Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

[sharon sanders]

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100&#37;"><tbody><tr><td>

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts</td></tr></tbody></table>Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ETBy Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."
BEWARE OF BLOGS: Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites
Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."

snip

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm

Now isn't this interesting? Hmmm..........

</td></tr></tbody></table>
<!--Article End--><!--Bibliography Goes Here--><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Shannon Bennett]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

FL1. Bear in mind the case was won because the defendant did not show up in court. It still bears watching because of the damage amount. Blood from a turnip in this case however.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Of course you are right Shannon.

However if a person has, lets say, hundreds of pages of evidence of posts where another person has for months posted declaratory statements accusing them of criminal activity (among other things), I say this would be a fairly easy case. The evidence is in writing and many have seen it for many months. What is the defense here? My keyboard malfunctioned repeatedly for months? It wasn't me even though I own the forum? I do not know where the edit functions are? I was kidding, it was a joke?
?

I think that nothing less than a full public apology would be warranted in this case and a sizable donation required to be made to any university that has a program that educates students in Media and Ethics.
</IMG>

[Shannon Bennett]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Hey, it worked for some. LOL No, I think the better course of action is to be careful of what you may say. It really doesn't pay to slander anyone in any case. Really messes up your karma.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

I look forward for the law to be developed further in this area.

I am not an attorney but I think that corporations are considered legal "persons" in most states. As such, I believe they can sue for defamation too.

How unfortunate.

Maybe all references to the defamed persons and/or corporation should be erased immediately from the data base of any offending forum.

This would probably alleviate a future, potential, unfortunate situation.




</IMG>

[gsgs]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

ahh, $11 million. US-lawsuits. What a nonsense.
When someone wrongly accuses you, just point out the error.
Maybe even force her to publish your counterrepresentation.
Publish a blacklist of such posters.
But no need to go to trial.

I'm waiting, that niman sues me for doubting his recombination.
Or F1 for violating someone's "dignity" however she defines that.

We need a new second internet, where people may say (again)
what they really think and where they can stay anonymous
and without of fear from lawsuits.
And, of course, it's better not to be a US-citizen in internet.

When you abandon free speech, then you abandon speech.
People won't say what they think. Some people won't say anything.
Do we want that ? What about the enthusiasm of early internet
and usenet ?

Now, is USA (Florida?) trying to enforce this law on
non-US-(Louisiana) posters ?
Other countries, other "definitions" of "crook","fraud".
Better think twice before you post anything.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

What this case showed is that juries take slander and defamation very seriously - at least in Florida. This issue is raised not for expressing a difference of opinion but for accusing a person of crimes when they have not been convicted by a court of law of those crimes.

What makes these cases hard to defend is that the evidence is in writing and has been disseminated widely. There are many, many witnesses. It is irrefutable.

If this unethical behavior continued, hypothetically, for months and months, what would be the defense? If this person was not just a poster of the forum, but the owner, does this change the level of responsibility? What defense does the owner of such a forum have when promoting the accusations of criminal behavior against persons who have not been convicted of those crimes?

[gsgs]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Florida, you can't judge internet activities by Florida laws.
This is an international community.
Suppose the Louisiana(or China or whatever) woman goes to court
in Louisiana
now for revision. Or in the country of the server.
Or she had stayed anonymous and now Florida-court requires
identification but the server is not in Florida.

We just shouldn't take internet-defamation too serious.
Remember these Danish satire or Rushdy with moslems.
No way to prevent this except ignoring. No loss of dignity
when someone defamates you in internet.

Unethical is not illegal. Blacklist that person, despise her, but
don't sue her.

I see big trouble with laws-consistencies if this sort of judgement
is continued.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Interesting points gsgs.

I believe the slander and defamation laws are fairly similiar in many of the United States. These laws have been existence for decades. They have been primarily enforced in main stream media venues (MSM).

The internet is now becoming MSM. FluTrackers has taken part in difusing several H5N1 rumors, hence, making news. We were the first in the world with some of this information. This makes us MSM whether we are officially defined as such, or not. The New York Times and the Bloomberg network use us as a source for H5N1 information.This makes us MSM.

What you are seeing evolve is the application of existing laws to the internet.

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on slander and defamation suits? The written evidence does not have a "shelf life". It is good today, tomorrow, next year...or the year after.......

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

....... No loss of dignity when someone defamates you in internet.........

But there could be substantial loss of income.

.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

But there could be substantial loss of income.

.

Absolutely AD - especially when a corporation, which is defined legally as a "person", is also defamed. I believe there are additional laws that are applicable when the defamation is performed for the purposes of driving a competitor out of business.

[gsgs]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

AD, the loss of income is _due_ to the system and people believing
that internet defamation is substantial.
This won't happen, when just the attitude towards this "defamation"
were changed.

Have you ever followed usenet-discussions ?
I've seen many insults, obscene and agressive posts, flame wars
even from/to professors. The only reasonble way to handle this is :
not to get too much excited when this happens.
Once it's considered normal, the reason for loss of income
also vanishes.
Similar issue is spam. You can't really get a grip on spammers
with legal issues. Just somehow blacklist them and auto-
delete their mails.

As with Florida/US -laws , there is a reason that we have international
laws and conventions for copyright etc.
For the same reason we need international laws in internet.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

gsgs- I am unfamiliar, but doesn't England have very tough anti-defamation laws? I think that standard for proof is very low there for slander and defamation suits.

[AlaskaDenise]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

We need to consider more than just blogs, forums, and discussions.

Many folks believe that anything that is a web-site is factual, just as many folks believe that is something is in print, it's true. Those ignorant consumers still spend money, which when driven away from one business by false accusations = loss of income.

Intentional libel that results in financial loss is the same as stealing.

.

[sharon sanders]

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

We need to consider more than just blogs, forums, and discussions.

Many folks believe that anything that is a web-site is factual, just as many folks believe that is something is in print, it's true. Those ignorant consumers still spend money, which when driven away from one business by false accusati of income.

Intentional libel that results in financial loss is the same as stealing.

.

I completely agree AD.

We are talking about more than "mere words". In fact words have led to some of the largest injustices in recorded history. There are some excellent organizations whose purpose is to stop the dissemination of harmful words. One such organization is the Anti-Defamation Leaque.

This organization was started in response to false accusations that led eventually to the murder of a Jewish man.

"Founded in October, 1913 by Sigmund Livingston, the ADL's charter states,

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

Livingston established the ADL in direct response to the case of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager living in the state of Georgia who had been arrested and convicted in 1913 for the rape and murder of Mary Phagan (subsequent investigations proved that he was innocent of the crime) and then kidnapped from prison and lynched by a mob in 1915."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League



Words can harm, even kill.