I understand that Napster has the right to profit from their logo and that suing The Offspring was just a business decision... but do they honestly think it was a good one? I sure as hell wouldn't want to wear anything with the Napster logo on it after they basically screw one of their biggest supporters in the ass.
I always thought the whole idea of wearing something with the Napster logo was a sort of fight-The-Man mentality, but what if Napster *is* The Man... ?
Also, it's probably worth noting that on Offspring's home page, they are selling Napster shirts and caps for $10 each and stickers for $1. If they're even making a profit on this stuff (which I doubt 'cos that's pretty cheap for a shirt), it's sure as heck isn't a lot.
You don't have to actually shoot at the person before it's considered attempted murder -- if you point a gun at someone intending to kill them and then change your mind, it's attempted murder. You don't have to shoot, but just aim at them with the intent to shoot.
I know it's a really fine line... that's why about half of my class last semester didn't pass the final:)
Actually, it seems relatively easy to prove either way... but it's probably more likely that the judge will side with the "moral majority," that is the slutty highschoolers, crappy teachers, etc.:)
I'm certain that this sort of action on the part of the ISP is perfectly legal; they always have provisions in their agreements where they can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Having the user that the attacks are aimed at removed from the system seems to be a sound decision from the ISP's point of view -- they are removing one user who is bringing down the system for many users. Whether this is ethical or not is up to debate.
I honestly don't think that the user was deleted simply because the company may have disagreed with his/her point of view -- it just makes sense to have one person pissed at you instead of five hundred.
Sure, it might be more impressive to make a new virus that infects the boot sector or executables, or wasn't a script... but damn, I bet it's more satisfying to screw over Office or Outlook:)
Thank you for bringing this up. Apparently people keep forgetting that you have to have another person involved in order for something to be considered conspiracy.
Plotting to commit a crime is 100% legal, but once you get another person involved it's conspiracy and thus illegal. But sitting down and planning to kill someone is bad, but it's not against the law.
It seems like some people keep forgetting that planning to kill someone and actually killing them are drastically different. They keep getting pissed off at me and I haven't said anything wrong:)
The reason it was discussed in business law is that it's libel and most libel cases are civil offenses.
And it's not conspiracy to commit murder even though people keep bringing that up. Conspiracy can only occur if you conspire -- that is, plot with another person to carry out the murder. Writing a detailed plan to murder someone is perfectly legal because you haven't taken any action and you haven't attempted murder.
If I can find one of my textbooks, I'll find the case study for it so you can see.
In 1637, an English writer named William Prynn made the unfortunate mistake of writing a book that criticized the queen. Brought before a panel of judges, the hapless Prynn was found guilty of libel and ordered to spend the rest of his life in prison. As an added punishment, he had his ears lopped off before he was hauled off to jail.
Had Prynn been living in modern-day America rather than 17th-century England, he undoubtedly would have been free to write his book -- whether about the queen or a U.S. president -- without worrying about losing his ears or ending up in prison.
Libel is a legal term that describes a written form of defamation, which the dictionary defines as a "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation." Sometimes the word slander is used in the same breath as libel. The two terms mean the same thing, except that slander usually refers to defamatory statements about someone that are spoken to others rather than written in a newspaper, magazine article, or book. Today the legal differences between libel and slander have all but disappeared due largely to the dawning of the electronic age. American television networks, for example, are sometimes sued for libel even though news reporters and correspondents "speak" their words to a viewing and listening audience rather than to a reading audience.
For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Up until then, it had never mattered much whether the allegedly libelous statements about someone were true or false. Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false.
The Zenger case established another precedent that remains in place today. Libel cases, which are part of civil (rather than criminal) courtroom proceedings, may be heard by juries, and it is up to the jury to decide whether a publication has printed libelous information about someone. If so, it is also up to the jury to decide how much the libeled individual has suffered and what kind of monetary damages he or she is entitled to receive as compensation. In the United States today, about 90 percent of all libel trials are heard before juries.
The 18th-century framers of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press by writing that protection into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Even so, the Supreme Court of the United States -- the highest court in America -- for years refused to protect the media from libel lawsuits by relying on the First Amendment. Instead, libel laws varied from state to state without a single coherent rule in the nation.
That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.
For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.
