Still ok to defame on national TV though right?

I was going to react with incredulity, but then I read further...

The jury in the defamation lawsuit heard that since the ultimately unfounded rape allegations were heard in 2008, a total of 25,000 comments on 70 threads on Topix message boards were posted onto the Internet.

Christ, that's a lot of posts.

They discovered that 70 percent of the postings on Topix came from only a narrow number of IP addresses.

As it turns out, a handful of people responsible for over 15,000 of these. Now that is getting well above the level of your garden-variety internet asshat and going into the level of total lifeless trolltard.

The amount is still absurd, but then again, the article doesn't go into great detail as to how this affected them in real life (apparently it did), or whether it was the news stories about the charges in general that forced them to move or a result of this kind of asshattery. If it was a direct result, then I understand the amount demanded. If it's not really clear what stacked up, then this is a stupid amount of money.

To add to the above, relax Farkers, we can still be regular ol' internet assholes. I don't think I've seen people here spewing that sort of venom, even the "trollier than thou" type.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Still ok to defame on national TV though right?

Yes. Public figures aren't exempt from ill speak, but they're at a higher threshold, kind of.

Durendal: the article doesn't go into great detail as to how this affected them in real life

That irked me, too. There was even a line that made it seem as if it was all contained on Topix. To win that case, they'd have to prove a monetary loss directly tied to the statements made, and that bit was missing from the article.

Divide the amount by 50-100 and it seems fair.

Faddy: So these people declare bankruptcy and the plaintiff gets almost zero?

When you take into the account the impact of bankruptcy, there is a moral victory wrapped in the package.

Bankruptcies take years to remove from your record.

The article linked at the bottom of the original, has a little more information. 3 years ago, the couple...her a business owner and him an attorney...were falsely accused (by the woman they sued) of rape, drug dealing, pedophilia---all accusations they were acquitted of.

What's also interesting that the second linked article mentioned is that they're going after a DA for wrongful prosecution in another upcoming suit.

Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

seems to me newspapers have been responsible for the ruination of many peoples lives and reputations for years. while they are only reporting events the public judges people quickly. there are many who have been accused that were later found innocent of any wrong doing. meanwhile their careers and good name were ruined. i understand the absence of malice in news reporting, it just seems unfair to those who suffer because they were wrongly accused.

the internet is the platform for modern day journalism. people should be free to discuss the news of the day. this is a step toward limiting the exchange of opinion in a public forum. are we going to have to adopt legal speak and place a disclaimer in front of our posted opinions in the years to come? i hope not.

meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.



/lawsuit ahoy!

meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

lol

Is it still OK to talk about subby's mom?

sniderman: meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

[i49.tinypic.com image 396x309]

/lawsuit ahoy!

libranoelrose: meow said the dog: Many of you who have defamed me for being the alternative of the other can expect the lawsuit through the Postal Service of the United States of America via the Certified Mail Signature Line very soon as you have given me the proverbial sixth finger shuffle.

lol

It's laughter-ol, dammit!

Based on the information provided, I can only assume that the volume of commentary played a role in the severity of the reward, as well as what was said.

It's one thing to make a couple comments about someone you don't like saying crap that isn't true (We all do that here on a daily basis) it is quite another to post THAT volume of brutal vitriolic commentary that is proven to be false in a court of law.

Seems fine to me, but they'll see a small fraction of that money, if any.

Terrydatroll: KrispyKritter: seems to me newspapers have been responsible for the ruination of many peoples lives and reputations for years. while they are only reporting events the public judges people quickly. there are many who have been accused that were later found innocent of any wrong doing. meanwhile their careers and good name were ruined. i understand the absence of malice in news reporting, it just seems unfair to those who suffer because they were wrongly accused.

the internet is the platform for modern day journalism. people should be free to discuss the news of the day. this is a step toward limiting the exchange of opinion in a public forum. are we going to have to adopt legal speak and place a disclaimer in front of our posted opinions in the years to come? i hope not.

Although I agree 100% with what you are saying, it is not really the same thing in this case IMO. These people knew the couple and set out to defame them in a public arena. Remaining anonymous made it even worse on their part. I think anonymity has bolstered the worst part of our society and our personalities, parts that would remain hidden and somewhat dormant if not given such and unnatural vehicle as the internet. We should all be more careful and try not to say things we would normally be ashamed of simply due to anonymity.

Do you know who I am? Then fark you. :-)

you and a few others made a good point, one which i overlooked in the article. there is a huge difference between the public discussing a given topic and people who are directly connected to the event going on a smear campaign. thank you for pointing this out to me.
no doubt anonymity allows for behavior which one probably would not witness in a face to face setting. i'm guilty, many are.

That's a huge verdict. Guess it's time to file bankruptcy.