FOOD FOR THOUGHT...

[OhPlease]

With all that is good and holy, hopefully this little turn of events will give pause to some corners.  I doubt it, but there is always hope... :yipee:

"A downstate Illinois newspaper must reveal the identity of an anonymous online commenter, according to a new appellate court ruling that could have wide-ranging implications for internet privacy."

"The court's majority ruled that the Maxons had the right to know. Statements of opinion are protected as free speech, but assertions of fact are not. And in the court's eyes, the comment was the latter."  :yipee: :yipee: :yipee:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/03/illinois-newspaper-forced_n_599722.html

Mods, I respectfully request that this topic NOT be moved because it is quite relevant to the Kate Middleton section, where comments about her are sometimes borderline.  Not so much at this site anymore, but food for thought for those who travel around to various royal sites with .... differing philosophies about what is and is not fair game.

This public service announcement has now concluded.   :biggrin:

[Alixxx]

It is also has a lot of relevance in the CD board in pertinence to Charles Davy.  :thumbsup:

Definitely a precedent being set here though.

[OhPlease]

I wouldn't know since I never go into Chelsy Davy's section here or anywhere else online.  But I do know that Kate Middleton and her family have been dragged through the mud, accused of every golddigging scheme, and called every name in the book via online sites that center on Prince William and his exploits.  And the tabloids and comments sections thereto have picked up where the zealots have left off.  Unlike the Davys.  Unfortunately I'm sure one obscure ruling by some lower US court will not stop any of this.  But still, I thought the story should be shared and shared alike.   :biggrin:

[Alixxx]

It is an interesting legal landmark. But it might be impossible to deal with everyone who has made defamatory or libellous statements.

[OhPlease]

That's true.  Unless the subject decides to press the issue. I recall another case -- I think in the UK? but I'm not sure -- where another person was successfully pursued by the injured party.  I'll see if I can find it.  Meanwhile, I think the Middletons have been saints for not turning their lawyers on some of the more egregious sites on the web.

[brittanylala]

This isn't going to stop any of the online Kate bashers - they just have to put "imo" at the end of every single hate filled sentence. There will probably be a sudden rise in the purchase of key boards very soon when the 'I', 'M', and 'O' keys, are lodged in through repeated use... :teehee:

However, I'm sure a smart lawyer out there will argue that despite the use of "imo", if a user is repeatedly making the same lazy and gold-digging accusations about Kate throughout a publicly accessible forum, they covertly intend to pass off such accusations as fact due to the age old adage of 'if you repeat something enough, people will start to believe it'. On the plus side these users have never said a positive thing about Kate so they obviously have an agenda, which can be used against them too, as they purposefully set out to slander Kate without any facts through the disguise of "imo".

It's obvious it's purposeful slander as some users, not just here but on other online royalty forums, have been writing the same nasty things about Kate for years, so they haven't taken into consideration the fact that lawyers have stated Kate has a job. Or the articles that state that Kate had applied to St. Andrews before William made it publicly known he was going there. Therefore, these users ignore the positive press and carry on writing the same drivel, despite facts pointing to the contrary. Therefore it becomes purposeful slander. 'IMO' will hold no water.

[Kate]

I certainly agree, down the line, when the legal aspects of the freedom of speech via the internet, are thoroughly visited and investigated there will be law suits.. Right now the waters are being tested to see the viability and avenues the law can take.. IMO, of couse

[Ursula]

Very interesting.  Thanks for posting this, OhPlease.

And Britt, you make some excellent points.  It WON'T fly....

Alixxx, I don't think anything is impossible.  IP's can be traced and things can happen.  I think intent will factor in, as well as the repetitiveness that Britt touched upon.           

[Alixxx]

I definitely think it's a good thing and a good lawyer can circumvent the 'IMO' I think, however, I still think as it stands, the nature of the evidence used and the anonymity factor may prevent it's being capitalized on in a big way.

It's true some people over do it when it comes to Kate, not around here so much but in other places, and forgetting any legal ramifications, I would hope your own conscience would not support you in being overly unfair to someone you may not necessarily like for whatever reason and whom you do not even know. Be free to be opinionated but do not get carried away. And the same goes for the other gf.

Btw, this might actually be a very good thing for social networking sites as well where some people are bullied by their peers etc.

[OhPlease]

Very fair points Alixx and everyone else.  But never think that there is an anonymity factor on the internet.  There isn't.  Most of you here I venture are of the age where you are extremely computer savvy, which I am not.  But I do know that IP addresses can be traced, sites are monitored by law enforcement, etc.  It's a matter of whether the aggrieved wants to pursue certain conduct or certain websites.  The royal family doesn't want the bad press, so Kate and her family very carefully choose their battles.  IMO they should make an example out of the more outrageous and reckless sites and comments there; I think they would be on solid legal ground.  But they won't, which only validates these baseless remarks in the eyes of quite frankly some of the more demented posters out there fomenting this stuff.  What is most distressing and quite astounding however, is that the tabloids lurk at those sites and run with the theme of the attacks -- no job, "Waity Katy," which was a direct lift from this site.  I remember it well.  Shameful.  But, this particular site has improved 1000% and I no longer see anything like that posted here anymore.

[Jenee]

Definitely a precedent being set here though.

I don't know if I'd call it a precedent... defamation, libel, slander... those are all very old terms that have been debated in courts for ages.

The court's majority ruled that the Maxons had the right to know. Statements of opinion are protected as free speech, but assertions of fact are not. And in the court's eyes, the comment was the latter.

