discussion forums

[teresaq]

i came across this on another forum, and thought it was interesting.

Quote:

--- LETTER FROM *** REMOVED BY REQUEST *** ---

Hello,

This is *** REMOVED BY REQUEST ***. Our attorneys at *** REMOVED BY REQUEST *** ..... are doing a thorough web search for Internet sites that use my name. In reviewing your comments and the comments of others they have determined that the information attached to my name on your website is slanderous, illegal, misquoted, and out of context.

We are wanting to protect the integrity and high standard of *** REMOVED BY REQUEST *** from such misinformation.

So, we have two options here.

1. I am coming as a Christian brother to ask you to remove my name and all references, letters etc. from your website in every case. This is the right and ethical thing to do.

2. If you do not remove my name then our attorneys will file a lawsuit to make you do it. This will be costly to you and time consuming. Our attorneys are Kronenberger & Burgoyne and they specialize in Internet law. The laws regarding Internet have changed radically and I would encourage you to read them carefully. You will find you are in violation of numerous laws when it comes to using peoples names, slander, defamation, etc.

Please let me know which of the two options you wish to pursue. I encourage you to simply remove my name from your website in every case it is used and this matter will be settled in a kind and Christian way.

I sincerely wish you blessings on your ministry as you reach out for Christ.

Sincerely,

the topic was edited and locked.

it is interesting to know that there are internet laws and that legal action can be taken, even that there are lawyers, now, specializing in internet law. but i guess that would have to be so in this day and age.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

I sincerely wish you blessings on your ministry as you reach out for Christ.

I found the above statement to be a ludicrous ending to such a letter.

[Stan]

That letter was posted on that forum on May 17, 2005, internet law is still being unravelled.

I still get significantly differing opinions on some internet law issues, and it gets more complex in different countries.

[Stan]

this shows the date...

[teresaq]

i just found it interesting that there is internet law.

i do know it hasnt all been worked out, but it does seem, that 5 years later, it would be closer to knowing how to deal with "slanderous, ..., misquoted, and out of context"....

well i guess ill find out soon enough....

[Stan]

..., misquoted, and out of context"....

Seems like words they always use, it scares folks, if they were real serious the letter would have come from the lawyer.

It is easy to drop names of lawyers, who people have heard about.

Every lawyer I have met has been decent, not worthy of the lawyer jokes at all. (Exceptions are a few who lost their licence)

BUT people do have to be responsible when posting.

I think in most states, when a lawyers states he will sue if something does not happen he has to. They can not use that as a threat.

[teresaq]

i will still be interested in finding out how much people can get away with in cyberspace....there does seem to be a strong need for accountability.

but perhaps that will come when it has become far too late to do anything about it. i suspect that may be the case. God has given people absolute freedom now, just before He comes, to be exactly what we want to be...

do we want to live by His laws if no consequences were to happen? or only if there are consequences...

[Cosmin M.]

But if you live in Sweden, internet laws do not apply to you...

[Outta Here]

Even in Sweden there are laws regarding piracy on the Internet:

Quote:

Piracy law cuts internet traffic

Sweden's new policy - the Local IPRED law - allows copyright holders to force internet service providers (ISP) to reveal details of users sharing files.

[Dr. Shane]

Laws against liable and slander normally don't apply to celebrities in the US. That is why tabloids can get away with publishing all kinds of far-fetched stories. When they do apply, the celebrity has to prove not only that he or she suffered monetary damages but that there was malicious intent. That is a pretty high hurdle to get over. Bill O'Reilly discussed this at length when he was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker. Being a celebrity, people can say pretty much whatever they want about him and he had little legal recourse.

[Steve Billiter]

Laws against liable and slander normally don't apply to celebrities in the US. That is why tabloids can get away with publishing all kinds of far-fetched stories. When they do apply, the celebrity has to prove not only that he or she suffered monetary damages but that there was malicious intent. That is a pretty high hurdle to get over. Bill O'Reilly discussed this at length when he was accused of sexual harassment by a co-worker. Being a celebrity, people can say pretty much whatever they want about him and he had little legal recourse.

That makes sense, but the law is applied equally to everyone.(in statute law and theory)

Underhanded negotiations and in-the-alley deals happen all the time, we know that. I believe if you search the judicial record, you may find that tabloids and other media sources have been successfully sued by the "rich and famous."

[Dr. Shane]

At the time O'Reilly was discussing this with his co-host on the radio and she was a lawyer. She was saying the courts ruled that celebrities have the fame and finances to defend themselves so the law doesn't provide them the same protection it provides normal citizens. I think sites like U-Tube and My Space are most vulnerable to law suits because common citizens are in a position to use those sites to spread slander about other common citizens.

Yes, some celebrities have been successful in suing tabloids, mostly in other countries like the UK. In the US, from what I understand, they have to show both damage and malicious intent. A common citizen doesn't have such a high hurdle to get over.

[Dr. Shane]

If celebrities had the same level of protection, just about every web site that discusses politics would be open to getting sued because members post all kinds of accusations against politicians they disagree with. That would be impossible to police.

[Tom Wetmore]

Point of clarification -

Proof of damage is a required element of any action for defamation, not just for public figures. (Damage is a necessary element of any civil action for tort (personal injury, etc.) That is why any action for defamation is hard to sustain. Damages, if any, are typically limited and difficult to prove. To call someone a lying cheating scoundrel, even if quite untrue, is not likely to cause provable damage.

The added element for public figures (broader than celebrities and politicians) of "actual malice" requires proof that the one(s) publishing the defamation did so knowing the statement to be false or a "reckless disregard for the truth." While a higher standard, that is not insurmountable.

A good reason for not pursuing a lawsuit for defamation, aside from the cost and low potential judgment, is that the lawsuit likely would draw far more attention to the false story than its original publication. (How many people read and actually take the tabloids seriously!)

A good general article can be found at http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

[Stan]

It looks like you might not watch enough TV shows that have lawyers on them

[Tom Wetmore]

A law degree from NBC...

[Dr. Shane]

Well, I think I did indicate what my comments were based on. I appreciated Tom sharing what he knows.