Every year hundreds of libel lawsuits are filed against newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations in the United States. Typically, these cases are brought by current or former public officials, by entertainers, or by business executives who feel they have been damaged by critical media publicity -- usually accusing or suggesting that the person has engaged in unlawful, improper, or questionable activities.
In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.
Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.
A jury in Chicago, Illinois, awarded businessman Robert Crinkley $2.25 million in May 1991 because a Wall Street Journal article falsely linked him to bribery payments made to foreign officials. Crinkley said the newspaper story prevented him from being hired after he left his former employer. The jury agreed that he was a victim of libel even though the newspaper published a correction to its original story. The award was thrown out in September 1991 by circuit court judge Howard Miller. Miller ordered a new trial on damages after ruling that the evidence in the case was insufficient to support such a large award. Crinkley's lawyer began planning his appeal.
In these and other cases, the person bringing the libel suit has the burden of proving that he or she has been libeled. In other words, a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true. Libel cases are not limited to disputes between the media and the people they cover. In July 1989, the American Express Company admitted to spreading false information about an international banker who controlled New York's Republic National Bank. When the banker's attorney threatened to sue for libel, American Express confessed to its role and agreed to donate $8 million to charities as a settlement in the case.
Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
Not long ago, the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.
More recently, Jerry Falwell, an American religious leader, sued a magazine after it published a biting satire of Falwell that mocked his piety. Indeed, a state of Virginia jury awarded Falwell $200,000 after concluding that the magazine had inflicted "emotional distress" on the well-known clergyman. But the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out the award by explaining that satire, no matter how scathing and upsetting to its target, was protected by the First Amendment.
Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts. Abrams says the reason is that jurors often do not fully understand or apply the proper legal standards that cover libel cases. As a result, it is common for media organizations to carry libel cases to intermediate appellate courts if they lose at the first stage of a trial.
In recent years, a number of American courtrooms have turned into stormy legal battlegrounds because of widely publicized libel cases that have made headlines the world over. One such case started in 1976 when the tabloid National Enquirer printed a small item about Carol Burnett, a popular television actress. The newspaper falsely reported that Burnett had gotten into a nasty argument with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in a restaurant in Washington.
A jury in Los Angeles eventually awarded Burnett $1.6 million, concluding that the National Enquirer had never bothered to find out whether the item was true. An appellate court later reduced Burnett's libel award to $200,000, agreeing that she had been libeled but ruling that the Enquirer should not be so harshly punished for its errant behavior. Still, the actress was satisfied with the result. "If they had given me only one dollar plus carfare, I'd have been happy because it was the principle," Burnett said after the case was over.
In other cases, principles have all but disappeared under an avalanche of legal tactics that sometimes turn libel trials into expensive battles that leave no clear winners.
That happened after former U.S. Army General William Westmoreland sued the CBS television network for $120 million. Westmoreland was angry about a 1982 CBS news program that had accused him of exaggerating American military progress during the Vietnam war. After an 18-week jury trial in New York City, Westmoreland and CBS reached a private settlement that amounted to a surrender on both sides.
"In the end, the trial came to a termination as cloudy and unresolved as the Vietnam war itself," wrote Rodney Smolla, a libel expert and law professor at the College of William and Mary.
In the wake of Westmoreland's case, several legal experts have criticized the way libel matters are handled in the American legal system. Some of them blame media organizations for relying so strongly on the First Amendment's free press guarantees. Daniel Popeo, a lawyer in Washington, says that the First Amendment unfairly protects the media but not the "victims" of unfair media coverage.
Journalists respond with their own set of complaints about libel lawsuits. Yes, they say, the courts have made it difficult for most people to win libel cases. But the threat of being sued also causes many news organizations to shy away from publishing controversial stories. Large media outlets like CBS or the New York Times have the financial resources to battle expensive libel lawsuits. But smaller newspapers and television stations find it more difficult to afford such a costly burden.
The ongoing debate over libel has prompted at least one proposal for a new set of libel laws that would make it easier for public officials and others to prove their cases. The proposal -- drafted by a private committee of lawyers, law professors, and media representatives -- also would eliminate large financial awards that can be assessed against media groups found guilty of libel.
Over the past quarter of a century, the courts have favored the media in libel matters, "but such victories have been hard fought and costly, absorbing millions of dollars in attorney fees and thousands of hours in lawyers' offices and courtrooms," according to Roslyn Mazer, a media lawyer in Washington.
