Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments 364

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "In a legal case being watched closely by bloggers, an Internet company has sued the owner of a blog for comments posted to his site by readers, the Wall Street Journal Online reports. Traffic-Power.com, which sells tools for boosting Web traffic, sued Aaron Wall, age 25, over statements posted in the comments section of Wall's search-engine-optimization blog, SEOBook.com. (Wall also has posted about the case.) 'Legal analysts said the case falls into somewhat murky legal territory, but that Mr. Wall may have some protection from liability under federal law,' WSJ.com says. 'Courts generally have held that the operators of computer message boards and mailing lists cannot be held liable for statements posted by other people. Blogs might be viewed in a similar light, they said.' However, Daniel Perry, a lawyer who has followed the case, says that Wall's case is complicated by his own negative comments about Traffic-Power, which could be seen as a competitor to his site. 'To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller,' Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments

Comments Filter:
  • hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by justin12345 ( 846440 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @12:51PM (#13446729)
    'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

    This guy has obviously never been to /.
  • by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @12:51PM (#13446731) Homepage
    So, honestly, two operators in a dirty business go at each other, my personal feeling is I hope they both go down. It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...
  • by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @12:51PM (#13446733)
    I'd spout off some disparaging comments about lawyers, but am now afraid to ....
  • by SeekerDarksteel ( 896422 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @12:58PM (#13446790)
    So, honestly, two operators in a dirty business go at each other, my personal feeling is I hope they both go down. It's kind of like two porn sites arguing which has the sluttiest bitches...

    Yeah, when two sites are talking about their respective bitches I too hope they both go down.

    Wait, you meant the porn sites, didn't you....nevermind...
  • by Dibson ( 723948 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:00PM (#13446814)
    Don't be afraid. Didn't you read the article? Insult the lawyers and /. will take the blame!
  • WTF (Score:5, Funny)

    by Sheepdot ( 211478 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:02PM (#13446837) Journal
    'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'

    I beg to differ [wikipedia.org].

    Hurting someone else's feelings is my spaghetti-god-given right.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:05PM (#13446862)
    And Daniel Perry can only have an orgasm if he kills a dog.
  • by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:14PM (#13446942) Journal
    from posting on someone's forum or blog, who I don't like, and hope they get sued.

    ALright, with luck I can post as an AC on /., saying how bad a big company is, and have them sue CmdrTaco :) W000T!!! CmdrTaco I want my mod points or else!

    This just shows how stupid courts can get, and I swear, judges should really just smack some people around.
  • by tetrode ( 32267 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:26PM (#13447042) Homepage
    This trafficy-power seems to have a nice web site.

    Very decent.

    Look! there is even a mailinglist I can subscribe to. Quick let's do it before someone else does it. ... fill in the e-mail address and clicks on subscribe ...

    Hmm, what do I get for a page:


    http://65.41.209.68/~lisa/?type=s [65.41.209.68]

    File not found!

    The URL you have loaded has not been found on this server.

    Please alert the system administrator if you believe you have reached this in error.


    What a losers
  • by laughingcoyote ( 762272 ) <(moc.eticxe) (ta) (lwohtsehgrab)> on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:35PM (#13447139) Journal

    Everyone on this site is a convicted murderer who eats babies.

    Just libeled all of you! (I hope). You may begin suing Slashdot now.

  • Psssst! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:38PM (#13447169)
    the_raptor (652941) has kiddie porn and uses the marijuana. Tell a friend.
  • by FhnuZoag ( 875558 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:47PM (#13447298)
    I wonder about that... The real solution to the free speech problem isn't censorship, but to keep track of reputation. If people knew that what they say would matter, and that saying stupid things will mean fewer listeners, then we would solve many problems.

    Give every poster an ID. Log all messages from each ID, and allow others to invest their own reputation in people and donate points. In short, a reputation market. Of course, there will be karma whores, and stuff like that...
  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @01:55PM (#13447378) Journal
    2008 XX-XX
    United Press International
    In a landmark case, a recent civil action has resulted in a person being successfully sued for having a negative opinion. Said the plaintiff's attorney: "Look, everyone knew that the defendant had a poor opinion of my client. He didn't precisely say this explicitly, but it was evident in his conduct and manner. The defendant is a well-respected member of his community, and so this implied reputation had a direct negative effect on my client, both from a social and (more importantly) fiscal perspective. Knowing that the defendant didn't like my client in the least, prospective employers would view this negatively, either preventing my client from getting a good job, or reducing the scope of compensation offers. We are fortunate to have found a judge who understood the nuances of this case."
    Based on extensive precedent set in the Civil Rights litigation of the 20th century, it became de facto illegal to dislike someone if they were of an oppressed minority of any type. It was practically foreordained that this would be expanded to eventually apply regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. What happened here today is expected to be repeated across the country shortly.
  • by wintermute740 ( 450084 ) <wintermute@@@nitemarecafe...com> on Wednesday August 31, 2005 @02:16PM (#13447572) Homepage
    "Horse pucky. If you aren't free to share your opinion, then this isn't the United States I thought I lived in. More and more, it seems like the freedom of speech is directly related to how much money you have."

    Welcome to the Soviet States of America... Or hadn't you noticed?

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Working...