Court Rules Website Immune From Suit For Defamatory Posting 171
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."
Bad timing (Score:2, Informative)
She should have just waited a couple months for SOPA to get secret-voted in.
Then instead of chiming in with the communications decency act, she could just accuse them of copyright infringement of her own posting, and poor RippoffReport would lose their domain name.
I expect her to try again later and win. It wouldn't be double jeopardy since it will be a completely different crime.
Re:But if was copyrighter material (Score:5, Informative)
They do have a link for updating though. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Legal precedence? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Responsibility for content can change (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, the original article contains some pretty strongly worded statements from the court indicating that RipOffReport is being a bit shady, but that the court's hands are tied by law. It doesn't seem that way to me from reading RipOffReport's side of things, but then it's worth keeping in mind that the court might know more than we do.
I would count this as a victory for the Internet.. (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:Responsibility for content can change (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you understand what RipOffReport is. They allow anyone to sign up and post anything about anyone under the guise of a consumer advocate site. So, the existence of something on the site about a person carries some weight in people's eyes simply because of the kind of site it is on. And there is no minimal requirement to verify what is being posted and you can do so anonymously.
Then, the guy who runs the site will never remove anything. Under any circumstances. Ever. Period. Unless you pay for their business service to "work with you" to "deal with negative feedback" on the site. The entire site is set up for the administrator behind it to extort people. And not just businesses, but regular every day people.
There is absolutely nothing stopping someone from going online because they're an embittered ex girlfriend or underling or anyone else and saying that you were caught embezzling at work and that you rape children. And posting your full name and home address. And it will always be there. In fact, someone did this against one of the Google guys (Eric Schmidt, I think?) some time ago on the site. ... and there is nothing you can do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripoff_Report
Actually, I take that back. There is something you can do. You can pay for a corporate account/service to help mitigate/remove things about you on there. Or, if you're the victim of a false report, you can pay to have a company the website hires to perform arbitration and possibly adjust or remove something about you. The starting price is $2,000. And for all you know, they'll decide to keep the content on there, anyway. And you're not only out your reputation because of a jilted lover or pissy co-worker, but you're out a few thousand bucks.
The entire fucking thing is a SCAM. How it is still in operation is beyond me. It is one of the saddest things on the internet and it makes me ill.
Warner Brothers can have a website shut down in a heartbeat by filling out a simple DMCA report and claiming that the webmaster is violating their copyright (even if the only evidence is that you have a file on your server that has a word that happens to be a word in the title of a movie that they own). But, someone posts personal information about you and libels you on a website that purports to be a consumer advocacy site? Even if you don't do business, have a business, conduct any business, or have any business to do with anyone anywhere ever and are just the victim of someone's vendetta? . . .sorry, you're fucked! Webmasters aren't responsible for anything posted on their sites. Even if it's false. Even if it's vindictive. And they're not even required to remove it. Tough titties!.
Re:Slashdot / Scientology (Score:4, Informative)
Re:so in FB... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Um... (Score:4, Informative)
Wasn't there any actual *coverage of the case* somewhere on the web that could have been linked to, Ray?
Yes of course. Here's an article by excellent law professor/law blogger Eric Goldman, who as an amicus curiae in the case:
Technology & Marketing Law Blog [ericgoldman.org]
(Should I be offended that jra doesn't consider my blog post actuall "coverage"?")
Re:I Just Can't Belive It (Score:5, Informative)
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).