Fark everyone. And from the end of TFA...

Internet libel suits have had success in the past. A few years ago a North Dakota professor was awarded $3 million over claims a student Web site defamed him.

WTF? Talk about an excessive reward. Someone please say bad things about me on the internets. I want my $3 million.

That's why I never post anything but kind comments on Fark.

Good grief. Welcome to the internets. People talk all kinds of shiat.

These people need to grow a thicker skin.

And you're a bunch of douches if you post mean things about situations that you know nothing about. Douches.

Drew will protect his minions, right? RIGHT?

cryinoutloud: That's why I never post anything but kind comments on Fark.

Who are you and what did you do with cryinoutloud's body?

Just kidding ;)

It's the Clarksville forums on Topix, so go figure.
Topix makes Youtube comments and Yahoo Answers seem like intelligent discourse in comparison.

There's another stupid case like this happening in the area as well.
Basically it it's up to the ISP (not the site) as far as revealing the identities.

Finally, someone finds the escape clause in John Gabriel's Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory.

That's just like, my opinion, man.

PoopStain: Prick!

/I have three dollars.

GIMME!

You can't sue me, I have diplomatic immunity.

Lady Beryl Ersatz-Wendigo: You can't sue me, I have diplomatic immunity.

That worked real well for this guy ;)

The Leshers' attorney, William Pieratt Demond, rapes farm animals and dolphins.

^ satire.

Hey judge. Hey couple.fark you.

Start every thread with "ALLEGEDLY..." and we're good to go, right?

"....and then, in the thread, he told me to eat a bowl of dicks...and I was very traumatized."

shivashakti: "....and then, in the thread, he told me to eat a bowl of dicks...and I was very traumatized."

Court's exhibit C, a bowl of dicks. Would you eat that, sir? I'm sorry, I don't think the jury heard you. Would you eat that?

I would just like to say that Mark and Rhonda Lesher are the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human beings I've ever posted anonymously about in my life.

furiousxgeorge, I think you need to frame it more satirically, such as "Can you imagine that the Leshers' attorney, William Pieratt Demond has raped farm animals and dolphins? Trust a lawyer to engage in stereotypical behavior."

Mark and Rhonda Lesher smoke pole and insert mustard jars in their asses. Without lube.

Come get me, biatches.

Remember folks, in certain states, "it's true" is a legit defense against slander/libel claims.

Mark and Rhonda Lesher are idiots for pursuing this lawsuit. Let it go, already. How many online comment forums will ignite from this stupidity?

Is there any legal stature that would force the website to turn over a list with names? That doesn't seem particularly legal.

To the couple suing: welcome to the Internets.

cksewell: Drew will protect his minions, right? RIGHT?

He might be sued if he doesnt disclose our names.

Anyone know what the outcome of the Pets Warehouse lawsuits were?

cryinoutloud: And you're a bunch of douches if you post mean things about situations that you know nothing about. Douches.

$13 million, plz.

Sorry, don't agree with y'all. Freedom of speech has limits: Defamatory comments like some in the Topix thread are pretty questionable. When you read the original story from the Paris (TX) News, some of the commenters seemed to be just waiting to trash this couple, and apparently, the lawyer dude has a pretty hefty rep in that part of Texas he feels he needs to protect.

Original story:
http://theparisnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=48c64bbc70092a7d

Topix thread
http://www.topix.net/forum/city/sun-valley-tx/T0SFJGJH99COJ51K6

Judge Judy would slap the poopy outta some of those posters. But she has mad love for the snarky goodness of Farkers.

GAT_00: Is there any legal stature that would force the website to turn over a list with names? That doesn't seem particularly legal.

It's a legal ruling and order by a judge, meant to force evidence to be turned over as discoverable material. It is issued after a party issues a subpoena to someone (including a 3rd party), and someone objects. The court looks at relevant factors, and decides whether the information is discoverable. Happens every day in civil suits.

maimzini: Freedom of speech has limits

No, it doesn't. Your statement is at the height of irony. If you want limits on speech, leave America. Freedom of speech means I can say whatever I farking want, and I damn well will.

GoDeep: Happens every day in civil suits.

I can't say I agree with the ruling though. If this goes through, this is going to be a landmark case.

