Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

Then fox news needs to get out the check book for Obama.

The allegedly damaged party will have to prove harm.

/lawsuit failure.

I'm gonna need a picture of her bosom in a blouse to make a call on this one.

I wouldn't worry so much that she'd shoved it in her blouse as that she'd eaten it.



/My name is really Prank Call of Cthulhu

I'll be your huckleberry

mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

I would have to see the comment in question, but libel is tough to prove. She would have to prove that some yahoo internet commenter injured her reputation, which, good luck we're all rooting for you.

If the "poster" has half a brain, all they need to do is point out that a lawsuit will get more publicity than letting it go.
Also, it's not libel if it's true.
Did she steal it? Did she misappropriate the money for a boob job?

If you're doing it right, the best they could get is an email address that leads nowhere.

Imperialism: mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

I would have to see the comment in question, but libel is tough to prove. She would have to prove that some yahoo internet commenter injured her reputation, which, good luck we're all rooting for you.

(yahoo internet commenter as in idiot internet commenter, not Yahoo.com internet commenter)

Also: Is she a public figure or not?
If so, commenter is safe. Sounds like it.

With which political party is the judge affiliated? The DA?
Are her tits big enough to require a blouse of such a size as to accommodate that much money and if so, in what denominations?

These are valid questions.

18 Proxies that ain't no game
21 emails an none are the same
I'm tighter than a vault, you can't touch me
But if you're nice I might just yodle in your IP

I seriously wonder how much of Drew's lawsuit war chest is spent just keeping the politics tab alive, now that I think of it.

mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

What lesson? The only lesson I see here is if you question and or have a discussion on what happen regarding a public figure you can be sued. Can't have the peons getting out of line.

Assertions about public figures should stir debate, not bring about lawsuits. This is an abuse of the courts. By the judge, primarily.

Picture of the public figure is here.

/well then.

Ah the myth of anonymity

BurnShrike: I'm gonna need a picture of her bosom in a blouse to make a call on this one.

HotIgneous Intruder: Picture of the public figure is here.

I withdraw my prior statement on the grounds that she's an uggo.

/It's not defamation to call her ugly if she is actually hideously ugly.

ZAZ: Under the name "almostinnocentbystander," the commenter questioned whether $10,000 reportedly missing from the Kootenai County Central Committee might be "stuffed inside Tina's blouse."

I would be inclined to give that protected status as speech about a public figure because it could be taken as a general comment on her character. However, it could be taken literally. A politician from my area was convicted of stuffing bribes in her bra.

if the post was malicious (reckless disregard for the truth), then still liable, even if public figure.

+1 for judge ordering paper to reveal information

mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

If you sincerely think its true or plauseable, then you are protected. You are only liable if you admit you know it isn't true and were trying to hurt/defame someone. An extremely hard case to prove.

HotIgneous Intruder: Picture of the public figure is here.

/well then.

Oh okay I read all the stories and see what these three bloggers did. This was not free speech or just some comments this was a campaign to take this lady down so fark them. The judge did the right thing.

Here's the opinion if anyone wants the primary source (the linked article doesn't even give the judge's first name, great job)

I still think it's ridiculous.

Is the EFF involved yet?

This pisses me off. The judge has no business making that ruling until the lawsuit is complete. There's absolutely no way that an anonymous comment that a public figure in charge of money that's missing MIGHT have had something to do with it's disappearance is a libel issue.

Cause guess what. She MIGHT have shoved it down her blouse. That's fact.

You should absolutely be able to proceed to get this libel claim dismissed with the original defendant still anonymous.

HotIgneous Intruder: Picture of the public figure is here.

/well then.

Are we allowed to say that she's a fatty? If not, I hereby retract my statement.

mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

But implying someone is a traitor is still cool, so we have that going for us

GooberMcFly: "The comments were deleted from Huckleberries Online after S-R blogger Dave Oliveria discovered them, but the Boobies was visible for about 2 ½ hours."

Fun with the Fark filter...

LOL! After seeing the person in question, I'd rather not see teh bewbs muhself.

There's no way that woman could've stuffed 10K down her blouse. The only thing between her breasts is her belly button.

In Ms. Jacobson's defense, stuffing ten grand in your bra really wouldn't make it look like someone took a couple of saggy old plastic grocery bags, shoveled a few pounds of jello into them, then duct taped them in place under your blouse. Stuffing a wad of cash in there would actually make them look perky.

