Defamatory Statements.

[Posting a link?]

Forum Guidelines
Posting a link? Read This!

Forgot your password? Need help?
Click Here To Contact Us

Mudflats Merchandise
AKMuckraker Amazon Store
Support AKM Merchandise

Download it here!

[Snoskred]

What Is A Defamatory Statement?

This is an area of law in major flux. We are not giving any kind of legal advice. You should seek your own legal advice if you feel it is necessary.

Here is some information we have been able to find on what defines a defamatory statement.

A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade. Statements that are merely offensive are not defamatory (e.g., a statement that Bill smells badly would not be sufficient (and would likely be an opinion anyway)). Courts generally examine the full context of a statement's publication when making this determination.....

...Because a statement must be false to be defamatory, a statement of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation claim because it cannot be proven true or false. For example, the statement that Bill is a short-tempered jerk, is clearly a statement of opinion because it cannot be proven to be true or false. Again, courts will look at the context of the statement as well as its substance to determine whether it is opinion or a factual assertion. Adding the words "in my opinion" generally will not be sufficient to transform a factual statement to a protected opinion. For example, there is no legal difference between the following two statements, both of which could be defamatory if false:

"John stole $100 from the corner store last week."
"In my opinion, John stole $100 from the corner store last week."

....
Defamation Per Se

Some statements of fact are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory. Such statements are typically referred to as defamation "per se." These types of statements are assumed to harm the plaintiff's reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:

a criminal offense;

a loathsome disease;

matter incompatible with his business, trade, profession, or office; or

serious sexual misconduct.

As you can see, it is not exactly simple or clear to define what is a defamatory statement. This topic is something the Administrators (and the moderators) have been struggling with for some months now.

The one thing we do know -

If you post something like this - Snoskred Avalanche is the parent of XX child - that would be considered a defamatory statement. Posting something like this could result in legal action being taken against you. You may need to retain an attorney and it may end up costing you a fortune.

What kind of legal action?

If a Court orders us to do so, we would be required to turn over any information we have - your email address, your Internet IP address which would identify to the lawyers who your internet service provider is.

A subpoena could require your internet service provider to name the person who was using that internet IP address on the date and time the message was posted. Then, the lawyers could sue you for defamation. They could also attempt to sue us for allowing that comment to be seen on our forums.

We are actually trying to protect our forum members from this kind of legal action being taken.

But What About Freedom Of Speech?

Many people believe they are entitled to free speech here on the forums.

We believe that our democracy gives you the right to publish your own blog or create your own forum.  However, if you wish to participate here on the Mudflats Forum, you need to follow the Forum's guidelines.

You agreed to follow the forum guidelines when you joined the forums. It is in the registration agreement and to become a member, you have to tick a box which says "I agree". The forum is a private forum. The forum rules clearly state no defamatory comments. We have the right - if we feel something is potentially defamatory - to delete it.

Even if this were a public forum (which it is not), there are recognized limits on freedom of speech, such as hate speech, obscenities, libel and slander. People posting on blogs and forums can be and are being sued for defamation. People posting hate speech or assassination threats on the internet can and are being arrested. You need to be careful and think before you post to protect yourself.
 
Posts that violate the Forum Gudelines in any way will be modified or deleted should Administrators or Moderators feel that this is in the best interest of The Forum.

[pj]

I am ready to re-pledge my complete loyalty to the realm and promise to treat kindly all within it's domain. I vow that any crude speech of mine will never bring shame upon this fair place or the mighty AKM!

Seriously, thanks for the information. It seems it can be very easy to get yourself into trouble if you think the anonymity of the virtual world really offers some protection from irresponsible communications.  You guys are the bestest 

[LettersFromEurope]

Thankyou for pointing this out.

AMENDED : OH DEAR and then I went and broke the rule myself...... I am currently doing the Monty Python "Search for the Holy Grail" scene: See Monks with giant board hitting themselves over the head. ARGHHHH

I´ll make sure to take my chill pills regularly, so I don´t make a complete fool of myself again. Nghhhhh

[judi]

oh my letters from europe...you just made my day...I love monty python and so can see that scene...just cannot stop laughing....thanks for the giggles

[LettersFromEurope]

oh my letters from europe...you just made my day...I love monty python and so can see that scene...just cannot stop laughing....thanks for the giggles

Ah, and you just made mine. If I can make people laugh at my foolishness (with the help of Monty P.) I am on my way to redemption in the sense of
"[noun] (Christianity) the act of delivering from sin or saving from evil    Synonyms: salvation"  http://www.elook.org/dictionary/redemption.html

Thankyou
Now, if only I can avoid making the same mistake for say a whole week. Those boards hurt. Chill Pills on standby. 

[Snoskred]

I would just like to bump this topic, given the recent developments in the Palin soap opera.

It is *your* responsibility to make sure you are not making a defamatory statement.

[NYHawk]

Libel Ruling Protects Anonymous Comments

Maryland's highest appellate court has issued a significant ruling underscoring the First Amendment's protection of anonymous comments posted online.

http://www.legaline.com/2009/03/libel-ruling-protects-anonymous.html

[Lani]

New Hamshpire disagrees: http://ml-implode.com/article/mchugh_order
This is a new area for the law.  It wil take awhile to sort out.

[Snoskred]

New Hamshpire disagrees: http://ml-implode.com/article/mchugh_order
This is a new area for the law.  It wil take awhile to sort out.

In the meantime, everyone should protect themselves as best they can. The easiest way is by not making defamatory statements.

[NYHawk]

But New Hampshire is in the minority.

FTA: "Maryland joins the growing consensus among federal and state courts in other jurisdictions that would-be plaintiffs must make at least a substantial legal and factual showing that his/her claim has merit before a court will unmask an anonymous or pseudonymous Internet speaker.  See, e.g., Sinclair v. TubeSockTedD, 2009 WL 320408, at *2 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 2009); Krinsky v. Doe 6, 159 Cal.App. 4th 1154 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); Doe I v. Individuals, 561 F. Supp. 2d 249, 254-56 (D. Conn. 2008); Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 566 F. Supp.2d 1205, 1216 (D. Nev. 2008); Mobilisa v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712, 720-21 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007); Greenbaum v. Google, 845 N.Y.S.2d 695, 698-99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007); In re Does 1-10, 242 S.W.3d 805, 822-23 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007); Reunion Indus. v. Doe, 2007 WL 1453491 (Penn. Ct. Comm. Pleas Mar. 5, 2007); McMann v. Doe, 460 F. Supp.2d 259, 268 (D. Mass. 2006); Best Western Int'l v. Doe, 2006 WL 2091695, at * (D. Ariz. 2006); Highfields Capital Mgmt. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp.2d 969, 975-76 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005); Dendrite International v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. App. Div. 2001).  The Court of Appeals of Maryland is only the second state high court to rule on the issue."

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/maryland-high-court-joins-growing-consensus-protecting-anonymous-speech-online

[Lani]

It's still an unsettled point.  It is still a legal argument, and we await the outcome.  Cheers!

[Writing from Alaska]

Thank you so much for the research and important information on this and other related threads.

This is going to be an important part of the dialogue about proper public discourse and I am very happy to have some of this info at hand.

This was the only smiley I could find that fits my mood - looks a bit like Brian to me.

 

[DrChill]

The rules for statements about public officials are different than ordinary citizens.
They generally require the plaintiff's claims to be more substantial.

If AKM is looking for legal protection from 'backlash' and "frivolous' lawsuits, then thats a different matter.

[Snoskred]

Bumping this thread as it seems some commentors on the blog are unaware of what may be considered a defamatory statement..