Bruce Fein, former general counsel for the Federal Communications Commission, a U.S. government regulatory agency, is one of the lawyers who helped to draft the proposed set of libel laws. Fein says the ultimate goal is to ensure more accurate reporting by journalists so that members of the public are better informed about important public events. But he also thinks it is important that the media still have wide latitude in deciding what to publish. "In a democratic society," says Fein, "everyone has to take some lumps in the media."
From About.com: * You can be threatened with a defamation suit. You might receive a letter saying that unless you retract a statement, you will be sued. There are numerous threats of defamation. Most of them are just bluffs; nothing happens. Even so, often a threat is enough to deter someone from speaking out, or enough to make them publish a retraction.
* Proceedings for defamation may be commenced against you. This is the first step in beginning a defamation action. Statements of claim, writs or summons shouldn't be ignored. If you receive one, you should seek legal advice.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court.
With this information, it's extremely difficult (read: impossible) to see why the police would see it necessary to employ guerrilla tactics in dealing with this kid. Libel is libel -- the fact that it's on the internet shouldn't matter. We're supposed to be living in a society, not a society where people become irrational and paranoid simply because someone was using a computer. I think we should all move to Costa Rica:)
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.
So in this case, does this seem to indicate that the teachers would have to prove that the kid intended to be malicious? (i.e. wanted them to lose their jobs, something like that.)
Also, a defense for libel is if the statement was an opinion -- you can't get sued for saying "I think Bill Clinton is a slut." An opinion can't be proven false because it's just an opinion.
Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime because involves conspiracy -- conspiring with another to commit murder. As long as you do it solo, it's legal; extremely sick and wrong, but legal.
1. Libel is written defamation of character 2. Slander is verbal defamation of character 3. Statements have to be false in order for them to be considered libel or slander 4. Both are civil offenses, not criminal -- the "injured" parties should have filed a lawsuit 5. The police should not have been involved because it was not a criminal matter 6. In cases of libel, the "victims" don't have to prove that they were harmed -- the fact that the statements were written is proof enough of harm (even if no one else read them) 7. The law enforcement in this particular town in Utah is apparently profoundly retarded
You have an excellent point about libel being a civil offense (for those kids who aren't clear on the difference, a criminal offense is a crime against the government and a civil offense is a crime against a person.) In no way should this kid have been arrested and treated like a hardened criminal; the proper procedure would be for the people who claimed libel to file a court order against him, and go through the process like civilized human beings.
However, cussing someone out, etc... is not libel. Libel has a precise legal definition. AFAIK, you must spread/false/ information about a person which results in financial or otherwise physical damages (i.e., they get beaten up because of misinformation, or lose their job, etc...)
Good point about cussing someone out not being libel; written defamation is libel, while non-written defamation is slander. In cases of slander, the supposed victim has to prove they were harmed in some way; in cases of libel, the harm is assumed -- the simple fact that it was written is proof enough.
Completely un-related, but interesting nonetheless...
Having someone overhear you wishing to kill your old man is legal... hell, you could go through and write a 300-page murder plan and then go out and buy a gun or rat poison or whatever your choice of weapon is, and you still haven't broken any laws.
Learned in one of my business law classes last semester that you can go through and take any steps you want toward murdering someone, and as long as you don't actually attempt it, you're perfectly safe. You could go through and mail your good old dad your 300 page murder plan and still not have broken any laws.
According to the business law classes I've taken and the far too many books I've read about the topic, libel doesn't have to damage the person materially. The simple fact that it was written is proof enough that harm occured. It is only in cases of slander (verbal defamation of character) that the victim has to prove loss.
Although it has to be shown that the statements are false in order for them to count as libel, terms such as "slut" and the idea that teachers are sub-par are easy to be shown false because they're so vague -- no judge in the world is going to look at some high school chick and say "yeah, you're a slut... so you don't have a case of libel."
I'm not 100% sure about the specific laws regarding this kind of behavior, but I know that libel (written defamation of character) is illegal, but I know for a fact that no level of non-computer-related libel would result in the police busting into someone's house and digging through their personal files and mail.
It's ridiculous that this kid would have to go through this just because law enforcement is paranoid about computers.
