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.'"
Power of the pulpit (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's one of the greatest strengths of the internet. True freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should you be allowed to go around staring negative rumours about your business competitors? How would you like your boss to lie to a future employer that you got fired for drug abuse or for having kiddie porn?
People want rights but never seem to understand that responsibilities are just as important for the functioning of society.
One of the great problems with the Internet currently is that there are so many anonymous cowards, who troll, spam and lie. There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:2)
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Funny)
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...
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's entirely possible (and has already happened) that someone creates a "blog" site intended to serve as sort of an electronic version of a personal diary, accessible anyplace they have Internet access, and mainly intended for a few friends or family members to use if they care to join in. But someone stumbles onto it, discovers what they view as an interesting conversation about something of significance - and starts directing heavy traffic to it. All of a sudden, this person's formerly "unknown" comments have big influence.
Therefore, you have to consider the *potential audience* for your words before you type them - not your current actual audience. When you host a web site on the Internet, the *potential* is always quite large.
If you want to write comments that truly aren't even intended to reach an audience beyond a few selected people, you'd password protect it.
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet has precious few dark depths. If I was considering buying a Traffic-Power product, I might do a google search on them in order to find out more. Google is good at dredging the dark depths, and I would likely stumble upon the blog in question and it might affect my decision. Hence, the speech should reasonably be subject to libel laws etc.
Psssst! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see what the big problem is really. All the pushes that have been made against the o-so-terrible-trolls have been made by corporations trying to protect themselves, half of th
No, it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like the idea here is that you should have freedom of speech if you're criticizing the government, but not if you're criticizing a business.
Considering the large number of people I run across who espouse the belief the government should have as little power as possible and businesses should take up any important functions instead, this would seem in the long run to maybe lead to not having any meaningful free speech at all.
"Libel" doesn't really have anything to do with it. Did you read the article? You know, the one this comments section is supposedly talking about? The lawsuit doesn't even specify exactly which comments that seobook.com is being sued for, and the claims which were likely to have sparked the lawsuit seem to have been corroborated by other sources. In this light it seems likely that the comments prompting the lawsuit at worst are legitimate criticisms of this trafficpower company, and at best are incorrect but honestly meant by the people who posted them.
Ever heard the term "chilling effects"? The problem is we have to err on either one side or the other. Either we are too cautious with freedom of speech and allow bad information to flourish, or we are too strict and dissuade people from exercising their freedom. There isn't a middle ground. The thing is though that if we err on the side of caution, nothing is hurt. People can make up their own minds and decide not to trust an "anonymous coward" on the internet unless what they say can be corroborated. However if we err on the other side, and wind up silencing people because they cannot risk the consequences of having spoken, then there is no way to repair this. Those comments are lost forever.
There is very little consequence to such actions so people aren't inhibited.
Ah yes, this horrible environment in which there are no negative consequences for expressing oneself... how will civilization survive.
Re:It's all about the reaction. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds almost like Traffic Power is a company with a useless service. That Traffic Power knows they have a useless service. And that Traffic Power specifically trains their representatives in lying t
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a problem, but merely a behavior.
The problem is (and long has been) the degree to which we've tended to believe the printed word, no matter the source. The Internet's gradually improving that situation.
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have news for you. Lawsuits are empowered by the government, so if the government empowers someone to sue you regarding a comment, then the government is not granting you freedom to speak that comment.
And freedom of speech is not restricted to supporting or rejecting a political candidate. Honest protest of any issue is permissible, and among consenting adults discussion of essentially any topic is per
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Interesting)
I must disagree with some of these comments.
1) Burger King does not have to prove anything about their fries. The blogger must offer proof that Burger King added the cyanide. That cyanide w
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Interesting)
So a blogger can never publish a negative statement about anyone? Because that seems to me to be the result of your viewpoint. Someone acting
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Informative)
There is a defined legal concept known as "The Common Man" that Common Law countries use. I am specifically aware of the concept in the UK, Canada and Australia.
Loosely put, the definition is "if the common man would not find that to be a reasonable action, you loose". For example, going swimming in a large storm on a beach with signs saying beach closed due to dangerous conditions, a person going swimming and breaking their neck has no legal grounds for suing. It very effe
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:5, Interesting)
To use your own logic, there are well-traveled avenues that you could use to prevent your boss from lying about you. They are libel and slander laws, and if it happens with company compliance, you could set yourself up to never work again.