No, it doesn't. Your statement is at the height of irony. If you want limits on speech, leave America. Freedom of speech means I can say whatever I farking want, and I damn well will.

No, it doesn't mean that. Slander and libel have always been a part of our law, and they should be. How would you like it if someone published lies about you? It's an abuse of free speech to harm people, much like you don't get to shoot anyone you like just because you have a right to bear arms.

That said, suing people talking shiat in an internet forum is like suing someone for drunkenly ranting at a bar. It may be a public forum, but not one in which anyone is taken seriously, or in which anyone puts any serious stock, and in which people are known to say things they don't mean.

GAT_00: I can't say I agree with the ruling though. If this goes through, this is going to be a landmark case.

I don't agree with it, either. It has a chilling effect on free speech.

I'll be starting my posts from now on with, "It is my own personal opinion that...." and ending them with, "Just kidding."

Lonestar: cksewell: Drew will protect his minions, right? RIGHT?

He might be sued if he doesnt disclose our names.

And he'll lose a metric farkton of revenue if he does. Fun with the digital Sword of Damocles.

furiousxgeorge: No, it doesn't mean that. Slander and libel have always been a part of our law, and they should be.

"It is my own personal opinion that" this is a bunch of BS - as I can say anything about you that I want, as long as you can't prove that there was any detriment to your well-being DIRECTLY related to my comments..."just kidding!"

/ Thanks GoDeep: for the legal advice!

Wow. I dunno. I mean, the couple are the ones that read through the posts written by these 1,700 "anonymous" posters and picked out the meanest 178, so, roughly 10%. Didn't it occur to them to stop reading at some point?

Though I imagine in an echo chamber that large, the reverberations can get pretty nasty.

This is a bad idea for the Leshers.

They may have been found not guilty, but the burden of proof is a lot less in a civil proceeding.

If I were being sued, I'd subpoena all the evidence that the police have and say, "The police thought you were guilty. The prosecutor thought you were guilty. Why am I being held to a higher standard than the government?"

If the Leshers are smart, they'll drop this. Unless they want to rehash things all over again.

Of course, he is a defense attorney. And we all know about defense attorneys.

I'm not up on libel laws and such.

So I have to ask...

Why the fark would anyone care what people say about them on the interwebs? Of course it's gonna be bad. Of course it's gonna be half heard/badly told information (or possibly just plain out wrong) that's being discussed. That's human nature, on or off the net.

So...so what? Are they supposed to hold out for a universal popularity? That's certainly not going to happen. Are we not allowed to snark about anyone evar?

Why are we allowing other people's opinions to suddenly matter? If enough people say so, that makes it true?

/I'm/You're a billionare.
//come on, everone say it now!

Do you post as "Magnolia Fan" on Moviepoopshoot.com?

FTFA: An estimated 1,700 statements were too graphic to be included in this story, going far beyond the criminal charges.

"They were perverted, sick, vile, inhumane accusations," said Mark Lesher in a telephone interview from Clarksville, Texas.

So in other words 1,600 were posted by people under the age of 16. And probably 5 legit ones.

furiousxgeorge: That said, suing people talking shiat in an internet forum is like suing someone for drunkenly ranting at a bar. It may be a public forum, but not one in which anyone is taken seriously, or in which anyone puts any serious stock, and in which people are known to say things they don't mean.

Don't forget that their right to privacy/remain anonymous is usually supposed to be protected under the website's privacy policy.

Fireproof: Don't forget that their right to privacy/remain anonymous is usually supposed to be protected under the website's privacy policy.

Read the fine print. Something like "except as required by law" will be in there somewhere.

TEXAS TAG STAT



PoopStain: Oh, HELL no.

Fark these people, and fark that Judge.

179 defendants now added.

FTFA: Internet libel suits have had success in the past. A few years ago a North Dakota professor was awarded $3 million over claims a student Web site defamed him.


That'll teach them.

GoDeep: It is my own personal opinion that I'll be starting my posts from now on with, "It is my own personal opinion that...." and ending them with, "Just kidding." Just kidding.

FTFY

Wow, giving on line forums way too much credence.

Geez, not only are they indiscriminate, allegedly sexual assualting douche bags, but they're cash grabbing douche bags as well. fark 'em and their ambulance chaser. They don't deserve a dime.

/can't sue me, blood from a turnip and all.