I think this is a pretty smart move for Costa Rica; allowing everyone to have free internet access and e-mail is no doubt going to be a huge undertaking, but it is something that will probably benefit them in the long-run.
The article gives brief details about providing free internet access to the citizens of Costa Rica who already have computers and setting up terminals in public buildings for those without, and I think this is an excellent move as far as benefitting the country in a long-term view. By allowing people to use the internet free-of-charge, there will no doubt be an increase in the number of people pursuing both hobbies and careers in computer fields simply because of the greater exposure.
Also, because Costa Rica has a relatively stable status quo compared to neighboring countries, it seems probable that this program will be fully implemented (no pesky political shake-ups or economic crises to mess with the timeline.)
Right now, most of Costa Rica's GDP comes from industries like coffee, bananas and textiles but I think that with a program like this being implemented the country will lean more toward an economy based on computers.
Besides, it's a lot prettier than the United State's computer industry hot-spots; they have tropical forests and monkeys and jaguars:)
I actually read the Apogee license agreement, and it seems relatively harmless. I can see how item seven of Trademark Use (You may not use the Marks in a manner that is likely to cause confusion with, dilute or damage the reputation or image of Apogee or any of its products.) would seem like they're trying to control negative reviews of Apogee, but I think it's taken out of context really. Examined within the context of the rest of the agreement, it seems that their main concern is having Apogee material used commerically by someone else, or having the material located on potentially offensive sites (porn sites, that sort of thing.)
So while Apogee's Scott Miller may be a bit unprofessional in his response to the original posting, he does have a valid point in that controlling negative reviews wasn't the intention of the agreement, and I think most people would see that if they read it.
Re:Grave of the Fireflies / Hotaru no haka
on
Essential Anime
·
· Score: 1
Hey, I cried when I watched it okay? Like, non-stop. But it's okay 'cos I'm a girl and girls do that:) Also worth noting is that it's available on DVD for $20 - $25 (not bad considering that some anime DVDs and even videos can get pricey.) And it really is one of my favorite animes because it's an excellent movie, not just an excellent anime. But be warned that it's not your typical hot-Japanese-schoolgirl-with-enormous-boobies-and- superpowers anime.
Grave of the Fireflies / Hotaru no haka
on
Essential Anime
·
· Score: 2
My favorite anime is "Grave of the Fireflies (Hotaru no haka)" It's a bit heavy, but it's awesome; it's a really good movie that happens to be an anime. It's about a boy and his sister trying to survive in Japan during WWII.
I can understand why some people would want to eliminate / reduce the anonymity of the internet, but I think doing so at the risk of losing privacy would be a big mistake. Sure, you might catch some criminals, but I'm sure this would just be exploited to the point where people would be tracked for engaging in harmless activities (looking at homosexual porn, downloading pirated music, what have you) because the practice happens to be illegal (sure, homosexuality isn't illegal in all states, but you get my point), rather than going after serious criminals (like child pornographers). Yes, you might think that law enforcement would only track serious criminals, but think about it... do you think cops spend more money, time, and manpower looking for murderers, rapists and other serious criminals, or for people who break the speed limit?
Slashdot Mirror
I understand that Napster has the right to profit from their logo and that suing The Offspring was just a business decision ... but do they honestly think it was a good one? I sure as hell wouldn't want to wear anything with the Napster logo on it after they basically screw one of their biggest supporters in the ass.
... ?
I always thought the whole idea of wearing something with the Napster logo was a sort of fight-The-Man mentality, but what if Napster *is* The Man
Also, it's probably worth noting that on Offspring's home page, they are selling Napster shirts and caps for $10 each and stickers for $1. If they're even making a profit on this stuff (which I doubt 'cos that's pretty cheap for a shirt), it's sure as heck isn't a lot.
You don't have to actually shoot at the person before it's considered attempted murder -- if you point a gun at someone intending to kill them and then change your mind, it's attempted murder. You don't have to shoot, but just aim at them with the intent to shoot.
... that's why about half of my class last semester didn't pass the final :)
I know it's a really fine line
Actually, it seems relatively easy to prove either way ... but it's probably more likely that the judge will side with the "moral majority," that is the slutty highschoolers, crappy teachers, etc. :)
I'm certain that this sort of action on the part of the ISP is perfectly legal; they always have provisions in their agreements where they can refuse service to anyone for any reason. Having the user that the attacks are aimed at removed from the system seems to be a sound decision from the ISP's point of view -- they are removing one user who is bringing down the system for many users. Whether this is ethical or not is up to debate.