This guy is being served with a murky lawsuit, and the plantiff's counsel offered to drop the whole thing if he removed every bit of referring content to their company. If their counsel really did their homework, they would have documented each and every infraction on his site, included it in the suit, and asked for specific remedies (whether it be money, removal of content, etc.) Upon receiving it, he could get useful legal counsel, and either fight it or comply. Instead, they're trying to intimidate him into silence.
That would be like Microsoft suing slashdot over critical posts and offering to drop the whole thing if every reference to MS was removed from this site.
Maybe before you try the Uncle Ben defense (With great power comes great responsibility) you should RTFConstitution.
Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, the GP only contained three lines. One of them was blank and one of them was a quote.
This is what it said:
So I have to ask: what part of that did you read as saying "people should not be held accountable for acts of lib
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's freedom from the consequences of your speech that is being debated.
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:2)
Of course every once in a while David beats Goliath but on the whole we get squeezed tighter and tighter every day.
This is precisely why I use an alias on any blog I post to.
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:5, Interesting)
"The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people."
You mean, if I were to say this:
"Daniel Perry is a two-bit fucktard who plainly doesn't understand what the Internet is all about. He spreads lies, deceit, and only wants to sue people for their hard-earned money while he accepts fat checks from his clients. What a worm, that guy."
That would mean Slashdot might be held liable in a lawsuit, amiright?
Also, if you're not allowed to make negative comments about people on the Internet, then about 98% of all blogs ever written would be in violation of the law.
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly. [slashdot.org] But I doubt it.
You do know the difference between a negative comment and libel, don't you?
libel: [answers.com]
1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2. The act of presenting suc
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:3, Interesting)
And how do you determine its falseness? Court trial? A trial initiated by, say, a 2 billion dollars a year corp against your basement-dwelling (hypotetically) ass. Result: no freedom of speech whatsoever as the court costs alone will utterly ruin you before you even get to the actual trial proper. For practical example, check out the "RIAA vs. teenagers" circus. Result: no freedom of speech against those p
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:2)
(P.S. There's no apostrophe in "its" when it's used to denote posession. The apostrophe should only be used to indicate a contraction of "it is." Just so ya know.
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, Ian Clarke [sourceforge.net] is - but unfortunately, he rarely gets much support... any mention of Freenet here, for example, turns into "You don't care about Chinese dissidents, you're just enabling child pornographers". Well, forget Chinese dissidents; I'm more concerned about "corporate dissidents". How long before people who post book reviews on Amazon.com get sued for slander when they say that a book's no good? Freenet has the capability to turn the internet back into what it ought to have been from the start.
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because he is going about it the wrong way. Freenet simply is not capable of delivering what he claims its design goals are (and spare me links to fake Chinese dissident's sites please which cannot be accessed by them using the Web). In oppressive countries, as soon as you are found to be u
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope you have you ammo boxes handy as this is bound to happen rather soon. Freenet use is at this point nearly completely restricted to child pornography and a small number of die-hard believers in the concept of Freenet, since the supposed target audience, the dissidents, would be nuts to use it, for the reasons I described. This distribution of contents makes Freenet a sitting duck for the "Think Of The Children" political charlatans, and it also makes any defense of Freenet impossible in a typical political context. I really think that Freenet is such a wrong-headed implementation of a sounds-good-on-paper idea that it does far more harm than good to the struggle for preservation of Freedom of Speech and other Liberties.
Re:Power of the pulpit (Score:3, Informative)
Slander is speech.
Libel is printed.
Ahem (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes you think your law applies in my country? I know that US law may like to be extended to every reach of the world but those countires own their internet too which would apply to their laws.
WTO (Score:3, Insightful)
All they have to do is attach the term ' commerce ' to the case, and the more favorable laws apply .
Re:WTO (Score:2, Interesting)
Some guy lives in France that doesn't allow hate speech from the stuff that happened in WWII; the guy reads the hate speech deemed illegal in France posited by someone that lived in Russia and the server resides some place in China.
Ok, so we go after that bad guy and got him shutdown (I don't know which bad it was but it is done).
Now the same guy that lives in Russia has very strict pornography laws. He then reads the web site of the guy that read the hat
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
Because I have heard that you like raping three year old boys. And then you eat them.
