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.
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?
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)
Unfortunately, it's someone else that had to pay for her behavior. I am the victim of something similar. In fact, on RipOffReports (a blackmail site, frankly). Some random girl online started telling everyone that we were dating. Then that she was my girlfriend. Then, that we were engaged. I didn't know this girl. I mean, I had seen her name around, but I'd never talked to her. I'd never met her. I think she was the friend of a friend of a friend. Somehow, she was in the mix of a huge circle of people who knew each other vaguely and that was about it. Anyway, I found out all this psychotic stuff she was floating out there about how we were in a relationship. When I told everyone that not only was all this bullshit, but that I didn't even know her, she went batshit and posted about me on this site. Keep in mind - I don't have a business or do any sort of business. This was all personal (and, again, I didn't know her).
Anyway, so there is now a page from a random stranger on a website that purports to be about consumer advocacy and there's nothing I can do about it. Her long rambling diatribe posts a ton of personal information about me and tells this tale of how we went out and I accosted her and stalked her and then stole a bunch of her stuff. Again, I don't know this person. Had never talked to this person. I don't even know what state they're in. For that matter, I don't know that they're even in the same country.
So, my personal information and a bunch of psychotic bullshit about me is posted in public for anyone to find. Google puts it up at the top of search results for my name (because google seems to promote the RipOffReport ranking). She, on the other hand, is anonymous. I don't know her. The website dosn't know her. She is just an anonymous invented username. There is no recourse for me. Period.
This site is just a tool to facilitate the owner's extortion scheme and the anonymous posters' vendettas.
lies. post the ripoff report, and let us see this 'damaging' info. You can contact the administrator at EDitor@ripoffreport.com and it will be removed if it is obviously just some scary firebrand spamming bullshit. sounds like you have evidence.
Kindof hard to feel bad for you without any evidence, or knowledge of what steps you took to exonerate yourself. This is no different from receiving a summons in the mail. you can't just ignore it and expect it to go away. If the case is interesting enough, it will be picked up by the press and distributed across the globe. If you do nothing, than the information will continue to circulate without check. Stepping in now will at least stem the tide of false info.
If you emailed the editor with 'omg lol so sorry neva hit tha biznitch shes a hater' then of course hes going to ignore your email. Without some sort of idea of what happened, you will get no sympathy from anyone.
Yes, there is something you can do. You may sue her for libel. The post may not be removed, but you can:
- Get money from her
- Get restraining orders against her
- Eventually get her in jail when she violates the above
- Ask ripoff report (or any other sites she posted to) to post a copy of the restraining order and court judgements you have against her
That's about enough, if you ask me. Anyone reading those diatribes probably already thinks she's crazy. They'll know it when a judge supports you on it.
blah...blah...blah...I'm an intellectual female, and blah...blah...blah
LOL!!! is this some kind of joke?? what kind of sane person says 'i am an intellectual'? this sort of behavior actually says you're a dumb idiot or a troll (and i need a nice whooshing).
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
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