So the original commenter is just way, way off base.

/Can tell by the pixels and from having seen quite a few boobs in my time.

And this is why I always wear a Guy Fawkes mask whenever I post something

Musikslayer: HotIgneous Intruder: Picture of the public figure is here.

/well then.

Are we allowed to say that she's a fatty? If not, I hereby retract my statement.

Apparently not, because the judge and lawyers seem to agree it's a fat joke about how terrible she looked in the picture, and NOT a comment on her integrity, from other articles.

AND they revealed the identities of two other people not directly involved as "witnesses".

This stinks to high heaven.

What would be really funny, is if she lost the suit AND was convicted of embezzlement.

That would be genius!

The plaintiff alleges she is questioned about "the blog entries" and has been required to defend her position at the Committee to her friends, family, employer, church, and other persons. More persuasively, she alleges she was required to defend her position of trust and leadership by ordering a review of the Committee books.

(That's paraphrased from the opinion)

I'm calling BS because it's an INTERNET COMMENTER. If I posted that I like hamburgers, and someone here posted "go be fat somewhere else," and my mom saw that and asked "Imperialism, are you getting fat?" I would say "no, Mom, that's just some internet commenter" and that would be the end of it.

As I read further into it, the commenter actually recanted the statement after posting it twice, which shows actual malice (I would disagree, the commenter would argue he didn't know it was false UNTIL he got information saying so and then recanted).

This whole thing is just dumb. Guy posts accusations in a freaking comments section, later recants, and she's still suing.

j0e_average: What would be really funny, is if she lost the suit AND was convicted of embezzlement.

That would be genius!

In the 50's, a London newspaper insinuated that Liberace was gay. He sued them for libel and he won about a million bucks.

HotIgneous Intruder: The allegedly damaged party will have to prove harm.

/lawsuit failure.


No, she could also scare the person in to settling with her. And if the judge is ordering a newspaper to reveal the identity of a stupid commenter on the internet then if I was that person I'd be more than a little worried about what would happen when I went to court. With local political and judicial figures like that... yeah, I'd be worried.

Did you know that Tina Jacobson is currently the President of the Kootenai Countain Republicans.

And that they have a Facebook page: Link

I'm thinking that some clearly non-libelous and non-threatening comments could appear there, fully attributed to myself and anyone else who cares to upset her little bubble of happy thoughts that she apparently had burst by a cruel anonymous comment.

Satanic_Hamster: ds615: If the "poster" has half a brain, all they need to do is point out that a lawsuit will get more publicity than letting it go.
Also, it's not libel if it's true.
Did she steal it? Did she misappropriate the money for a boob job?

Have to go on with this. This is a completely fair and legally correct ruling.

But Ms./Mrs. council member; you're turning what would have been a comment that was up for 2.5 hours and MAYBE seen by a few hundred people to something that's going to make national and possibly international news.

The poster recanted his accusation. As far as I can tell she's just doing this because she has too much time on her hands.

My Name? First name Bulls, last name Balls...

Musikslayer: j0e_average: What would be really funny, is if she lost the suit AND was convicted of embezzlement.

That would be genius!

In the 50's, a London newspaper insinuated that Liberace was gay. He sued them for libel and he won about a million bucks.

Wait, Liberace was gay?

/i wish my brother george was here

Did Tina Jacobson steal $10,000?
Just asking questions.

StoPPeRmobile: Musikslayer: j0e_average: What would be really funny, is if she lost the suit AND was convicted of embezzlement.

That would be genius!

In the 50's, a London newspaper insinuated that Liberace was gay. He sued them for libel and he won about a million bucks.

Wait, Liberace was gay?

/i wish my brother george was here

I heard MacGuyver was gay.

Is she mad because anonymous blog commenter implied she was fat, a thief or both?

KimNorth: mauricecano: Good lesson illustration, libel and slander are not protected speech and implying that someone is a thief and thus impinging on their moral character in public is not allowed and you can be held accountable.

What lesson? The only lesson I see here is if you question and or have a discussion on what happen regarding a public figure you can be sued. Can't have the peons getting out of line.

calling someone a thief is not a discussion, nor is it a question.

granted, if he was just pontificating on the possibility that she did something: "i wonder if she stole it?" that is a bit different & certainly allowable.

it's also what most media does to avoid being held liable: shout your slander in the form of a question.

idnrtfa - so i don't know the exact thing he said.