Re:Ahem (Score:2)
Re:Ahem (Score:3, Insightful)
The plaintiff is a US company and the defendant is a US citizen.
That comment was directed at a case taking place entirely in the US legal system.
How is that comment insightful? It's more of trolling then anything else.
hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
This guy has obviously never been to
Two Slugs Battle It Out... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out... (Score:2, Funny)
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...
Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now spamming link sites to increase your page ranking (ie getting more google votes) can be seen as sleazy. If you do a Google search on any niche product and look at the top google fetches typically will find a sleazy seo behind the scenes providing mas
Re:Two Slugs Battle It Out... (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
truckaxle says:Nice analogy but I don't think it fully applies. There is nothing inherently evil about search engine optimization.
Whoa there truckaxle... are you saying there's something inherently evil about slutty bitches? You've never met *good* slutty bitches? Trust me, they're out there...
Anyway, the
Libel or 1st Amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Libel or 1st Amendment? (Score:2)
Trade Secrets and libel/defamation? Or just speech?
Well, somehow I doubt the whole trade-secrets thing... what is their secret "we're evil"?
Re: libel/defamation, the ultimate defense is truth. You can say all the nasty things you want about someone -- so long as they're true -- and it's not defamation or libel [or, rather, since my example said "say," slander].
Dangerous Territory (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dangerous Territory (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dangerous Territory (Score:2)
I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:5, Insightful)
I went on the site scionlife.com and in their "Review Dealers" section ripped Romano Scion of Syracuse, NY. I told how they had done me wrong and advised others to never shop there.
Is ScionLife liable? Am I? Is Slashdot liable now that I've put it up here?
And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:3, Informative)
I think people take slander, libel, and general censorship too seriously. Just remember that freedom of speech/expression of ideas is just an illusion in America. So watch your back.
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:2)
You take your porn to singapore? Your going to get fined/jailed or whatever.
You bring your weed back from Amsterdam? Your going to get arrested in the US.
You say you mostly drive on the highways where the speed limit is 60mph and you want to drive the same on any street (including say a residential street) and the cop still gives you a ticket? Know why? Because laws and rules often have boundaries.
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:2)
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawsuit isn't bad because the website is going to get convicted it's because if these suits are going to continue popping up websites will not be allowed to let comments be posted due to the cost of proving themselves innocent.
Being a litigious society sucks because of the amount of time and money wasted on lawyers. And that's really 99% of the reason why we should care.
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:2)
Depending on your state, you can file a motion under SLAPP laws to protect yourself. If you are innocent of libel/slander, it is not allowable for a larger entity to quash your speech by threatening an expensive legal action.
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:2)
I think the main question you should be asking is whether or not your comments were factually correct. If you're not BSing, you're not libeling. That doesn't stop you from getting sued, of course, but it hopefully stops them from winning, and helps you to successfully counter-sue for your costs if they're being jerks about it.
And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to r
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:2)
"And finally, if someone spray paints a swastica on my garage door while I'm out of town and unable to remove it, am I liable for a hate crime?"
Um, I'm tempted to make a comment about how silly this is, but I think you will realize it yourself given time.
For something to be libel (Score:5, Informative)
1) The statements you make must be false statements. Truth is the ultimate defence against a libel suit. No matter how bad something is that you say, if it's true, it's not libel.
2) You had to know the statements were false. If you believed you were making true statements, that is also a defence against libel. Of course that's a little harder to prove, gets in to he-said, she-said to try and prove if you knew or not.
3) The statements had to be made with the intent to cause harm. If they were made as a joke, it's not libel. Again, gets in to an argument of if you really intended to cause harm.
So, if your statements are true, and provably so, you are fine. If not it gets a little more unclear.
Now please note, they could still sue you, even if their suit had no merit. That shit happens ALL the time. Even if everything you said was true you could still be sued. Doesn't mean you'd be liable for anything if you defended yourself, but you'd still have to defend yourself.
Re:I wondered this as I blasted a business... (Score:2)
By the way, Scions are pretty cool. Go get one.
Text of the lawsuit (Score:2, Informative)
14. At unknown date or dates, Doe I, alone or in concert with Does I through X, began disseminating Plaintiff's trade secrets to the public, with such information now available on various web sites. Among other things, Defendant or Defendants posted proprietary relating to Plaintiff's solicitation, procedures on publicly accessible areas of the internet.
How dumb. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How dumb. (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree. I think it's more that the courts have ruled you actually have the right to anonymity, so they're going after the first guy they -can- identify. I really doubt if it's going to go over, though. Certainly, I'm sure there's mountains of libelous text in Slashdot's archives, but I don't really think you can sue Slashdot for that.
Re:How dumb. (Score:2)
The TV networks got sued/fined over the "wardrobe malfunction" with Janet Jackson, which is a better analogy. The phone network is private; TV and web are broadcast. Different rules, though the web should have it's own rules. For example, if someone complains about an unreasonable slanderous post, I'd say it would be fair to expect the site owner to investigate it at the very least. If you are the one ultimately in control of the data,
Re:How dumb. (Score:2)
Thats only on /. ;)
Editorial control (Score:3, Interesting)
Another case is if you refuse to remove illegal material from your blog, when pointed out to you, you may become responsible.
Of course, if you do remove the material, it may be viewer as editorial control, so it is damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Very interesting legal complications (Score:3, Interesting)
Jerry
http://www.cyvin.org/ [cyvin.org]
Was it slander? (Score:3, Insightful)
All the articles I read about it only say he posted a negative comment about the web-search boosting product. Did he lie about it, or was it a fair comment that he made?
Some people will sue others over even looking at them funny. Overall, though, I have my money on Aaron Wall.
Re:Was it slander? (Score:2)
Re:Was it slander? (Score:2)
but apparently... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:but apparently... (Score:2)
I despise the litigousness of my country, especially now that so many people consider the court to be a get rich quick opportunity.
Horse pucky (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
There is a huge difference between blatently attempting to undermine and destroy a reputation, and simply expressing your opinion (negative or otherwise). The ability to express one's opinion, even if said opinion is extremely negative, should be protected speech.
The people filing this lawsuit are nothing more than schoolyard bullies.
Re:Horse pucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless they're right. In which case they're making sure that another party isn't abusing the first amendment and BSing while presenting nonsense as fact. It could be done by either party, for any reason, and the only issue is whether or not the person posting his comments, or allowing the other comments to stay up on his web site, are truthful.
The truth may indeed be extremely negative, but who cares, as long as it's the truth. But a lot of people post demonstrable lies in blogs, hoping that the search engines will pick up on it, etc. The person being lied about should have recourse, whether large or small.
In this case, how have you made your determination about the truthfullness (and thus, non-libelous) nature of the web content in question? I didn't see enough to go on, so you must know more.
Its a sad day (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its a sad day (Score:2)
That's because truth is an absolute defense.
the only reason they sue... (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF (Score:5, Funny)
I beg to differ [wikipedia.org].
Hurting someone else's feelings is my spaghetti-god-given right.
yes it is (Score:2, Insightful)
wrong try again - it called freedom of speech -
like I can say microsoft sucks and is a convicted monopolists that uses strongarm tactics to undermine the open standards in the industry.
I als
Re:yes it is (Score:2)
You can't say "Bill Gates rapes little boys and girls"
You CAN say "I think Bill Gates might rape little boys and girls"
I think.
Re:yes it is (Score:2)
In other words, as it applies to the case posted above, if Traffic-Power.com can prove what was said on the blog is false, then there's a libel suit there.
That of course doesn't explain WHO would be at fault.
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't?
Last I heard people were free to express an opinion, even one that is "wrong".
Well sure, spreading lies and actively defacing or hurting an individual should be frowned upon, but bad-mouthing a company or a competitor you don't like? Hello? Slashdot anyone? Yes, the editors get involved in this too. Slashdot is as much of a bash fest as it is a news and informative opinion medium.
If merely bad mouthing a company that you don't like is not legal, Slashdot would have been sued out of existance long ago! Half the comments made about companies we don't like here are in fact complete nonsense and out-right lies.
If cases like this hold up, places like Slashdot don't have much of a future. As much as I hate the large amount of truly idiodic comments that cross this site, I don't want to see it taken down by corporate lawyers and I sure as hell don't want to feel like every word I say, interpreted in any number of ways by any number of people might suddenly land me in jail.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
If you run a website that is the slightest bit controversial, you had better be prepared to deal with legal threats. Otherwise, you might as well just save yourself the troub
Free Speech Ain't Free (Score:3, Insightful)
"God bless the child that's got his own" freedom.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Billie Holiday & Arthur Herzog Jr said it best:
Mama may have, papa may have
But God bless the child that's got his own
That's got his own
He just worry 'bout nothin'
Cause he's got his own
I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
(Sorry, I've always wanted to say that. Actually, most of what I know about IP was learned while helping my SO study for her IP class in her MBA program)
Let me get the facts straight, as the article seemed a little light on details. Some guy, in the US, posts factual information or personal opinion on his weblog, and allows others to do so as well. These include unkind words about a company who makes a product or service which may compete with a product or service with which the author is financially involved. (try and parse that one)
A Trade Secret, traditionally, is something so necessary to your core business and so valuable that you believe that keeping it a secret is more likely to make you money than patenting it, or it is unpatentable. Telling the world a trade secret is only unlawful if you are contractually bound not to tell, or if you came by the information through theft or other nefarious means. Once a trade secret is no longer secret, you have no protection (hence the incentive for patenting and licensing).
So, unless this guy stole the information, or is under a nondisclosure agreement, this looks an awful lot like free speech. The others who posted in his site may have written unkind things as well, but the comments are (I assume) clearly delineated as visitor comments, and not the writings of the author. I think you can go pretty far toward slander without getting into trouble that way.
I'm wondering why this is even an issue, unless its just punishement through lawyer fees, regardelss of the outcome.
The Law is Not So "Murky" Here: See CDA sec. 230 (Score:5, Informative)
The Communications Decency Act, sec. 230(c)(1) says,
And, in sect. 230 (f)(3),Why a blog with comments would be treated differently from, say, a BBS or a chat room escapes me. And I teach this stuff for a living. So much for the defamation claims.The trade secret claim is a little harder. It's probably the case that Congress didn't have trade secrets in mind when it wrote sec. 230. On the other hand, if you read the full text [findlaw.com] of sec. 230 you will see that Congress intended fairly broad protection; in sec. 230(f)(3) it certainly wrote in very broad terms. In law there are few certainties until after a court rules, but I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable).
Re:The Law is Not So "Murky" Here: See CDA sec. 23 (Score:2)
Isn't that really the issue here, that a blogger may not be considered a "journalist"? In that case, what protection do they have?
So whats to prevent me... (Score:3, Funny)
ALright, with luck I can post as an AC on
This just shows how stupid courts can get, and I swear, judges should really just smack some people around.
Exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Number one tool for boosting web traffic: publicity. Hence, lawsuit.
So Which Is It? (Score:2)
So which is it? Is it accurate confidential information, or is it false, meaning that it doesn't spill company secrets? Judicial estoppal says you can't argue both sides of a case.
And while we're at it, just what makes information "confidential". Can you own an
Arrogant blog title, almost a 'It wasnt me!' (Score:2)
No, blogging cannot get you sued, nor can owning and firing a gun.
Who you point you blog or gun at, and where you aim, that can in general cause various reprocussions.
Now stop hiding behind shit words, and face up to this properly, and for those who start talking about freedom of speech and Internet, you are playing the wrong game.
This should be tried as any other case, imagine if it was a reply in a newspaper (giving too much credit to anything that is a 'blog'
Repercussions (Score:2)
Repercussions of bad spelling and / or typos on slashdot? arrogant self-vaulting twatwits correctly you ad-infinitum.
BTW I am not assigning guilt, just stopping people using the Internet and 'blog' to cloud the issue.
Yes it was other peoples comments, but the fact they are on the Internet or 'blog' is irrelevant really. Or is it?
I dunno...
Well, well, well (Score:4, Funny)
Very decent.
Look! there is even a mailinglist I can subscribe to. Quick let's do it before someone else does it.
Hmm, what do I get for a page:
What a losers
Re:Well, well, well (Score:2)
let's send some feedback then via http://traffic-power.com/feedback.html [traffic-power.com]
I click on submit
http://www.traffic-power.com/cgi-bin/tptpformmail. cgi [traffic-power.com]
Not Found
The requested URL
Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.traffic-power.com Port 80
Hurray - the company that can get you #1 into google, altavista, teoma, msn, and whatever search engine they will invent
Not the nicest SEO company (Score:5, Informative)
Reminds me a bit of a certan guy at SCO...