I honestly don't think that the user was deleted simply because the company may have disagreed with his/her point of view -- it just makes sense to have one person pissed at you instead of five hundred.
Sure, it might be more impressive to make a new virus that infects the boot sector or executables, or wasn't a script ... but damn, I bet it's more satisfying to screw over Office or Outlook :)
Thank you for bringing this up. Apparently people keep forgetting that you have to have another person involved in order for something to be considered conspiracy.
:)
Plotting to commit a crime is 100% legal, but once you get another person involved it's conspiracy and thus illegal. But sitting down and planning to kill someone is bad, but it's not against the law.
It seems like some people keep forgetting that planning to kill someone and actually killing them are drastically different. They keep getting pissed off at me and I haven't said anything wrong
The reason it was discussed in business law is that it's libel and most libel cases are civil offenses.
And it's not conspiracy to commit murder even though people keep bringing that up. Conspiracy can only occur if you conspire -- that is, plot with another person to carry out the murder. Writing a detailed plan to murder someone is perfectly legal because you haven't taken any action and you haven't attempted murder.
If I can find one of my textbooks, I'll find the case study for it so you can see.
From Unfettered Press
In 1637, an English writer named William Prynn made the unfortunate mistake of writing a book that criticized the queen. Brought before a panel of judges, the hapless Prynn was found guilty of libel and ordered to spend the rest of his life in prison. As an added punishment, he had his ears lopped off before he was hauled off to jail.
Had Prynn been living in modern-day America rather than 17th-century England, he undoubtedly would have been free to write his book -- whether about the queen or a U.S. president -- without worrying about losing his ears or ending up in prison.
Libel is a legal term that describes a written form of defamation, which the dictionary defines as a "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation." Sometimes the word slander is used in the same breath as libel. The two terms mean the same thing, except that slander usually refers to defamatory statements about someone that are spoken to others rather than written in a newspaper, magazine article, or book. Today the legal differences between libel and slander have all but disappeared due largely to the dawning of the electronic age. American television networks, for example, are sometimes sued for libel even though news reporters and correspondents "speak" their words to a viewing and listening audience rather than to a reading audience.
For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases. Up until then, it had never mattered much whether the allegedly libelous statements about someone were true or false. Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false.
The Zenger case established another precedent that remains in place today. Libel cases, which are part of civil (rather than criminal) courtroom proceedings, may be heard by juries, and it is up to the jury to decide whether a publication has printed libelous information about someone. If so, it is also up to the jury to decide how much the libeled individual has suffered and what kind of monetary damages he or she is entitled to receive as compensation. In the United States today, about 90 percent of all libel trials are heard before juries.
The 18th-century framers of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed freedom of the press by writing that protection into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Even so, the Supreme Court of the United States -- the highest court in America -- for years refused to protect the media from libel lawsuits by relying on the First Amendment. Instead, libel laws varied from state to state without a single coherent rule in the nation.
That all changed in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.
And just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false. Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.
The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.
For purely private individuals, the test for proving libel is not as difficult. Although Supreme Court rulings such as the Sullivan decision apply everywhere in the United States, most states continue to have their own libel laws that cover private individuals. Usually those laws require that public figures who believe they have been libeled prove that a journalist has been negligent when publishing false information about them. Negligence, like malice, is a legal term that generally means carelessness on the part of a reporter or editor. Because private individuals have more reason than public officials to be left alone in the media, American libel laws recognize that they are entitled to more legal protection against false statements made about them.
Every year hundreds of libel lawsuits are filed against newspapers, magazines, and radio and television stations in the United States. Typically, these cases are brought by current or former public officials, by entertainers, or by business executives who feel they have been damaged by critical media publicity -- usually accusing or suggesting that the person has engaged in unlawful, improper, or questionable activities.
