Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts

Court Rules Website Immune From Suit For Defamatory Posting 171

Posted by samzenpus
from the people-say-the-craziest-things dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Rules Website Immune From Suit For Defamatory Posting

Comments Filter:
  • by Esben (553245) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:49PM (#38533814)
    hell breaks loose
    • by viperidaenz (2515578) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:09PM (#38534002)
      unfortunately they already thought of that section 230.e.2 says "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property."
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:42PM (#38534292)
        Does that mean that Slashdot doesn't have to bend over and take it in the rear from Scientology anymore? That happened a few years back I believe. Only comment ever removed.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:53PM (#38534382)

          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...

          • by similar_name (1164087) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @09:22PM (#38534620)
            I think it might be this one [ripoffreport.com] The decision pdf lists G & G Addiction Treatment LLC, but I could find no reports are found for that name. Also it say the post was in July, 2009. There are two for G & G Holistics Addiction Treatment Center in Florida. PDF states the poster claimed owner was a felon and this post does that but is dated May 2009.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @09:26PM (#38534668)

            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

            • by Moryath (553296) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:29AM (#38535742)

              You forgot:

              5. falsely claim in court that the treatment is "religious" in nature to get around all rules/laws regarding prescribing drugs in overdose without a medical license and making proven false medical claims.

          • by hairyfeet (841228)

            The sad part is how many don't actually know that Narconon is CoS, Hey Anon? THAT is what you need to be spreading the word about okay? We used to have a local judge that would sentence people to Narconon until I waited outside his courtroom (it helped that my family knows his family) and I told him "Judge you DO realize you are giving money to the church of Scientology, right?" being church of Christ needless to say he was NOT happy about that news, but he had honestly thought it was just a drug version of

            • by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Friday December 30, 2011 @07:37AM (#38537172) Homepage

              "The sad part is ...

              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.

              • by hairyfeet (841228)

                Actually you really shouldn't blame the judge as he WAS trying to keep people out of jail and with repeat offenders your options are pretty limited. he would basically give them the choice of going into narconon or doing the time because he really believed that treatment was best and sadly thanks to the government cutting the living hell out of money for treatment the few in house treatment facilities are so overcrowded that you'll never get in. did you know the average wait to get in house treatment for he

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Although the site was asked by the poster herself

      Wow. I mean ... it's almost as if some hyper-emotional female was spreading rumors and causing drama and regretted it only when it finally caused real trouble.

      We all know this never, ever happens. Women are never petty and catty, they are always calm and rational and in control of the feelings they value so much, and above all they always take their problems directly to the party with which they have a dispute and would never do something childish like gossip behind their backs.

      Glad that's settled.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Catskul (323619)

        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.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Bashing would imply false information simply meant to insult. Which bit of data do you find not factual?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @09:57PM (#38534942)

        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.

        • by echostorm (865318) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:43AM (#38535834)

          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.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 30, 2011 @01:25AM (#38535982)

          Yes, there is something you can do. You may sue her for libel. The post may not be removed, but you can:

            - Get money from her
            - Get restraining orders against her
            - Eventually get her in jail when she violates the above
            - Ask ripoff report (or any other sites she posted to) to post a copy of the restraining order and court judgements you have against her

          That's about enough, if you ask me. Anyone reading those diatribes probably already thinks she's crazy. They'll know it when a judge supports you on it.

          • by TheSpoom (715771)

            How's he going to sue for libel if the post was anonymous and RipOffReport won't reveal their sources? I guess you could do a Jane Doe suit but it's still a long shot...

            • by AK Marc (707885)
              When served with a subpoena for all the information on that poster, they will provide it. He has to sue before he can get a subpoena, and so would have to identify her as her username until a legal name is obtained or as Jane Doe.
          • by cdrguru (88047)

            You aren't going to be able to get any sort of "Internet restraining order". Sorry, but there isn't any such thing. Anyone can post anything anywhere and there is really nothing that can be done about it.. They are not causing you physical harm or threatening to do so in any real way, so you aren't going to get any sort of physical restraining order against them.

            In some cases you might get the hosting site to take down really offensive comments - but some places actually do have a policy against that. It

        • by wvmarle (1070040)

          If there is a lot of personal information about you, and if that information is true (it appears to be - otherwise easy enough to say "that's not me, that's another person called AC"), the person writing that must know you quite well. Otherwise they don't have this information, nor will they go to such great lengths defaming you.