WTF? (Score:2)
Whats this guy smoking? It wasnt like he was stalking Pamela Jones giving out her adress or something. He said som unkind words about a competitors product wich he thought sucked. Whats next, Linus Torvalds and gang going to crazytown on the infamous "Get The Facts" campaign?
Come to think of it, if this would go through i think Microsoft is the one up the creek without a paddle. Imagine all the FUD to make money on.
XP
So if I say... (Score:3, Funny)
Everyone on this site is a convicted murderer who eats babies.
Just libeled all of you! (I hope). You may begin suing Slashdot now.
interpreting communications decency act (Score:2, Interesting)
like the article says, this really is still a murky area of the law--tho some decisions (like the Zeran one mentioned) seem to grant immunity, it's not clear whether this law really extends so far. recently there was a case involving eBay and a defamato
L. Ron would be proud (Score:3, Insightful)
The hell he says. It's called the First Amendment, firstly, and secondly, speech is what the Internet is FOR! It's not a communications system run for the benefit of corporations. It's a protocol. It was designed to let people speak -- once upon a time, the people who couldn't speak because a cult or a country would destroy them for voicing the truth. No more...
There are laws covering slander and libel. If a business is suing people regardless of actual illegality, then we have a abuse of the courts a la Scientology. Sue to make people shut up; failing that, bankrupt and ruin them as a warning to others.
So it's not legal to criticize shitty products... (Score:2)
Coming soon to a civil court near you... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Public Debate (Score:3, Interesting)
There might be a day or two argument over truth, liability and damages. If the comments are not true, then the people making them in public are liable for any damages proven to be caused by those comments. Not very complicated, and certainly nothing new on which to make arguments about "new Internet technologies" which make this different.
Instead, watch this dispute consume months or years, including many days of scarce, publicly funded justice system labor. Watch lawyers pad their pockets with arguments that go nowhere, probably to arrive at either a backwards precedent, or just a settlement that settles nothing but the exchange of more money between the parties (and even more cuts to their lawyers). This is going to cost all of us even more money, immediately in the costs to the justice system to moderate this debate, probably without any benefit to future cases.
This whole notion that "X changed everything" is the biggest lie of our lifetimes. Even when that's partly true, like Columbus' return from the Western Hemisphere with proof that Europeans should conquer the territory, it changes a lot - but not everything. Like realities of physics, economics, and justice. Other laws, like those written by lawyers and approved by judges, can change, too. But those are usually changed to suit the lawyers, regardless of how they affect the rest of us.
Like saying that public speech on the Internet changes the familiar expectations of public, unmoderated speech and liability. Just like when someone posts slanderous, lying posters on a wall along a busy sidewalk. The building owner isn't liable for the damage caused by the posters, unless they're also the posterer. Likewise, people already know that unmoderated websites aren't responsible for the posts made by the public. All the noise to the contrary is just lawyers making excuses to increas their billings.
Never thought you'd be grateful for the CDA, hmm? (Score:3, Informative)
In response to the uproar by ISPs and online hosts over this case, the U.S. Congress enacted a safe harbor for service providers, ironically into the roundly criticized Communications Decency Act. While most of the CDA was found unconstitutional, the safe harbor remains (at 47 U.S.C. 230 [cornell.edu], and has been used by a number of major ISPs (including AOL in a case involving a Matt Drudge story) over the years.
This case will likely come down to whether a blog creator is a service provider as defined by the law and the cases that have interpreted it. What makes it interesting is that allowing public comments to a blog really falls somewhere in the spectrum between hosting a message board and publishing letters to the editor, depending on issues of control and other factors.
A few other thoughts. First, regarding those Slashdotters who have marveled at the U.S.-centric views on Internet law, it's really the European Union (through its data protection and VAT laws among others) that has sought to project its legal structure regarding the Internet to others around the globe. Also, as it happens, libel via the Internet has generated major new jurisdictional questions, as the libelers have been brought to trial in foreign countries whose libel laws are much more pro-plaintiff than those of the alleged libeler's home country. (Take a look at the Dow Jones v. Gutnick [ojr.org] case for just one example of this.)
-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor [mailto]
Assistant Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
Co-Author, TechLawProf Blog [typepad.com]
Re:Sure, now even less blogs with readership (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I want to read the comment (Score:2)