In December 1990, for example, a judge on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court won a $6 million libel verdict against the Philadelphia Inquirer newspaper because of a series of articles it carried in 1983 that suggested he was guilty of influence peddling. And in one of the largest libel verdicts ever reached against the media, a former district attorney from Texas named Victor Feazell was awarded $58 million in April 1991 after a Dallas television station accused him of accepting bribes to fix drunken driving cases. "This verdict sends a message to the rest of the media to get your facts straight," Feazell said after the jury announced its verdict.
Two months later, a state district court judge not only upheld the judgment but included a provision adding a 10 percent annual interest charge to the award if the station appealed the case and lost. A settlement was reached shortly afterwards.
A jury in Chicago, Illinois, awarded businessman Robert Crinkley $2.25 million in May 1991 because a Wall Street Journal article falsely linked him to bribery payments made to foreign officials. Crinkley said the newspaper story prevented him from being hired after he left his former employer. The jury agreed that he was a victim of libel even though the newspaper published a correction to its original story. The award was thrown out in September 1991 by circuit court judge Howard Miller. Miller ordered a new trial on damages after ruling that the evidence in the case was insufficient to support such a large award. Crinkley's lawyer began planning his appeal.
In these and other cases, the person bringing the libel suit has the burden of proving that he or she has been libeled. In other words, a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true. Libel cases are not limited to disputes between the media and the people they cover. In July 1989, the American Express Company admitted to spreading false information about an international banker who controlled New York's Republic National Bank. When the banker's attorney threatened to sue for libel, American Express confessed to its role and agreed to donate $8 million to charities as a settlement in the case.
Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.
Not long ago, the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.
More recently, Jerry Falwell, an American religious leader, sued a magazine after it published a biting satire of Falwell that mocked his piety. Indeed, a state of Virginia jury awarded Falwell $200,000 after concluding that the magazine had inflicted "emotional distress" on the well-known clergyman. But the U.S. Supreme Court later threw out the award by explaining that satire, no matter how scathing and upsetting to its target, was protected by the First Amendment.
Floyd Abrams, a New York lawyer who specializes in representing media organizations, estimates that individuals who sue for libel win about 75 percent of the cases that end up before a jury. But the media succeed in reversing jury verdicts most of the time after they appeal to higher courts. Abrams says the reason is that jurors often do not fully understand or apply the proper legal standards that cover libel cases. As a result, it is common for media organizations to carry libel cases to intermediate appellate courts if they lose at the first stage of a trial.
In recent years, a number of American courtrooms have turned into stormy legal battlegrounds because of widely publicized libel cases that have made headlines the world over. One such case started in 1976 when the tabloid National Enquirer printed a small item about Carol Burnett, a popular television actress. The newspaper falsely reported that Burnett had gotten into a nasty argument with former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in a restaurant in Washington.
A jury in Los Angeles eventually awarded Burnett $1.6 million, concluding that the National Enquirer had never bothered to find out whether the item was true. An appellate court later reduced Burnett's libel award to $200,000, agreeing that she had been libeled but ruling that the Enquirer should not be so harshly punished for its errant behavior. Still, the actress was satisfied with the result. "If they had given me only one dollar plus carfare, I'd have been happy because it was the principle," Burnett said after the case was over.
In other cases, principles have all but disappeared under an avalanche of legal tactics that sometimes turn libel trials into expensive battles that leave no clear winners.
That happened after former U.S. Army General William Westmoreland sued the CBS television network for $120 million. Westmoreland was angry about a 1982 CBS news program that had accused him of exaggerating American military progress during the Vietnam war. After an 18-week jury trial in New York City, Westmoreland and CBS reached a private settlement that amounted to a surrender on both sides.
"In the end, the trial came to a termination as cloudy and unresolved as the Vietnam war itself," wrote Rodney Smolla, a libel expert and law professor at the College of William and Mary.
In the wake of Westmoreland's case, several legal experts have criticized the way libel matters are handled in the American legal system. Some of them blame media organizations for relying so strongly on the First Amendment's free press guarantees. Daniel Popeo, a lawyer in Washington, says that the First Amendment unfairly protects the media but not the "victims" of unfair media coverage.
Journalists respond with their own set of complaints about libel lawsuits. Yes, they say, the courts have made it difficult for most people to win libel cases. But the threat of being sued also causes many news organizations to shy away from publishing controversial stories. Large media outlets like CBS or the New York Times have the financial resources to battle expensive libel lawsuits. But smaller newspapers and television stations find it more difficult to afford such a costly burden.
