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."
Responsibility for content can change (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?
I fail to see how respecting the poster's implicit copyright over their statement allows the web site operator to refuse to remove the comment.
By insisting on keeping the defamatory post up despite the wishes of the poster, I would argue that the web site owners are assuming responsibility for that content, and are therefore liable for future lawsuits. They are not liable for the opinions of their users, but once they claim ownership of the content by refusing to take it down at the poster's request, that "who's responsible" game shifts focus rather dramatically.
Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".
Ech. Have you ever read anything that passes for a "review" on RipOffReport.com? I don't think anyone has ever "thought before they spoke" in that place, if the rampant abuse that the English language takes in most of those reviews.
Slashdot / Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot / Scientology (Score:4, Interesting)
I would love to read the original posting, since "addiction treatment services" + "Florida" equals in my mind "Narconon", which is the Church of Scientology's pseudo-scientific drug "treatment" "tech". I won't say what I think of this "tech", but I believe the quotes are enough to convey my feelings...
Re:Responsibility for content can change (Score:4, Interesting)
I find the footnote about the business practice of ripoffreport.com in the ruling particularly interesting.
This is not something I would expected from a website purported to be a consumer advocate.
Re:Legal precedence? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, lower courts do not set legal precedent.
No, lower courts do not set binding precedents, which other courts are obligated to follow. However, they do set persuasive precedents, which other courts may choose to follow. They may also produce better explanations of legal doctrines than higher courts, and thus also be worth quoting even when the controlling precedent is from another case, which might merely be cited.
Re:Slashdot / Scientology (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? There has been authority after authority that have denounced it as doing more harm than good.
They prescribe overdoses of Niacin which means in Canada the College of Physicians Quebec will sanction any physician who associates with Narconion Trois-Rivieres, even to the point of a Review Committee investigating that physician, which would result in ramifications such as fines or licence suspension.
The Narconon 4 step program:
1. victim is drawn by falsely advertised success rate
2. victim is charged outrageous fees
3. perpetrator cracks open victim's skull
4. perpetrator messes with victim's brain, replacing the victim's personalty with a cult personality
Re:so in FB... (Score:1, Interesting)
meh. i rarely RTFA to be honest. Personally the thread comments are the news for nerds im after anyways. I get more good info/explanations and lots of good sites and links from the comments on here. And i dont have to worry about
-KI
Re:I Just Can't Belive It (Score:0, Interesting)
I really don't understand why this has been moderated as funny. I was under the impression that the Slashdot crowd was more high brow than angsty teen woman bashing.
Apparently not? At least the fool was wise enough to do it anonymously.
WOW. You must REALLY be new here. AND have no sense of humour. AND have issues with males.
Well it's actually satire in this case, since the stereotype has been earnt by some groups of women - typical interaction in an all female group does tend towards gossip (just as all male groups tend towards macho competition and violence). Respecting the other sex does not require that we ignore the truth.
Re:I Just Can't Belive It (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's someone else that had to pay for her behavior. I am the victim of something similar. In fact, on RipOffReports (a blackmail site, frankly). Some random girl online started telling everyone that we were dating. Then that she was my girlfriend. Then, that we were engaged. I didn't know this girl. I mean, I had seen her name around, but I'd never talked to her. I'd never met her. I think she was the friend of a friend of a friend. Somehow, she was in the mix of a huge circle of people who knew each other vaguely and that was about it. Anyway, I found out all this psychotic stuff she was floating out there about how we were in a relationship. When I told everyone that not only was all this bullshit, but that I didn't even know her, she went batshit and posted about me on this site. Keep in mind - I don't have a business or do any sort of business. This was all personal (and, again, I didn't know her).
Anyway, so there is now a page from a random stranger on a website that purports to be about consumer advocacy and there's nothing I can do about it. Her long rambling diatribe posts a ton of personal information about me and tells this tale of how we went out and I accosted her and stalked her and then stole a bunch of her stuff. Again, I don't know this person. Had never talked to this person. I don't even know what state they're in. For that matter, I don't know that they're even in the same country.
So, my personal information and a bunch of psychotic bullshit about me is posted in public for anyone to find. Google puts it up at the top of search results for my name (because google seems to promote the RipOffReport ranking). She, on the other hand, is anonymous. I don't know her. The website dosn't know her. She is just an anonymous invented username. There is no recourse for me. Period.
This site is just a tool to facilitate the owner's extortion scheme and the anonymous posters' vendettas.
Re:I Just Can't Belive It (Score:5, Interesting)
lies. post the ripoff report, and let us see this 'damaging' info. You can contact the administrator at EDitor@ripoffreport.com and it will be removed if it is obviously just some scary firebrand spamming bullshit. sounds like you have evidence.
Kindof hard to feel bad for you without any evidence, or knowledge of what steps you took to exonerate yourself. This is no different from receiving a summons in the mail. you can't just ignore it and expect it to go away. If the case is interesting enough, it will be picked up by the press and distributed across the globe. If you do nothing, than the information will continue to circulate without check. Stepping in now will at least stem the tide of false info.
If you emailed the editor with 'omg lol so sorry neva hit tha biznitch shes a hater' then of course hes going to ignore your email. Without some sort of idea of what happened, you will get no sympathy from anyone.
Re:You can't edit what you say vocally afterwards. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".
When you "speak"; it's temporary and not viewable by the world. Posting things on the internet is more permanent.
There are still a lot of people who haven't yet learned "think before you post" or "think before you tweet"
But even people who have learned that lesson occasionally make mistakes.
Especially when intoxicated by alcohol, or by anger.
The sad part is worse than you think (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, judges are violating the principle of the separation of church and state as well as the principles of AA when they sentence people to go to AA. Addiction, including addiction to the drug we call Alcohol [wikipedia.org] is recognized by the AMA as a disease [wikipedia.org], and when a judge orders a specific treatment he is in effect acting as though he has the right to prescribe a treatment.
If he recommends AA I don't see a problem with that, but if he prescribes it as a matter of law he has effectively forced a person to seek a treatment for a disease which, in all reality, does not work for everyone regardless of the hype within the AA community claiming that it does. Indeed, no treatment for any disease works for everyone.