• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

While I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who is attacked via any forum, I feel very strongly that the internet should be a place to gather information. I want to know what is going on out there, and I don't want to just read the watered down version of people who voice careful opinions for fear of legal repercussion. I want to know opinions from people who are experts in their fields and can teach me much, but also from people living a life style that I totally can't tolerate. My Father always said to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Cindie said:
While I have the utmost sympathy for anyone who is attacked via any forum, I feel very strongly that the internet should be a place to gather information. I want to know what is going on out there, and I don't want to just read the watered down version of people who voice careful opinions for fear of legal repercussion. I want to know opinions from people who are experts in their fields and can teach me much, but also from people living a life style that I totally can't tolerate. My Father always said to keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
Click to expand...

Cindie - I think we are talking about false criminal accusations not opinions.
I agree with you about wanting diverse opinons. I think the experts here "tell it like it is". Niman is known for this. I can not imagine anyone telling him to "water it down".

We also strive for truth in our reporting here. Many depend on our information. The credibility of this forum is very important in being able to help lessen morbidity and mortality in a pandemic.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

As FluTrackers, and other professional sites, have shown you can have the free exchange of ideas and information without the insult and degradation of others.

The internet provides people with a "comfort distance" to say things that they normally wouldn't do in person because they feel as though there will be no repercussions.

People like to hide behind "freedom of speech" so that they can say what they want regardless of the consequences.

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'Free Speech' it has been recognised that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. The best-known is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow shouting fire in a crowded theatre, a paraphrase of a statement in the case Schenck v. United States in 1919. Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech.

​
Those that use the internet as pullpit in which to hurl insults may one day find themselves sitting in a room surrounded by those they were insulting.

Personally, as a general rule, I do not write something to or about someone that I would not feel comfortable saying to them in person.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

the problem is however, that there is no consensus about
what/who is insulting and what/who not.
Typically two people are talking to each other, first slowly,
then some wrong word, some misunderstandings , different cultures,
and they start attacking and then it escalates.
Where is the jury to decide who is right and who is wrong ?
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

others have courts too. Why do you think, yours are superior ?

BTW. courts hate to judge about internet flame wars.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

The internet provides people with a "comfort distance" to say things that they normally wouldn't do in person because they feel as though there will be no repercussions. ...... Personally, as a general rule, I do not write something to or about someone that I would not feel comfortable saying to them in person.
Click to expand...

I think the internet provides more of a cloak of anonymity then a "comfort distance" for some individuals allowing them to strike out at others with impunity.

Yes, the key to responding to or about someone on the internet is asking yourself whether or not you would have the gumption to say the same things to their face, in person, and accept any immediate consequences.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

gsgs said:
others have courts too. Why do you think, yours are superior ?

BTW. courts hate to judge about internet flame wars.
Click to expand...

I never said they were superior. You implied I said they were superior which I did not.

BTW. Apparently not all courts hate to judge internet flame wars.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

you seem to forget, that the internet has been a great source for discussion just _because_ of the free speech and people not having
to be artificially polite, people are allowed to make mistakes in foreign language, can freely say what they think anonymously without their
boss/wife/neighbor hearing it.
That's the reason, why the internet grew so big and why
most people are here in the first place.
It's the engaged and controversy discussions, even flaming
which causes the interest of the auditors and which is most
fruitful.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Laidback Al said:
I think the internet provides more of a cloak of anonymity then a "comfort distance" for some individuals allowing them to strike out at others with impunity.

Yes, the key to responding to or about someone on the internet is asking yourself whether or not you would have the gumption to say the same things to their face, in person, and accept any immediate consequences.
Click to expand...

Actually now that you mention it, the internet provides both a "cloak of anonymity" and a "comfort distance". The anonymity can be achieved by using a different name to convey your thoughts and the distance is provided through the computer.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

gsgs said:
you seem to forget, that the internet has been a great source for discussion just _because_ of the free speech and people not having
to be artificially polite, people are allowed to make mistakes in foreign language, can freely say what they think anonymously without their
boss/wife/neighbor hearing it.
That's the reason, why the internet grew so big and why
most people are here in the first place.
It's the engaged and controversy discussions, even flaming
which causes the interest of the auditors and which is most
fruitful.
Click to expand...

No. I don't seem to forget. I have been on the internet for a long time, pre netscape. I know some of the guys that were part of the initial DoD project that launched the internet when it ran by the University of Maryland in College Park.

It is easier to lash out and flame someone than it is to take the time to understand their point of view.

So I disagree with you that tha flaming is fruitful.

Flaming, in my opinion, has only helped encourage others to be less respectful of other points of view and less mindful of others cultures.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

gs- I think theres a big differnce betweena flame war between anonymous parties- and a prolonged attack on an individula/corporate entitiy that affects that entities ability to make a living with unfounded accusations. That is what this case was founded on, not just poeple hurling insults or some disagreements. A dissatisfied customer took up a virtual vendetta without approaching their percieved problem through appropriate and available legal channels.

At that point, I do beleive there should be some recourse to protect oneself and business. It is cheap and easy to use the net to spread hate and lies, as well as to do good. For many, its easy to just back out of a situation that has become heated. But for this situation, it was beyond negotiation.