The ongoing debate over libel has prompted at least one proposal for a new set of libel laws that would make it easier for public officials and others to prove their cases. The proposal -- drafted by a private committee of lawyers, law professors, and media representatives -- also would eliminate large financial awards that can be assessed against media groups found guilty of libel.
Over the past quarter of a century, the courts have favored the media in libel matters, "but such victories have been hard fought and costly, absorbing millions of dollars in attorney fees and thousands of hours in lawyers' offices and courtrooms," according to Roslyn Mazer, a media lawyer in Washington.
Bruce Fein, former general counsel for the Federal Communications Commission, a U.S. government regulatory agency, is one of the lawyers who helped to draft the proposed set of libel laws. Fein says the ultimate goal is to ensure more accurate reporting by journalists so that members of the public are better informed about important public events. But he also thinks it is important that the media still have wide latitude in deciding what to publish. "In a democratic society," says Fein, "everyone has to take some lumps in the media."
From About.com: * You can be threatened with a defamation suit. You might receive a letter saying that unless you retract a statement, you will be sued. There are numerous threats of defamation. Most of them are just bluffs; nothing happens. Even so, often a threat is enough to deter someone from speaking out, or enough to make them publish a retraction.
:)
* Proceedings for defamation may be commenced against you. This is the first step in beginning a defamation action. Statements of claim, writs or summons shouldn't be ignored. If you receive one, you should seek legal advice.
* The defamation case can go to court, with a hearing before a judge or jury. However, the majority of cases are abandoned or settled. Settlements sometimes include a published apology, sometimes no apology, sometimes a payment, sometimes no payment. Only a small fraction of cases goes to court.
With this information, it's extremely difficult (read: impossible) to see why the police would see it necessary to employ guerrilla tactics in dealing with this kid. Libel is libel -- the fact that it's on the internet shouldn't matter. We're supposed to be living in a society, not a society where people become irrational and paranoid simply because someone was using a computer. I think we should all move to Costa Rica
According to a link on About.com:
In New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires that, before a public official can recover damages for a defamatory statement, he must prove it was made with "actual malice", even if state laws otherwise allow recovery for negligent defamation. The Court has since expanded this to cover not only public officials but "public figures", including individuals who involve themselves in controversies.
So in this case, does this seem to indicate that the teachers would have to prove that the kid intended to be malicious? (i.e. wanted them to lose their jobs, something like that.)
Also, a defense for libel is if the statement was an opinion -- you can't get sued for saying "I think Bill Clinton is a slut." An opinion can't be proven false because it's just an opinion.
No, actually I'm 100% positive about this.
Conspiracy to commit murder is a crime because involves conspiracy -- conspiring with another to commit murder. As long as you do it solo, it's legal; extremely sick and wrong, but legal.
1. Libel is written defamation of character
2. Slander is verbal defamation of character
3. Statements have to be false in order for them to be considered libel or slander
4. Both are civil offenses, not criminal -- the "injured" parties should have filed a lawsuit
5. The police should not have been involved because it was not a criminal matter
6. In cases of libel, the "victims" don't have to prove that they were harmed -- the fact that the statements were written is proof enough of harm (even if no one else read them)
7. The law enforcement in this particular town in Utah is apparently profoundly retarded
You have an excellent point about libel being a civil offense (for those kids who aren't clear on the difference, a criminal offense is a crime against the government and a civil offense is a crime against a person.) In no way should this kid have been arrested and treated like a hardened criminal; the proper procedure would be for the people who claimed libel to file a court order against him, and go through the process like civilized human beings.
/false/ information about a person which results in financial or otherwise physical damages (i.e., they get beaten up because of misinformation, or lose their job, etc...)
However, cussing someone out, etc... is not libel. Libel has a precise legal definition. AFAIK, you must spread
Good point about cussing someone out not being libel; written defamation is libel, while non-written defamation is slander. In cases of slander, the supposed victim has to prove they were harmed in some way; in cases of libel, the harm is assumed -- the simple fact that it was written is proof enough.
Completely un-related, but interesting nonetheless ...
... hell, you could go through and write a 300-page murder plan and then go out and buy a gun or rat poison or whatever your choice of weapon is, and you still haven't broken any laws.
