NationStates Jolt Archive

Today's case:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060701/4053861.asp

Do you rule in favor of the website owner, or do you rule in favor of the plaintiff? Why?

YOU DECIDE!
PITTSBURGH (AP) - A city attorney is suing the creator of a Web site that lets women dish dirt on men they claim have wronged them, saying they made defamatory statements about him.

Attorney Todd J. Hollis sued because he contends two Pittsburgh-area women and other anonymous users posted items about him on www.dontdatehimgirl.com in which they claim he is unfaithful, among other things, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Thursday.

Hollis filed the lawsuit Thursday in Allegheny County against Tasha C. Joseph of Miami, who created the site, which bills itself as a "cost-effective weapon in the war on cheating men."

Joseph, 33, a former columnist for the Miami Herald, said any man can post a rebuttal on the site.

Hollis' lawsuit contends Joseph "conspired with disingenuous people whose only agenda is to attack the character of those individuals who have been identified on the site."

My opinion: Free Speech.

In favour of the plaintiff, anyone could create whatever situation they liked on here to discredit someone wether it be for corporate political or whatever motive. Once its out there its out there it doesnt matter what rebuttle you make people will always have clouded judgement of you if they have seen bad press

Website owner. The forum is just that, a forum. They're not the one's slandering him.

However, if he were to sue the woman posting crap about him, he'd have my support. If she's making unfounded, untrue, or unsupported bad statements against someone to a large audience, that's libel.

EDIT - Though I find the forum in bad taste. It makes no allowances for people changing, because once you're on the list, you're on. It doesn't require the posters to have actual proof, just a story. It reinforces the stereotype that men are cheaters and liars, and enables women who have no trust in their man.
Newsflash - if you aren't willing to place trust in the guy to the point you'll look for dirt on him on the Interweb, you shouldn't bother trying at that relationship. Trust is the most important foundation of a relationship, after all. If he screws up/around, so be it, and no one will fault you for dropping the douchebag. But to go in with the attitude that 'he can't be trusted' is wrongheaded.

He is making a mistake in attacking the medium, rather than the perpetrators. A common error among n00bs.

Haha! Most useful website ever. The men are just pissed cause now people will know what shitty boyfriends they are.

the website is their to encourage people to take these actions. if the forum were not provided then the incident would not have occurred, same situation for incitement of disrimination or terrorism

I would rule for the website owner in most cases, but there is one exception: If one of the "wronged" men can prove that the allegations are false, then I would consider this libel and/or slander. Libel is hard to prove, but to those who can, go for it.

Dispite how much I want to think the guy is being held down by feminist sociaty, it's freedom of speech.

The website owner had nothing to do with the defamatory statements, the website is only a medium.

I rule in favour of the defendant.

The case would have to be for defamation of character, which means libel as it is in written form. As such the claim goes against the author, not the medium. Hence the ex girlfriends etc. And it will be up to the man to prove that their claims are false. (Difficult to do.)

If a newspaper publishes something about you maliciously, you sue the newspaper, not the printing house that printed it. (The two are often the same, but in the on line case it is evident that the author is not the site owner.)

The women concerned could then counter sue the owner of the forum/site on the basis that they were enticed, lured, drawn into this action. This suit would be unlikely to succeed but they could try.

In favour of the plaintiff, anyone could create whatever situation they liked on here to discredit someone wether it be for corporate political or whatever motive. Once its out there its out there it doesnt matter what rebuttle you make people will always have clouded judgement of you if they have seen bad press
So what?

She's a witch!

not enough info. but if that is everything, then I vote for the website. the lawyer cannot hold the forum responsible for the slanderous remarks.

Today's case:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060701/4053861.asp

Do you rule in favor of the website owner, or do you rule in favor of the plaintiff? Why?

YOU DECIDE!
You know, I'm going to take the plaintiff's side in this one. It's not any different than a gossip column in a newspaper. The difference is that the ones that are being gossiped about, in this case, are not public figures.

Is there a prize?

im gonna take les drapeaux's opinion on this one.

kinda

i DO feel that it is the same as a gossip column or a tabloid newspaper. if the plaintif can prove malicious intent (that shouldnt be hard) AND that the story was a lie, he should win.

i suspect that on that basis, he would lose because the story written about him was probably true. but if not, and if the site had no "if i prove its not true you have to remove the story altogether" provision, then he should prevail.

In fact, one of the T&Cs of the site is to avoid defamatory and inaccurate statements. But even if the statements are all accurate, don't private citizens deserve privacy?

Here is why this case is in court "Hmm, I don't like this, what can I do? Oh wait, I'm a fucking lawyer, I can take them to court with no loss to me!"

Here is why this case is in court "Hmm, I don't like this, what can I do? Oh wait, I'm a fucking lawyer, I can take them to court with no loss to me!"
Good reason for "Loser Pays", but that's a different thread.

I'd say the Plaintiff. The site owner created the site in the first place and allowed the stuff. And it isn't that hard for someone to post anonymously.

Allow the site. I'm not a woman, but if some person "cheats" they desrve it. Plus, I'm all for freedom of speech.

I would rule for the website owner in most cases, but there is one exception: If one of the "wronged" men can prove that the allegations are false, then I would consider this libel and/or slander. Libel is hard to prove, but to those who can, go for it.
Oh, yeah. And the above I agree with.

