UnderGround Forums
 

LegalGround >> Internet Slander / consequences


11/8/08 1:25 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ItchyNuggets
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/23/03
Posts: 883
 
OK so obviously if your a really famous public figure like Tom Cruise or something seems like you can just sue every troll that says something bad about you.

However what about say a lower level "famous" person, like a town mayor, or a minor league baseball coach or something.

What if someone goes online and says something that is absolutely provably and completely false and was clearly made up for malicous motivation (revenge), to ruin this persons reputation. Seems like there should be recourse for that kind of malicous behavior.

And the cops say they can trace this back to a specific person, and they are actually able to.

There is a specific story behind this that I'm not really willing to go into. I'm not involved, but let me just say would laugh my ass off if this slanderer ended up having to pay dearly for being such a miserable slandering f*cker.

Thanks for any info
11/8/08 6:07 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/11/05
Posts: 8816
Biggest issue here is proof of damages; internet's still the wild west in many things legal, but the general rule of thumb here is that the common man recognizes internet rumors as just that & you won't be able to prove any damages, so unless there's something above & beyond that, I'd take the cue from Obama the terrorist loving Muslim & just let it go & laugh about it.
11/8/08 1:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ItchyNuggets
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/23/03
Posts: 884
Obviously the law is the law. Maybe the internet is just an ungovernable place, got to accept it.

However anybody trying to tell me there are no damages (not you Bark) but any lawyer or whatever, is delusional.

Say some High School coach cuts a player, so the Dad of said player get pissed off and tells people in the online Football community that the guy mollests kids. Sorry but that right there is no joke. Not a laughing matter in the slightest.

Say some guy get pissed off at his city councelman, so he goes online and says he saw that his wife ( councelman's wife) came to the hospital all beaten up and saying that here husband beat her half to death?

Add to the that both those scenarios are easily proven wrong and absolutely complete fabricated to be malicous. And it can be proven it came from that specific guy's computer (guy accused of said slander)

As far as I'm cocerned there needs to be some punishment in those types of scenarios.

But hey what do I know
11/8/08 3:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/11/05
Posts: 8819
^Again, a necessary component of slander is proof of damages. In your examples, would the average reader believe the slander & cause actual damages as a result, or would only complete fucking morons respond in that manner? So would you pin the resulting damages on the slander, or the complete fucking morons?

If I wasn't clear enough from citing Obama, just take a look at some of the heinous shit that went around chain emails & myspace. Was that slander, or idiotic nonsense? How did the average reader respond to it? How did the Obama campaign respond to it?

Moon hoax conspiracy. National Enquirer. See where this is going?
11/10/08 1:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ItchyNuggets
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/23/03
Posts: 885
Again the law is the law.

But I would also say that passing out or putting up flyers would definately be on the same level as "only idiots believe it".

As far as I'm concerned you do either thing its malicous and there are real damages.... but.......... whatever.

And how do you proove damages from slander from say a newspaper even. All those folks that would have used your business but decide not to (due to slander), or all those folks that would have voted for a city mayor but decided not to (due to slander). I guess they all come into court and tell the judge right?
11/10/08 6:38 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BarkLikeADog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 10/11/05
Posts: 8833
It's about the perceived veracity of the information & the resulting impact on your life & mental well-being. Obviously I could show in court that Dan Rather or the FBI falsely saying I'm a baby fucker has way more impact on my life than my vindictive ex-girlfriend's myspace blog.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.