Having someone overhear you wishing to kill your old man is legal
Learned in one of my business law classes last semester that you can go through and take any steps you want toward murdering someone, and as long as you don't actually attempt it, you're perfectly safe. You could go through and mail your good old dad your 300 page murder plan and still not have broken any laws.
Silly how that works, huh?
According to the business law classes I've taken and the far too many books I've read about the topic, libel doesn't have to damage the person materially. The simple fact that it was written is proof enough that harm occured. It is only in cases of slander (verbal defamation of character) that the victim has to prove loss.
... so you don't have a case of libel."
Although it has to be shown that the statements are false in order for them to count as libel, terms such as "slut" and the idea that teachers are sub-par are easy to be shown false because they're so vague -- no judge in the world is going to look at some high school chick and say "yeah, you're a slut
I'm not 100% sure about the specific laws regarding this kind of behavior, but I know that libel (written defamation of character) is illegal, but I know for a fact that no level of non-computer-related libel would result in the police busting into someone's house and digging through their personal files and mail.
It's ridiculous that this kid would have to go through this just because law enforcement is paranoid about computers.
Contrary to some replies posted in comments:
1. Costa Rica is in Central America, NOT South America.
2. The literacy rate is 93%. It's not some backwoods, third-world country.
I think this is a pretty smart move for Costa Rica; allowing everyone to have free internet access and e-mail is no doubt going to be a huge undertaking, but it is something that will probably benefit them in the long-run.
:)
The article gives brief details about providing free internet access to the citizens of Costa Rica who already have computers and setting up terminals in public buildings for those without, and I think this is an excellent move as far as benefitting the country in a long-term view. By allowing people to use the internet free-of-charge, there will no doubt be an increase in the number of people pursuing both hobbies and careers in computer fields simply because of the greater exposure.
Also, because Costa Rica has a relatively stable status quo compared to neighboring countries, it seems probable that this program will be fully implemented (no pesky political shake-ups or economic crises to mess with the timeline.)
Right now, most of Costa Rica's GDP comes from industries like coffee, bananas and textiles but I think that with a program like this being implemented the country will lean more toward an economy based on computers.
Besides, it's a lot prettier than the United State's computer industry hot-spots; they have tropical forests and monkeys and jaguars
GeekFlavor
I actually read the Apogee license agreement, and it seems relatively harmless. I can see how item seven of Trademark Use (You may not use the Marks in a manner that is likely to cause confusion with, dilute or damage the reputation or image of Apogee or any of its products.) would seem like they're trying to control negative reviews of Apogee, but I think it's taken out of context really. Examined within the context of the rest of the agreement, it seems that their main concern is having Apogee material used commerically by someone else, or having the material located on potentially offensive sites (porn sites, that sort of thing.)
So while Apogee's Scott Miller may be a bit unprofessional in his response to the original posting, he does have a valid point in that controlling negative reviews wasn't the intention of the agreement, and I think most people would see that if they read it.
bubbles.utonium
GeekFlavor
Hey, I cried when I watched it okay? Like, non-stop. But it's okay 'cos I'm a girl and girls do that :) Also worth noting is that it's available on DVD for $20 - $25 (not bad considering that some anime DVDs and even videos can get pricey.) And it really is one of my favorite animes because it's an excellent movie, not just an excellent anime. But be warned that it's not your typical hot-Japanese-schoolgirl-with-enormous-boobies-and- superpowers anime.
My favorite anime is "Grave of the Fireflies (Hotaru no haka)" It's a bit heavy, but it's awesome; it's a really good movie that happens to be an anime. It's about a boy and his sister trying to survive in Japan during WWII.
You can check out the info on it at IMDB.
I can understand why some people would want to eliminate / reduce the anonymity of the internet, but I think doing so at the risk of losing privacy would be a big mistake. Sure, you might catch some criminals, but I'm sure this would just be exploited to the point where people would be tracked for engaging in harmless activities (looking at homosexual porn, downloading pirated music, what have you) because the practice happens to be illegal (sure, homosexuality isn't illegal in all states, but you get my point), rather than going after serious criminals (like child pornographers). Yes, you might think that law enforcement would only track serious criminals, but think about it ... do you think cops spend more money, time, and manpower looking for murderers, rapists and other serious criminals, or for people who break the speed limit?
Smell the GeekFlavor.