused real trouble.
We all know this never, ever happens. Women are never petty and catty, they are always calm and rational and in control of the feelings they value so much, and above all they always take their problems directly to the party with which they have a dispute and would never do something childish like gossip behind their backs.
Glad that's settled.
It wouldn't be double jeopardy anyway as that only applies to criminal cases, not civil suits. You may be thinking of res judicata, which means that one can have only one trial for claims arising from one transaction or occurrence. Pretty sure that means she's boned.
FC Closer
Does that mean that Slashdot doesn't have to bend over and take it in the rear from Scientology anymore? That happened a few years back I believe. Only comment ever removed.
if RipOffReport wasn't such a massive blackmail scam.
After a dozen clicks through pages to get to their "Corporate Advocacy Program", I finally found where they charge an up-front fee and a "rate" to make sure the reports listed on their site do not appear as high on search results as the actual website.
Though it seems they also pride themselves on never taking money to remove a post.
So is this just selling SEO services to affected businesses? How is this not shady?
Exactly. That place is one of the most scammy, scummy, disgusting, exploitive places on the internet and the guy behind it is an extortionist. I don't have a business. I don't do any business. There is no reason for me to be listed on there. But, I am. Some random person that I don't even know but apparently has a beef with me posted a long diatribe accusing me of very shady stuff that I wouldn't want people thinking I had anything to do with. On top of it, the person posted my personal information. My full name, my contact info, my home address. And there's nothing that can be done. The guy who runs the site will "work with you" for a fee. But there's no way to remove information. Don't like your boss? Don't like an ex-boyfriend? Have a bad experience with someone at a company you do business with? You can get away with posting absolutely anything about them on this site and it'll be there for eternity - without any relation to actual reality.
Worse, Google seems to give results from this site priority in their listings (while other search engines sensibly PENALIZE the site - partially because of their black SEO activities).
It really depresses me that this random person that I don't even think I know posted some random invented crap about me on this site and now it shows up when I google myself (which I don't do, because it depresses me as a result of this). But there's absolutely no recourse. Unless I want to pay a bunch of money tot he guy who runs this rip off of a site.
And, of course, people just googling around have no idea. They see this as a legitimate site to read about and report companies (and INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE). They have no idea that what they're looking at (or contributing to, even) is a guy's extortion service.
For those unfamiliar with this shitty site, do a little googling on it. There are tons of discussions as well as news articles about the guy behind it and the problems with the site, with their relationship in google searches, and so on.
No, lower courts do not set legal precedent.
No, lower courts do not set binding precedents, which other courts are obligated to follow. However, they do set persuasive precedents, which other courts may choose to follow. They may also produce better explanations of legal doctrines than higher courts, and thus also be worth quoting even when the controlling precedent is from another case, which might merely be cited.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Iif i ask them to delete all pics and status' when I delete my account, and they dont..its ok that they dont?
In Europe, generally no. Nearly everywhere else, yes.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Wasn't there any actual *coverage of the case* somewhere on the web that could have been linked to, Ray?
Yes of course. Here's an article by excellent law professor/law blogger Eric Goldman, who as an amicus curiae in the case:
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
(Should I be offended that jra doesn't consider my blog post actuall "coverage"?")
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
She's boned most likely because of the site's terms of service which give them omnipotent editorial prerogative.
You can actually sue twice for the same thing if you have different reasons.
They have been sued numerous times for not removing posts *when the author of the post requested that it should be removed*. I think the bottom line is don't use ripoffreport.com, use complaintsboard.com or any similar site.
Actually, judges are violating the principle of the separation of church and state as well as the principles of AA when they sentence people to go to AA. Addiction, including addiction to the drug we call Alcohol is recognized by the AMA as a disease, and when a judge orders a specific treatment he is in effect acting as though he has the right to prescribe a treatment.
If he recommends AA I don't see a problem with that, but if he prescribes it as a matter of law he has effectively forced a person to seek a treatment for a disease which, in all reality, does not work for everyone regardless of the hype within the AA community claiming that it does. Indeed, no treatment for any disease works for everyone.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun