Political Crossfire Forums

[BuzWeaver]

This will be interesting to follow:

The California Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in San Francisco Tuesday on whether someone who posts a defamatory comment by another person on the Internet can be sued for libel.

Two civil liberties groups say the court’s eventual ruling, due in three months, could have far-reaching implications for free speech on the Internet.

While the case before the court concerns individuals-a Canadian doctor seeking to sue a women’s health activist for posting a third person’s comment about him-the court’s ruling could also determine whether Internet service providers can be held liable when they knowingly allow defamatory remarks to be posted.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/05/free-speech-on-the-internet/

[citizen_X]

blah blah blah, Im sick of hearing these people that want to sue over hurt feelings, my feelings are hurt, now gimme some money, STFU. How sad, words hurt us now, what a joke, whats that old line, sticks n stones may break my bones but your words will never hurt me. Man, they really should consider putting that into the education system. You ever look at these freakin losers, you call them a name or even worse, say your opinion, thier face squishes all up into this pathetic little prune, and they say YOU CANT SAY THAT, call a cop, if is were society is going now, YOU GUYS CAN HAVE IT.

[CountryGuy]

Libel is not free speech, and the Internet is simply another communication medium. Don't make it out to be more than it is.

If this person was libeled, then it's well within their right to take this to court. That's not whining. That's following the law.

[perdidochas]

BuzWeaver wrote: This will be interesting to follow:

The California Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in San Francisco Tuesday on whether someone who posts a defamatory comment by another person on the Internet can be sued for libel.

Two civil liberties groups say the court’s eventual ruling, due in three months, could have far-reaching implications for free speech on the Internet.

While the case before the court concerns individuals-a Canadian doctor seeking to sue a women’s health activist for posting a third person’s comment about him-the court’s ruling could also determine whether Internet service providers can be held liable when they knowingly allow defamatory remarks to be posted.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/05/free-speech-on-the-internet/

Free speech doesn't give you the right to speak without repercussions from private parties. It also doesn't give you the right to harm others with your speech. Rights have limits when they affect others.

[Superfly]

CountryGuy wrote: Libel is not free speech, and the Internet is simply another communication medium. Don't make it out to be more than it is.

If this person was libeled, then it's well within their right to take this to court. That's not whining. That's following the law.

Very true.

[micfranklin]

Sorry to say, but this case does sound like someone's been whining too much to me.

Quote: Rights have limits when they affect others.

Then how do you explain the word 'criticism?'

[Alizard]

BuzWeaver wrote: This will be interesting to follow:

The California Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in San Francisco Tuesday on whether someone who posts a defamatory comment by another person on the Internet can be sued for libel.

Two civil liberties groups say the court’s eventual ruling, due in three months, could have far-reaching implications for free speech on the Internet.

While the case before the court concerns individuals-a Canadian doctor seeking to sue a women’s health activist for posting a third person’s comment about him-the court’s ruling could also determine whether Internet service providers can be held liable when they knowingly allow defamatory remarks to be posted.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/200
6/09/05/free-speech-on-the-internet/

The key word is "knowingly".... IMHO, if somebody running a site KNOWINGLY posts or allows others to post harmful lies about somebody, they should be held liable.

That is not to say that anybody with a site is automatically responsible for every word posted. But, if it can be shown they carelessly, recklessly (or knowingly) allowed false garbage to be put up, then they do have some responsibility.

[perdidochas]

micfranklin wrote: Sorry to say, but this case does sound like someone's been whining too much to me.

Quote: Rights have limits when they affect others.

Then how do you explain the word 'criticism?'

So you're saying that if I falsely accused you of being a child molestor, etc., and called you by name, and spread it on my blog, you would have no problem with it. Libel is not protected by free speech. In the case referenced by the OP, Polevoy is the one claiming libel by the other writer. Polevoy sued the writer and the board, claiming that he had been falsely defamed. IMHO, if he can prove it was defamation, he should win the suit. There is no right to write lies about another person.

Quote: The message alleged that Polevoy, who opposed alternative medicine, had stalked a female radio announcer. The doctor claimed the stalking allegation was false and defamed him.

[BuzWeaver]

Well, keep in mind also, that on most forums or chat sites you have to agree to the terms and conditions so technically you don’t have the right to say what you want, you are simply given the privilege to post, yet you’re subject to have your post edited or deleted.

[citizen_X]

Above statement: How Convenient, kind of reminds of Democracy.

[Shuya Nanahara]

if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

[perdidochas]

micfranklin wrote: Sorry to say, but this case does sound like someone's been whining too much to me.

Quote: Rights have limits when they affect others.

Then how do you explain the word 'criticism?'

Criticism involves truth and intellectual honesty. Truth is the best defense against a libel suit.

[perdidochas]

Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

[Shuya Nanahara]

perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

ISP's don't host content (ok they may host some, but not exclusively - i can buy a server and host content if i wish)........they are a conduit, they merely provide access to the WWW. to allow them to filter/determine content will mean that money will be the determining factor in which sites we can access..those who pay more access more or have their sites pushed further up the search engine heirarchy. the hosts should decide the content they wish to upload, and yes in that scenario a FC could decide not to upload something they don't like, but it should not stop me from upload something that contradicts their beliefs.

[perdidochas]

Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

ISP's don't host content (ok they may host some, but not exclusively - i can buy a server and host content if i wish)........they are a conduit, they merely provide access to the WWW. to allow them to filter/determine content will mean that money will be the determining factor in which sites we can access..those who pay more access more or have their sites pushed further up the search engine heirarchy. the hosts should decide the content they wish to upload, and yes in that scenario a FC could decide not to upload something they don't like, but it should not stop me from upload something that contradicts their beliefs.

1) They have the right to decide what content goes through their conduit.

2) The issue of this thread is not internet neutrality, but is whether the internet should have conventional civic law (i.e. libel standards) applied ot it. I say it should. Why should I be allowed to ruin somebody's reputation by falsehoods on the internet, when I'm not allowed to do that in print?

[Shuya Nanahara]

perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

ISP's don't host content (ok they may host some, but not exclusively - i can buy a server and host content if i wish)........they are a conduit, they merely provide access to the WWW. to allow them to filter/determine content will mean that money will be the determining factor in which sites we can access..those who pay more access more or have their sites pushed further up the search engine heirarchy. the hosts should decide the content they wish to upload, and yes in that scenario a FC could decide not to upload something they don't like, but it should not stop me from upload something that contradicts their beliefs.

1) They have the right to decide what content goes through their conduit.

2) The issue of this thread is not internet neutrality, but is whether the internet should have conventional civic law (i.e. libel standards) applied ot it. I say it should. Why should I be allowed to ruin somebody's reputation by falsehoods on the internet, when I'm not allowed to do that in print?

1. do you think paper boys should be allowed to determine the content of the papers they deliver.........?

2. again, this is virtually unenforceable, i agree that in say, a newspaper or a tv program, you should not be able to make false claims about a particular person or entity. but these media are made up of a very few people compared to those who use the internet, suing journos and tv producers is possible. suing every instance of defamation etc on the internet is impossible. do you really think that every chat room/forum/blog could be policed to enforce such legislation..i think not.
besides, TV/radio/newspapers carry an "official" tag, people think they report true events etc. the internet , while containing some news sites is mostly made up of people doing what we are doing now........talking crap on forums etc. it is more akin to a conversation than a newspaper. you may have a few instances where people sue, but i think the vast majority of net traffic would remain unchanged.

[perdidochas]

Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

ISP's don't host content (ok they may host some, but not exclusively - i can buy a server and host content if i wish)........they are a conduit, they merely provide access to the WWW. to allow them to filter/determine content will mean that money will be the determining factor in which sites we can access..those who pay more access more or have their sites pushed further up the search engine heirarchy. the hosts should decide the content they wish to upload, and yes in that scenario a FC could decide not to upload something they don't like, but it should not stop me from upload something that contradicts their beliefs.

1) They have the right to decide what content goes through their conduit.

2) The issue of this thread is not internet neutrality, but is whether the internet should have conventional civic law (i.e. libel standards) applied ot it. I say it should. Why should I be allowed to ruin somebody's reputation by falsehoods on the internet, when I'm not allowed to do that in print?

1. do you think paper boys should be allowed to determine the content of the papers they deliver.........?

Wrong analogy. The paper boy is an employee working for a company. I do believe that the newspaper company can determine the content of the papers they deliver. I also think cable companies can decide which channels they deliver.

Shuya Nanahara wrote: 2. again, this is virtually unenforceable, i agree that in say, a newspaper or a tv program, you should not be able to make false claims about a particular person or entity. but these media are made up of a very few people compared to those who use the internet, suing journos and tv producers is possible. suing every instance of defamation etc on the internet is impossible. do you really think that every chat room/forum/blog could be policed to enforce such legislation..i think not.
besides, TV/radio/newspapers carry an "official" tag, people think they report true events etc. the internet , while containing some news sites is mostly made up of people doing what we are doing now........talking crap on forums etc. it is more akin to a conversation than a newspaper. you may have a few instances where people sue, but i think the vast majority of net traffic would remain unchanged.

Ok, then apply slander law. I can't go out in public and start spreading lies about someone without the possibility of being sued for slander. I can't lie about my neighbor and say he is a neo-Nazi and commits human sacrifice in the back yard, without him being able to sue me. The same should apply to the internet. (the difference between libel and slander being the format--libel is print, slander is oral) If someone lies about me, with the intent of harming me, I should be able to sue, whether that is done orally or in written form (or over the internet).

[Shuya Nanahara]

perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

ISP's don't host content (ok they may host some, but not exclusively - i can buy a server and host content if i wish)........they are a conduit, they merely provide access to the WWW. to allow them to filter/determine content will mean that money will be the determining factor in which sites we can access..those who pay more access more or have their sites pushed further up the search engine heirarchy. the hosts should decide the content they wish to upload, and yes in that scenario a FC could decide not to upload something they don't like, but it should not stop me from upload something that contradicts their beliefs.

1) They have the right to decide what content goes through their conduit.

2) The issue of this thread is not internet neutrality, but is whether the internet should have conventional civic law (i.e. libel standards) applied ot it. I say it should. Why should I be allowed to ruin somebody's reputation by falsehoods on the internet, when I'm not allowed to do that in print?

1. do you think paper boys should be allowed to determine the content of the papers they deliver.........?

Wrong analogy. The paper boy is an employee working for a company. I do believe that the newspaper company can determine the content of the papers they deliver. I also think cable companies can decide which channels they deliver.

Shuya Nanahara wrote: 2. again, this is virtually unenforceable, i agree that in say, a newspaper or a tv program, you should not be able to make false claims about a particular person or entity. but these media are made up of a very few people compared to those who use the internet, suing journos and tv producers is possible. suing every instance of defamation etc on the internet is impossible. do you really think that every chat room/forum/blog could be policed to enforce such legislation..i think not.
besides, TV/radio/newspapers carry an "official" tag, people think they report true events etc. the internet , while containing some news sites is mostly made up of people doing what we are doing now........talking crap on forums etc. it is more akin to a conversation than a newspaper. you may have a few instances where people sue, but i think the vast majority of net traffic would remain unchanged.

Ok, then apply slander law. I can't go out in public and start spreading lies about someone without the possibility of being sued for slander. I can't lie about my neighbor and say he is a neo-Nazi and commits human sacrifice in the back yard, without him being able to sue me. The same should apply to the internet. (the difference between libel and slander being the format--libel is print, slander is oral) If someone lies about me, with the intent of harming me, I should be able to sue, whether that is done orally or in written form (or over the internet).

the newspaper company is the newspaper so that doesn't work.........how about, should the news paper printers be allowed to decide the content..?

[perdidochas]

Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: perdidochas wrote: Shuya Nanahara wrote: if every case of someone making an unsubstantiated claim about someone else on the internet was taken as a defamatory comment and sued in court, the judicial system would collapse.........

i really don't think there's anything to worry about here.

i think ISPs determining content is a far greater threat to free speech on the WWW

ISPs are private entities. They have a right to determine which types of content they host. For example, if I were a fundamentalist Christian, and decided to start an ISP, I could legally censor that ISP so that nothing I deemed offensive went through my system. Free speech only applies to government actions, not private ones. There is no right to make a publisher publish your speech.

ISP's don't host content (ok they may host some, but not exclusively - i can buy a server and host content if i wish)........they are a conduit, they merely provide access to the WWW. to allow them to filter/determine content will mean that money will be the determining factor in which sites we can access..those who pay more access more or have their sites pushed further up the search engine heirarchy. the hosts should decide the content they wish to upload, and yes in that scenario a FC could decide not to upload something they don't like, but it should not stop me from upload something that contradicts their beliefs.

1) They have the right to decide what content goes through their conduit.

2) The issue of this thread is not internet neutrality, but is whether the internet should have conventional civic law (i.e. libel standards) applied ot it. I say it should. Why should I be allowed to ruin somebody's reputation by falsehoods on the internet, when I'm not allowed to do that in print?

1. do you think paper boys should be allowed to determine the content of the papers they deliver.........?

Wrong analogy. The paper boy is an employee working for a company. I do believe that the newspaper company can determine the content of the papers they deliver. I also think cable companies can decide which channels they deliver.

Shuya Nanahara wrote: 2. again, this is virtually unenforceable, i agree that in say, a newspaper or a tv program, you should not be able to make false claims about a particular person or entity. but these media are made up of a very few people compared to those who use the internet, suing journos and tv producers is possible. suing every instance of defamation etc on the internet is impossible. do you really think that every chat room/forum/blog could be policed to enforce such legislation..i think not.
besides, TV/radio/newspapers carry an "official" tag, people think they report true events etc. the internet , while containing some news sites is mostly made up of people doing what we are doing now........talking crap on forums etc. it is more akin to a conversation than a newspaper. you may have a few instances where people sue, but i think the vast majority of net traffic would remain unchanged.

Ok, then apply slander law. I can't go out in public and start spreading lies about someone without the possibility of being sued for slander. I can't lie about my neighbor and say he is a neo-Nazi and commits human sacrifice in the back yard, without him being able to sue me. The same should apply to the internet. (the difference between libel and slander being the format--libel is print, slander is oral) If someone lies about me, with the intent of harming me, I should be able to sue, whether that is done orally or in written form (or over the internet).

the newspaper company is the newspaper so that doesn't work.........how about, should the news paper printers be allowed to decide the content..?

Well the printers= the company, and of course. If I'm a book (or newspaper) publisher, I can decide the content I'm printing.

Question: Should this company, www.mayberryamerica.com/ be allowed to exist? They are a filtered ISP, and they decide on which content they allow to be delivered to their customers.

[Shuya Nanahara]

sorry forgot to respond to the slander bit.

i don't actually disagree....i just can't see how it would be enforced....there's way too many people at it.