          • by msobkow (48369)

            That depends. I've been very public on internet forums and websites for years. Most of my profiles are intentionally wide open so the general public can read my opinions without me ever having to give them permission to do so. I think you'll find many Slashdotters and techies have the same disdain for what most people think of as "privacy." We'd rather argue our points with the public and hope to win over a few hearts and minds to our way of thinking than worry about whether someone might get an unders

            • by wvmarle (1070040)

              Your average politician doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. Same for many journalists. I know many names, even faces of those that are on TV or with photo in the paper often, but for most of them I don't know where they live, whether they're married or not, what car they drive, etc. That info may be available for those that actively search for it, but it's not posted with their opinions or so.

              Posting your opinion about issues is one thing; posting all other personal information all over the plac

            • I think you'll find many Slashdotters and techies have the same disdain for what most people think of as "privacy."

              I must have entered a parallel universe, where most people don't use Facebook and Slashdot isn't constantly posting stories abut privacy violations.

              Are you telling me in the universe most people actually value privacy? Because that'd be great!

        • "So, my personal information and a bunch of psychotic bullshit about me is posted in public for anyone to find."

          We call this phenomenon "The Internet" ;-) Alas, the world is full of fools who believe that if they read it on the interwebz it must be true. There is no solution to this problem, because you can't fix stupid [youtube.com].

    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Everything is copyrighted. Including your comment, and this comment.

    • That DMCA that slashdot hates so much already has a safe harbor provision.

  • by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @07:54PM (#38533852)

    Although the site was asked by the poster herself to remove the post, it refused

    Sounds like she's learned a hard lesson in "think before you speak".

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Although the site was asked by the poster herself to remove the post, it refused

      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.

      • Occasionally when researching a product/company/etc I'll find stuff on there just blasting it. Never have I found it to be accurate when I've purchased. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I think more likely the people on there are just whiny.

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.

      I would love to be her future boss...err...EX-future boss.

      • by mysidia (191772) *

        Sounds like it's more yet another case of a site taking advantage of their retention prerogative to make written words haunt her forever.

        Well, she posted that information, and people have already had a chance to rely on what she posted.

        She shouldn't get to just "erase" what she said, and pretend she never said it, while there are potentially people still going around spreading what she had said, and relying on that information.

        If someone should get questioned based on what she said, they should get to

    • by mysidia (191772) * on Friday December 30, 2011 @02:14AM (#38536174)

      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.

      • by tompaulco (629533)
        When you "speak"; it's temporary and not viewable by the world. Posting things on the internet is more permanent.
        And therefore you should think much harder before posting than you would before speaking. Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case. People get all cocky over e-mail and the internet because they know that people can't just reach out and smack their face. This lady found out that sometimes they can.
  • Bad timing (Score:2, Informative)

    by dissy (172727)

    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.

    • by LocalH (28506)

      It wouldn't be double jeopardy anyway as that only applies to criminal cases, not civil suits. You may be thinking of res judicata, which means that one can have only one trial for claims arising from one transaction or occurrence. Pretty sure that means she's boned.

  • In fact, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:10PM (#38534018) Journal

    The argument could be made that if they *did* take it down, it was admission of responsibility for content. ISPs wrestled with this a few years ago. (The "common carrier" thing.)

    • by ShakaUVM (157947)

      >>The "common carrier" thing

      Watching Anderson Cooper (ick, I know) tonight, he seemed to be pushing for eliminating the common carrier classification for internet sites, and moving them to the, quote, "newspaper model".

      Given CNN et al's support for SOPA, this didn't come as a surprise, but it was still an unpleasant thing to watch a grey-haired man that people apparently respect talking so blithely about destroying our liberty.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        Whose liberty would be destroyed by the newspaper model?
        • by ShakaUVM (157947)

          >>Whose liberty would be destroyed by the newspaper model?

          The "Newspaper Model" means that newspapers are liable for anything published within them. You can sue a newspaper for an article on its front page containing libel.
          The "Telephone Model" means that you can't sue the telephone company for any conversations that take place on it. I.e., if two people are speaking slander over the phone, you can sue the people, but not the telephone company. The phone system is a common carrier.

