Free Speech on internet (forums) goes to court

[Samr]

This could actually go in the club, since the outcome could potentially change the way SpursTalk and every othe online forum opperates, but I figured I'd get more intelligent responses here.


Analysis of Anthony DiMeo III v. Tucker Max

This was going to happen. It was just a matter of time.

What do y'all think?

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm not gonna read all that. Just give me a synopsis.

[Samr]

Basically this guy, Anthony DiMeo, is claiming that he was publically slandered on Tucker Max's (of Tuckermax.com fame) message board by anonymous posters, and that it has affected his public image.

It's a debate on free speech on the internet. And if DiMeo wins, we may lose our right.

[Oh, Gee!!]

DiMeo

[FromWayDowntown]

SLAPP suits, like the ones mentioned in the article, are a scourge to the justice system. Only a few states actually have procedures in place to deal with them, though others seem to be in the process of creating those means. Until there is some sort of comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation, the SLAPP suit issue remains a problem.

Basically, a SLAPP (a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) is intended to drain the "defendant" of resources and make the "defendant" choose between continuing to fight the litigation or ending whatever practice started the litigation.

The textbook example arose in the "not in my backyard" context -- a homeowner would complain publicly (before a city council [normally, an activity protected by the First Amendment's pe ion clause (the right to pe ion government for redress of grieivances)], in a newspaper [normallly, an activity protected by the free speech and free press clauses of the First Amendment], or something like that) about the planned landfill that was to be constructed.

The landfill company recognized that she had no First Amendment defenses because the First Amendment generally doesn't apply in private contexts. So they would sue her for defamation or some other tort that would normally not apply to that situation. The claim would be clearly meritless, but the filing of the claim would require the homeowner to defend herself or face the possiblity of a money judgment being entered against her. So, she'd have to expend some of her resources in defense, hiring lawyers and so forth. At that point, the substantially better-funded corporation would use its legal department to amp up the process in an effort to drain her of resources to the point that she would be willing to settle. The settlement would require the homeowner, among other things, to stop complaining about the landfill. Thus endeth the static about building the landfill.

The lawsuit poses a curious question. Do the owners of an internet forum incur liability if one user of the website defames another, but the owners have nothing to do with it? I can't imagine they can if there is nothing more than a series of posts flaming a particular user -- particularly if the user appeared to have been seeking that sort of attention (trolls). In that case, the basic requisites of a defamation claim couldn't be established and thus, there would be no claim.

But, if someone was to start a thread that explained in some detail that a person was involved in an embarrassing situation, and other users jumped on to pile on that guy, there might be a problem in some cir stances. I'm not sure how that problem can be imputed to the site owners if they had nothing to do with the posting -- for instance, if they knew the story was false, but did nothing to withdraw or delete it, they might face culpability; but I can't imagine they can be held liable for defamation if they don't know the statement is defamatory.

What DiMeo is trying in his suit goes beyond the parameters of any of that. And from reading the link, it would appear that there is a great deal of support among those who, like all of us, appreciate a free forum of exchange for everything from ideas to insults.

[boutons_]

sounds like the forum was ridiculing him as a jerk with more money than sense, and then he proved it.

[DarkReign]

This case wont make it. Does the right to a speedy trial aplly here?

<----no God-forsaken lawyer here.