IMO if a party has been wronged, and they can show that the libelous statements were just that- libelous and defamatory; and that wrong results in finanical loss, then they should have the right to seek redress. I dont think the venue in which the libel occurrred should protect the guilty.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Do juries in US courts explain how they come to a figure like 11.3 million?
I hadn't heard about this case until you posted it on this site, but it does bring up an interesting problem. The disparity in the wealth of the two parties. I am of the opinion that Tamiflu is likely to be rendered useless due to the emergence of resistance almost from the outset of any pandemic. I have posted this opinion here a number of times and base it on the relatively high number of resistant cases among the 250 odd people who have caught H5N1 so far. If Roche decided that my postings are damaging to their sales prospects there is no way I would be able to afford to mount a reasonable defence, I would be totally outgunned. Who would have jurisdiction, I'm in the UK, Roche are a multinational and could therefore mount their case anyway but where is Flutrackers server. Is it where I typed it or where it was printed?
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

JJackson said:
Do juries in US courts explain how they come to a figure like 11.3 million?
I hadn't heard about this case until you posted it on this site, but it does bring up an interesting problem. The disparity in the wealth of the two parties. I am of the opinion that Tamiflu is likely to be rendered useless due to the emergence of resistance almost from the outset of any pandemic. I have posted this opinion here a number of times and base it on the relatively high number of resistant cases among the 250 odd people who have caught H5N1 so far. If Roche decided that my postings are damaging to their sales prospects there is no way I would be able to afford to mount a reasonable defence, I would be totally outgunned. Who would have jurisdiction, I'm in the UK, Roche are a multinational and could therefore mount their case anyway but where is Flutrackers server. Is it where I typed it or where it was printed?
Click to expand...

Again - for clarity. The case was about false accusations of CRIMES, not expressions of opinions. It was a "defamation" lawsuit.

<TABLE id=wn><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Verb</TD><TD vAlign=top>1.</TD><TD>defame - charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation" asperse, besmirch, calumniate, slander, smirch, denigrate, sully, smear
accuse, charge - blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against; "he charged me director with indifference"

assassinate - destroy or damage seriously, as of someone's reputation; "He assassinated his enemy's character"

libel - print slanderous statements against; "The newspaper was accused of libeling him"

badmouth, drag through the mud, malign, traduce - speak unfavorably about; "She badmouthes her husband everywhere"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/defame

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Repeatedly stating that someone or a corporation has committed or intends to commit a crime, who has not been convicted in a court of law of that crime, is defamation.


<SCRIPT>Sources=Sources | 4</SCRIPT><IFRAME id=sound_frame style="POSITION: absolute" frameBorder=0 width=1 height=1></IFRAME>
<BGSOUND id=bgsound></BGSOUND>
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

yeah, and invading Iraq was a crime according to Iraq law
or even UNO law.
So, say I accuse Bush in internet of committing crime, then
some silly Florida court can say that it wasn't crime and
that I defamated Bush and can sue me for 11.3 million ?
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

gsgs said:
yeah, and invading Iraq was a crime according to Iraq law
or even UNO law.
So, say I accuse Bush in internet of committing crime, then
some silly Florida court can say that it wasn't crime and
that I defamated Bush and can sue me for 11.3 million ?
Click to expand...

Yes gsgs - You are in BIG TROUBLE now. I think the President may take a credit card. LOL LOL LOL :rolleyes:
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Side note: if I understand it correctly, the suit involves an important issue that is NOT being discussed. I'm guessing from the summary posted, but the child of the couple in question was having "behavioral problems" and one of the parents wanted to place the child in one of those "Tough Love/Shock Camp/Wilderness Experience" sort of places. I gather the Mom hired the $11.3 million woman to get him out of there.

This is far afield from FluTrackers, but too many teens and younger children are being shipped off to these institutions of questionable value to make them behave better. I know some kids are seriously ill. UNfortunately, so many of these "Camps" or "Boarding schools" have no licensed personnel, and rely mostly on unproven theory and lots of punishment and isolation. Even worse, some kids are shipped to places outside the US, and it's even harder to be sure that they are actually receiving help and not just essentially torture. I read of one place where kids were not informed once they reached 18 that they were free to go.

Insurance companies pony up big dollars to these places, and if they don't, the parents will. More than one child has died in custody.

This is a pet peeve of mine. One of my daughter's friends has been missing for the past year. He has been in two different institutions. Without knowing ever y last piece of info about him, I still contend that he was not in need of this kind of desperate measure. Now none of his friends can contact him, he is punished if he is caught trying to contact them via the internet. I don't believe he is subject to the same level of physical and mental abuse that many teens are at different facilities, but he is nonetheless deprived of any sort of rights as a minor.

As to a pandemic, I guess these kids are "quarantined," so maybe they have some level of safety that way, but I think they face the same dangers that incarcerated prisoners do. Who will care for them if all their keepers are ill or dead?
 
Abuse on the Internet may prompt Federal Action

Abuse on the Internet may prompt Federal Action

Abuse on the internet may prompt Federal Action.

Owners of internet sites must be responsible in the dissemination of information. Publishing, as fact, false accusations will invite federal scrutiny.


About the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

It would be easy to add "internet" to this list.

Let's not invite more federal action.
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

"Owners of internet sites must be responsible in the dissemination of information. Publishing, as fact, false accusations will invite federal scrutiny."

the problem is, that it's not so easy to decide what is "fact" or
"false accusation". Often it's just a matter of opinion.
You could use that "law" above to close almost any
political webpage or internet forum including Flutrackers.

And what about the WMD-accusations against Iraq on the
government webpages in 2002 ?
 
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

Do you know what I like best about your posts gsgs?

You bump the exact threads that I want to call attention to. :)


Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top