^This has always been true. The only difference I see here, is that while it was up formerly only professional journalists that could get in trouble for libel, but with the internet, now any published comment is up for scrutiny.

[gec]

There is an assumption that what is said on forums is an opinion, not a fact. How many people here personally know Kate, her family or any other person close to the royals? Even when articles are posted and presented as facts, these articles, as we have seen many times before are usually factually incorrect.

I personally do not subscribe to notions that the Middletons are golddiggers or that the push their way into the palace. But I also think people to have the right to interpret situations. And when discussing it on forums, commonsense states that these are only opinions.

When in the public eye, peoples lives unfortunately become topics for discussions. It is part of the package. There are perks to getting famous and entering into certain social circles.

It also works both ways. If you don't want people to say nasty, factually incorrect things, then you also need to control factually incorrect positive things. For example: Imminent Wedding, Kate the Fashion Queen. The former is an incorrect fact and the latter is an opinion posted as fact. Where do you draw the line?

If you only want to stop the factually incorrect negative comments, then you move towards a controlled state like North Korea, where factually incorrect positive news is fine, but negative factually incorrect news/comments is not allowed.

Yes, some things written are unpleasant. But many positive things are written. It would be a very sad day if people were restricted in forming and voicing opinions.

[Jenee]

^Very true points gec. However, in the case that this article referred to, this is what happened:

But a commenter on the Times story, "FabFive from Ottawa," suggested that the Maxons had attempted to bribe the Plan Commission, a post that the Maxons found libelous.

Stating that the couple had tried to bribe the Plan Commission is more than just opinion, and I believe that is why they were gone after in court. Whereas here, most everything that is said on the forum is indeed opinion.

[Alixxx]

Definitely a precedent being set here though.

I don't know if I'd call it a precedent... defamation, libel, slander... those are all very old terms that have been debated in courts for ages.

No, not the defamation/libel issue itself but the source of he evidence used to defend/prosecute such cases, i.e, evidence garnered from anonymous Internet posts. The Internet has really revolutionized certain legal standards.

[Jenee]

^Gotchya :thumbsup:

I'm torn on whether or not I agree with this entire situation - the only reason that I think it would be OK to go after an internet poster, is because something posted online is far more damaging then say, neighborly gossip. Once something is posted online, it is accessible world-wide, and is generally permanently available. Neighborhood gossip can be damaging on a small scale, but putting something in writing and making it available to the entire world has much larger consequences.

[Lucy]

Libel in the United States as of 4 days ago, it can go either way, with parody being protected by the Constitution.

A 14-year-old girl in Blue Mountain School District created a fake profile of a principal, using his photograph and describing him as a pedophile. She later apologized and was suspended for 10 days. Her suspension was upheld by a three-judge panel.

No one, including the principal, took the profile seriously, said Witold Walczak, an ACLU lawyer.

Justin Layshock, a senior at Hickory High School, created a parody that said his principal smoked marijuana and kept beer behind his desk. The principal sued him, and Layshock was suspended. A panel of judges, however, found his suspension unconstitutional. Walczak said Layshock's parody is protected under the First Amendment.

http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x371474295/Laws-on-students-Net-posts-oscillates


Two days ago in the UK-

If the new law, proposed by Lord Lester,  became practice it would mean that defamatory material would not have to be taken down for 14 days, unlike the current laws which state that companies not directly responsible for a message can escape liability for it but only if they take it down straight away once they have been informed of it.

It will also help reduce the burden on ISPs giving them a 14-day window to respond to claims of libel as well as seek a response or a challenge from the creator of the content before taking it down as well as a defence for "responsible publication on matters of public interest".


Read more: http://www.techeye.net/internet/lib-dem-peer-proposes-new-libel-law#ixzz0qSyXVYkW

http://www.techeye.net/internet/lib-dem-peer-proposes-new-libel-law

Other cyber crimes of stalking on line and harrassment are also to be found online.

As for the discusion of Mr Davy. The items were taken from an eye witness undercover reporter for a British paper, African witnesses and newspaper articles....actions already discussed in the world wide media, so not made up to cause harm, unlike the absurd Middleton fabrications.

Interesting thread, OhPlease. Thank you.

In the USA, you have to prove that what was erroneously written about you actually caused you harm in the form of L O S S...such as losing your job from a ruined reputation, or the libel somehow effecting your income or health. Or that you were divorced because of it.

[sillyjobug]

You raise an interesting point, Lucy. Yes, the Mugabe-connection and other things said about Mr Davy have been alleged in the press. (Some of them have also been denied or disproven.) But... so have allegations of Kate being lazy and a gold-digger (Wisteria sisters, anyone?). So where do we draw the line? Yes, there have been a couple absurd fabrications (voodoo), but for the most part nobody has ever suggested anything that can't also be seen in any number of newspapers.

Also, I don't feel it's fair to imply that anti-Kate comments are all intended to cause harm. While I'm sure you were only referring to a few of the more malicious posts of the past (such as the voodoo idea I mentioned before), it could be interpreted another way. We must remember that all opinions are equally valid (even the ones that could get you sued--but you should keep those ones to yourself!).

[Hale]

But a commenter on the Times story, "FabFive from Ottawa," suggested that the Maxons had attempted to bribe the Plan Commission, a post that the Maxons found libelous.

Surely the adjudication is also dependent on, in what context the accusation of bribery was made?

You can't pick out just a sentence, phrase or word and view that as libellous because if that was the case it would surely lead to the end of the written word.  Therefore, any adjudication has to take into account the context in which the accusation was made and when I read the context of 'goldigger' comments they always come across as opinions and not assertions of facts.