Here is why this case is in court "Hmm, I don't like this, what can I do? Oh wait, I'm a fucking lawyer, I can take them to court with no loss to me!"
Works for me.

I had a dispute over property boundaries with my neighbor when I moved in. He was rather aggressive, and intentionally rebuilt his fence to incorporate more of my yard.

I'm not usually a stickler for that sort of thing, but he was a complete ass about it. During one of the last conversations on the subject (back when it was an issue), he said, "I'm the one with the badge. You just call the cops and tell them that we have a problem." Oh, thank you officer (once more reinforcing my disdain for official government).

And I answered, "that's ok, because I'm a lawyer" (contract law, but he didn't have to know that).

He did a quick, quiet mental calculation, and I believe he came up with the idea that I could be in court for free, while it would cost him a lot of money.

The fence was moved back without further discussion.

Today's case:

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060701/4053861.asp

Do you rule in favor of the website owner, or do you rule in favor of the plaintiff? Why?

YOU DECIDE!

Assuming the characterization was accurate, the website owner. Actually, the website owner regardless. The TOS for the site clearly state that the poster/user is responsible for all information submitted: if the women lied, then you can sue them for libel (I think that's the correct term, I know it's the correct idea), but why sue the site owner at all? (Other than for being a prick and helping gossip/the lady's rumor chain out, but being a prick isn't a criminal offense. :p)

Defamation and libel are not free speech, and those who repost it are as guilty as those who posted it, so I would convict.

Then again, we don't have a jury system, and I have no idea what US law says about defamatory statements and those who spread them, so this is quite moot indeed.

She's a witch!

Burn her !


Anyway, the site owner has nothing to do with what these women post on the site. Like others said, if your being slandered, sue the one slandering you, not the medium in which they slander you.

I rule for website. As many have pointed out, the opinions of the posters are their own, and just that: a private opinion. Posted publicly, to be sure, but look at the name of the site.

Point 1: If Todd was really concerned about the effect on his reputation, he would post a polite and reasonable rebuttal, and drop the matter. The vast majority of humanity would remain unaware that Todd J. Hollis is a philandering twerp with no sense of humour.

Point 2: The site itself is a hollowed-out shell, full of Google ads. Someone's making a buck here.

Point 3: If a woman you dated claims you're a dud root, how are you going to convince a court of the truth or otherwise of that? Other than sleeping with the judge ... oh. Nice one, Todd.

Hahaha. I set up a profile for one of my x bf's. Bastard. I side with the web owner .. obviously.

Btw, shouldn't be allowed to post the full name of people on there.. so that anyone would know who it is at the drop of a hat. A description, nickname, habits, first name etc. would suffice for someone who knows the person, or might meet them in future .. but not for those that do not. Make sense?

The case would have to be for defamation of character, which means libel as it is in written form. As such the claim goes against the author, not the medium. Hence the ex girlfriends etc. And it will be up to the man to prove that their claims are false. (Difficult to do.)

If a newspaper publishes something about you maliciously, you sue the newspaper, not the printing house that printed it. (The two are often the same, but in the on line case it is evident that the author is not the site owner.)

The women concerned could then counter sue the owner of the forum/site on the basis that they were enticed, lured, drawn into this action. This suit would be unlikely to succeed but they could try.
You sue the newspaper not the columist. So in this case you sue the person or organisation with editorial control.
If you can sya what you like without any come back can you post what you like? For example, pictures that were taken of a third party with thier permision which you own? I think not, but hey call it freedom of speech and let the ones with the most powerfull lobby say what they like without the need to prove it or defend it.

The case would have to be for defamation of character, which means libel as it is in written form. As such the claim goes against the author, not the medium. Hence the ex girlfriends etc. And it will be up to the man to prove that their claims are false. (Difficult to do.)

If a newspaper publishes something about you maliciously, you sue the newspaper, not the printing house that printed it. (The two are often the same, but in the on line case it is evident that the author is not the site owner.)

The women concerned could then counter sue the owner of the forum/site on the basis that they were enticed, lured, drawn into this action. This suit would be unlikely to succeed but they could try.


Wrong analogy. The forum IS the newspaper, and the women are the "reporters", and if a newspaper were to solicit defamatory statements about people from their contributers and print them without fact-checking, then libel may well aply. Certainly the newspaper routinely gets included in libel lawsuits when false stories are published. In your analogy, the printing house would be the web hosting service

Frankly, the man may have a case as the site clearly solicits statements about character and publishes them with the stated attempt to do so to try and limit that persons ability to find a partner. Kinda flies in the face of the "pursuit of happiness" thing that people are supposed to have.

The site's lawyer's statements are also dumb (http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/07/04/ap/hitech/d8iiuvuo0.txt)


Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, an attorney representing Joseph, said the site is no different than the proverbial coffee shop where people go and chitchat."

"You would never think of holding the coffee shop owner liable because other people went in and defamed other people," Rodriguez-Taseff said


You might well hold them liable if it was the "Please come and defame people and we'll put it outside on a billboard coffee shop".


In libel cases, intent is generally an important factor. And the intent of this site is well stated: To attack mens character without any requirement for proof.

As to who will win, well I don't know how good either lawyer is, or how a judge might rule on various findings - so too early to tell.