GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Spiegelau · 07-09-2007, 05:04 PM

Defamation is nothing new in the law; the concept has been around in various forms for centuries. Defamation includes both libel, which involves the publishing of false words, and slander, which applies to speech.

Although the exact components of defamation vary according to the laws of different states, a plaintiff must generally show a false statement was published to a third party, causing damage to the plaintiff's reputation or tending to dissuade others from dealing with that person. It doesn't matter exactly which forum the speaker chooses, so any nook of the Internet where a third party can read the statements is good enough.

Moreover, some states consider certain statements to be "defamation per se," which means plaintiffs don't have to prove they actually suffered damage. For example, saying someone is guilty of a crime or incompetent in his or her profession may be assumed by the court to damage that person's reputation.

* Question: What is Malice or "Actual Malice"?

Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamation claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard.

* The objects of online flames may not take these comments lying down if/when you cross the line to defamation. Today's Internet is a widely read medium, and insinuations found there have a real effect on business and reputations.

* People accused of anonymously posting libelous statements online may find it harder to keep their real-world identities secret following a judge's ruling in a
libel case in Florida.

The judge ruled that an anonymous critic is not entitled to any special privileges that would prevent or delay his unmasking in a lawsuit just because his comments were posted on the Internet.

07-09-2007, 05:04 PM
Spiegelau So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 618	Defamation is nothing new in the law; the concept has been around in various forms for centuries. Defamation includes both libel, which involves the publishing of false words, and slander, which applies to speech. Although the exact components of defamation vary according to the laws of different states, a plaintiff must generally show a false statement was published to a third party, causing damage to the plaintiff's reputation or tending to dissuade others from dealing with that person. It doesn't matter exactly which forum the speaker chooses, so any nook of the Internet where a third party can read the statements is good enough. Moreover, some states consider certain statements to be "defamation per se," which means plaintiffs don't have to prove they actually suffered damage. For example, saying someone is guilty of a crime or incompetent in his or her profession may be assumed by the court to damage that person's reputation. * Question: What is Malice or "Actual Malice"? Answer: Malice is often defined as, "the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act." It is the conscious, intentional wrongdoing with the intent of doing harm to do the victim. In many civil cases, a finding that a defendant acted with malice will often open the door to liability or increased damages, such as punitive damages. "Actual malice" is a legal term of art that is mainly relevant to defamation claims. "Actual Malice" is found to be present when a false statement is published with either a) actual knowledge of its falsity or b) reckless disregard for its falsity-- a "should have known" standard. * The objects of online flames may not take these comments lying down if/when you cross the line to defamation. Today's Internet is a widely read medium, and insinuations found there have a real effect on business and reputations. * People accused of anonymously posting libelous statements online may find it harder to keep their real-world identities secret following a judge's ruling in a libel case in Florida. The judge ruled that an anonymous critic is not entitled to any special privileges that would prevent or delay his unmasking in a lawsuit just because his comments were posted on the Internet.