Sue Scheff won $11.3 million over her Internet Defamation lawsuit (read link below).

http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=commen … 80fd8d594d


EDIT: The last part of my comments i removed after reading a few response's, i did not relize i had written it that way, sorry. No harrassment of any kind was intended, just the fact that it was related to a internet site.

That is not even a representation of what happens on MM....A distant relative MAYBE..but in reality I havent seen anybody pursue an ACTIVE Campaign to bring harm to an individual or their business. That case is more cut and dry compared to the trivial crap you see on MM. As long as someone doesnt USE LIES when speaking of an individual, they have no recource.

Vance

I think it is very relevent to the issues that come up here on MM.

EDIT: How do you know if its lies or not when your only reading one half of the situation. Names do not need to be mentioned for it to be considered defamation, the circumstances just need to point that direction. Defamation lawsuits can stem from word of mouth or B&W form, without the persons name ever mentioned but circumstances point to that person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel

It would be very hard to set a new precedent in slander/libel cases, at this point. The problem is fairly well understood. Adding the internet and message boards to the mix doesn't change anything.

Remember - you are allowed to state your opinion at any time. It's when you knowingly misrepresent things as facts that you're on dangerous ground. So I can say "X is an asshole" or "Y is full of shit" but I'd be more careful if I said "Z stole $500 from me" unless I felt I could make a convincing argument in a civil court (with its more relaxed standards of evidence) that it was true.

The case you've cited shows someone committing what appears to be egregious behavior and getting slapped down hard for it. But it would have been no different if the guy had been taking out newspaper ads or TV ads misrepresenting the victim. Note, too, that the newspaper or the website is not going to lose a judgement unless the slander/defamation occurs in their editorial content. If you printed a slanderous or libelous ad in The New York Times, they are not going to be found as being at fault whereas you might. The same logic would probably apply to a website - unless a site administrator or a site-written or site-sponsored article was defamatory it's not the site's problem. Read MM's rules and they could easily be interpreted as a very good disclaimer of responsibility for what site members post. And, if a site was really worried about it, all they'd have to do is get members to acknowledge responsibility for their own postings as part of sign-up, and have a disclaimer as part of the login page, and they'd be covered. As it is, that would be ridiculous overkill. A site policy like MM's is sufficient for anything except some weird edge-case.

If you're worried about being defamatory or slanderous yourself, then just stick to stating your opinion or provable facts. I.e.: "I think this guy owed me a CD of images and it doesn't look to me like I am going to get them." Or "model X is a bitch" as opposed to "model Y weighs 25 lbs more than she says in her profile." Why is it OK to call someone a "bitch" but not a "cheat"? Because there is no agreed upon definition of "bitch" that will stand up in court whereas "cheat" has specific meanings and none of them are good. The guys who write for The National Enquirer and The Weekly World News have it down to a fine art. "Model allegedly seen doing TFP all night long with GWC" - etc. Nobody can touch you.

I suggest you stop your apparent scare-mongering.

mjr.

If this is true then I am owed a LOT of money !!!

Libel, in law has specific requirements. You must prove:

1. The person knows what they are saying is not true and intend to maliciously harm someone.

2. There has to be a financial loss as a result

Now, if you think spending $5,000 to $30,000 or more to START filing a case on the possibility that you MIGHT recover your money go ahead.

Most of what happens on MM is name calling and allegations. The losses, if any are most likely small. While in way out cases, you might totally kill someone's business - that's not going to happen here.

[Edit] The best tool we have on MM is to actively use the Mods and supporting open forums and posting facts. Keep the name calling and tempers out and under control.

This article presents a less slanted review of the actual case:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ … 3678.story  including the fact that NO DEFENSE was presented, nor are any funds likely to ever be collected.

A major part of the story is that the defendant did not appear or offer any defense at trial.
Chances are, if she'd been there things would have been different.
As it was, the plaintiff made a case, the judge said "Any challenges?" and then said "Ok, you win."
It was a default, basically.