          CNN/Anderson Cooper

          • by AK Marc (707885)
            So who is losing their liberty? Those posting comments, or those running websites? You can sue a newspaper, but it's very hard unless they hack your voicemail. "Anonymous source reports Bob has sex with sheep" That's a true statement and would be very hard to successfully sue for, regardless of whether Bob has sex with sheep. I've seen plenty of untrue things on newspaper web sites and they are still up and running fine, so I fail to see the danger asserted.
            • by ShakaUVM (157947)

              If they shut down Slashdot and Reddit, and all similar sites, this compromises your freedom, unless you think liberty only exists in the physical domain, not the electronic one.

              • by AK Marc (707885)
                There are piles of actual newspaper sites which accept comments, not a single one has been shut down, so I don't get the "newspaper model will shut down Slashdot" assertion. If they don't shutdown sites like slashdot, then you are asserting there is no loss of freedom by anyone, right? If that's not what you were saying, who loses freedom if no sites are shut down, and what sites (like newspapers) have ever been shut down under the "newspaper model" or are you saying that there are no sites (like actual n
  • by aklinux (1318095) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:15PM (#38534062) Homepage
    They state up front that they NEVER delete a report from their database once it's been entered. They do have a fairly prominent link for updating &/or rebutting. I guess that'll have to do ...
  • by msobkow (48369) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:16PM (#38534068) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by WeirdAlchemy (2530168) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:23PM (#38534128)
      In the link from the last page of the article, RipOffReport provides some rationale for this. They liken it to a court case where a person is sued and found innocent. Despite having received a good verdict, all the paperwork of the lawsuit still exists on permanent public record.

      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.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:56PM (#38534418)

        I find the footnote about the business practice of ripoffreport.com in the ruling particularly interesting.

        As part of the record on appeal, Xcentric describes a “service” it provides to
        people and entities who wish to challenge false postings on Xcentric’s website.
        This “service” is called the “Corporate Advocacy Program” by Xcentric.
        Individuals or businesses who believe they have been defamed by a posting on
        Xcentric’s website must, according to the amicus brief filed in this case, “pay a
        tidy sum to be investigated by Xcentric’s management.” Moreover, “[i]n addition
        to a steep upfront charge, the business is required to make periodic payments to
        keep its status in the program.” Xcentric further indicates on its website that the
        program “NEVER includes removal of complaints.” http://www.ripoffreport.com/
        ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx (emphasis in original).

        This is not something I would expected from a website purported to be a consumer advocate.

      • Basically, it's like being set on fire by some crazy person, and then (after removing your flaming clothes) getting arrested for public indecency.
        While you may be innocent of any wrongdoing, your sex offender status is still permanent and well-known.

        Which makes it the Right Thing To Do.

    • by Todd Knarr (15451)

      I think it's basically this: it's not the poster suing RipoffReport. The poster may have a cause of action against RR for keeping the posting up, the company may have a cause of action against the poster if they don't do their best to have the post taken down, but the law bars the company from suing RR over someone else's material.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 29, 2011 @09:20PM (#38534610)

        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!.

        • by Todd Knarr (15451)

          What I'd do with that site is decline to "work with them". I'd file against the person who posted the false and defamatory information (using the proper legal tools to get their identity if they'd posted pseudonymously), get them into court and get a judgement against them including an order requiring them to remove the posting. If the site declined, I'd go back and ask the judge for a court order against them requiring them to comply with the poster's request. I'm in a much stronger position now, and I've

          • by AdamJS (2466928)

            But what about when it is effectively entirely anonymously?
            Not everyone leaves a trail or has obvious heuristic ticks in their writing style that can be used to deduce facts/

            • by Todd Knarr (15451)

              If they're truly anonymous, you may be out of luck. But if RR keeps logs, you can subpoena those logs to determine the IP address the post came from (and RR'll have a hard time fighting that subpoena if you're sensibly limiting it to the time of the posting and specifically requesting only the information related to that posting and not trying to fish for everything in their logs). From that you determine who owns that IP address and subpoena their subscriber records to determine which subscriber had that a

    • by shentino (1139071)

      By posting it she gave them an implicit license under that copyright.

    • Isn't it the user who posted the comment the one who's asking to have it taken down?

      Yes and no. A temporary injunction was filed against the woman who originally posted the alleged "defamatory" comment. That's what prompted her request for the removal, but then the court notes in its decision that the injunction got dissolved almost immediately anyway.

      Nowhere does it say in the decision from the court that she thought her comments were false, or even defamatory. I'm afraid that part may have come from NewYorkCountryLawyer's editorializing.

      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.

      Where did you read that? They cite the Communicati

      • by msobkow (48369)

        Copyright is the identification of the individual legally responsible for content. Everyone has implicit copyright on what they say, should they choose to identify themselves when they say it. You can also claim explicit copyright over a phrase by simply making a public statement of claim. It's a perfectly valid legal construct.

        An access license to the copyright content is another matter entirely. When you post to a website, you're agreeing to grant them and their readers a grant of license to view w

        • by msobkow (48369)

          Just to clarify, if the license you originally published under has no explicit license termination clauses, you can't revoke the license you originally published under. But you always have the right to republish your statements under different license terms in the future unless you explicitly reassign copyright to someone else, or to publish the same copyright content under many different licenses by posting copies to many different websites.

    • Except that the federal law in question provides that no website is considered either an 'author' or a 'publisher' of any 'information [the post] provided by another information content provider [the user]'. It then goes on to explicitly overrule any state/local laws that conflict with this.

      Short version is, this law was intended to shield Internet companies for being passive conduits. It would be a terrible idea if, anytime anyone sent defamatory content through the mail, the victim could sue the Post O
    • That's just like eBay's policy

    • by tompaulco (629533)
      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.
      Well, if they agreed to take it down at her request, she could have been coerced or threatened by the company (in fact that is pretty likely probably why she is asking to take it down). That is not a good reason to take it down.
      It is like accounting. In accounting, you don't (aren't supposed to) r
  • by preaction (1526109) on Thursday December 29, 2011 @08:53PM (#38534374)

    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?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Exactly. That place is one of the most scammy, scummy, disgusting, exploitive places on the internet and the guy behind it is an extortionist. I don't have a business. I don't do any business. There is no reason for me to be listed on there. But, I am. Some random person that I don't even know but apparently has a beef with me posted a long diatribe accusing me of very shady stuff that I wouldn't want people thinking I had anything to do with. On top of it, the person posted my personal information. My full

      • by am 2k (217885)

        It really depresses me that this random person that I don't even think I know posted some random invented crap about me on this site and now it shows up when I google myself (which I don't do, because it depresses me as a result of this). But there's absolutely no recourse. Unless I want to pay a bunch of money tot he guy who runs this rip off of a site.

        This sounds to me like there's a real possibility that this guy himself invented some random bad stuff, attached real names from a phonebook or some other source to it and hopes that these people pay him money for removing it again. I guess that would be great business plan for someone lacking any hint of morals.

  • by jra (5600)

    Wasn't there any actual *coverage of the case* somewhere on the web that could have been linked to, Ray?

  • So if a person is a person and a corporation is a "person", then if a site posts something harmful to a person it's OK, but if they post something harmful to a "person" it's copyright infringement?
  • by NynexNinja (379583) on Friday December 30, 2011 @12:13AM (#38535676)
    They have been sued numerous times for not removing posts *when the author of the post requested that it should be removed*. I think the bottom line is don't use ripoffreport.com, use complaintsboard.com or any similar site.
  • Yes, courts currently have to rule the website is immune from legal consequences of non-moderated posts, because that's what the current law (DMCA) says.

    Which is exactly why the current Congress is working to pass SOPA [cnet.com], which would criminalize those posts, and give the government the power to shut it down.

    This is the same government that is now killing American citizens who haven't been proven to have committed any crime or offense, but have been only accused by someone in the bureaucracy. The same governme

    • by AK Marc (707885)

      This is the same government that is now killing American citizens who haven't been proven to have committed any crime or offense, but have been only accused by someone in the bureaucracy.

      I'm familiar with all the other references you made, but I hadn't heard of this one

      • by Doc Ruby (173196)

        Anwar Alawlaki and Samir Khan were American citizens targeted and killed by a US drone strike [cnn.com] in Yemen in September.

        These two were probably actually terrorists. But according to what, to whom? If they were what the military says they were, then they were US citizens guilty of treason, their citizenship strippable, and subject to the death penalty. But US citizens have the right to due process, and no due process convicted them of treason. No due process at all, concluding nothing. Instead, somebody said the

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          The Senator that supported the killings essentially labeled them traitors (without using that word). Why not try them in absentia? They were never even formally accused (no charges filed, no warrant issued, at least as far as the CNN article indicated). So, assuming innocent until proven guilty is still a legal policy, the president ordered the execution of provably innocent American citizens.
  • Is there a write-up/rip off report on the site...for RipOffReports?

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...