If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZ Family)   Geez, you post one comment making fun of an NFL cheerleader having sex with a teenager and suddenly you may be responsible for halting freedom of speech on the internet   (azfamily.com) divider line 45
    More: Asinine, NFL Cheerleader, Communications Decency Act, history of human sexuality, reckless disregard, oral arguments  
•       •       •

10341 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Dec 2013 at 12:00 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-09 10:46:33 AM
assets.nydailynews.com

'I love everything about her,' Cody York, 18, says of the Ben-Gal and his former English teacher.
Sarah Jones, 27, escaped jail time when she took a plea deal last week.
 
2013-12-09 11:40:13 AM
Well it is a crime on humanity!!

We should never discourage cheerleaders from having sex!

img30.imageshack.us

cheerleader!
 
2013-12-09 12:07:18 PM
Lucky bastard
 
2013-12-09 12:08:03 PM
Judge ruling gets slapped down in 3...2...1...
 
2013-12-09 12:09:25 PM
You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?
 
m00
2013-12-09 12:12:23 PM
Actually, after reading this article I side with the cheerleader.

This is not holding a messageboard liable for the speech of its posters. The website owner reviewed the posts, and greenlighted the ones he felt were newsworthy, interesting, whatever. Because he was reviewing content and cherry-picking specific ones, I believe it to be libel if he picks ones that are demonstrably false.

..

His website, thedirty.com, allows users to submit posts - anonymously if they want - about anyone from the girl next door to professional athletes and politicians, often accusing them of promiscuity, cheating on their spouses or getting plastic surgery or picking apart their looks. Richie screens each post, decides what goes up and often adds his own commentary.
 ..


Richie said that the posts were submitted to him anonymously and that it was not up to him to judge their accuracy.

..

If that were true, then the Washington Post website could argue that tips and facts were submitted by anonymous sources and it was not up to them to judge accuracy.
 
2013-12-09 12:12:29 PM

hervatski: You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?


That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-09 12:13:07 PM
she deserves a HERO tag!

//queue the "double standard" haters


"If that's child molestation, I would wish this curse on every young boy."  - Charles Fawcett, on the affair he had with his best friend's mother when he was 15 years old.
 
2013-12-09 12:13:11 PM

hervatski: You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?


I may be wrong, but it sounded like the judge said that a website can be sued for a post a commentator leaves. Like if I posted "Joe Schmo is a big fat doody head," Joe Schmo could then sue Fark for my post.
 
2013-12-09 12:13:37 PM

hervatski: You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?


If that were true than every rag magazine on the rack would be out of business.
 
2013-12-09 12:14:17 PM

m00: The website owner reviewed the posts, and greenlighted the ones he felt were newsworthy, interesting, whatever. Because he was reviewing content and cherry-picking specific ones, I believe it to be libel if he picks ones that are demonstrably false.


I missed that part. Ignore my previous post.
 
2013-12-09 12:14:21 PM
Look what happened to UK media outlets when they started applying libel and slander laws to internet commenters. Fark would disappear overnight if they could sue for this in the US right?
 
m00
2013-12-09 12:14:23 PM

ChaosStar: That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?


But Fark mods don't greenlight comments they feel to be newsworthy. They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.
 
2013-12-09 12:16:53 PM

m00: ChaosStar: That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?

But Fark mods don't greenlight comments they feel to be newsworthy. They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.


No but they do greenlight headlines they feel to be newsworthy and we've had outright lies in more than a few of those.
 
2013-12-09 12:22:11 PM

m00: Actually, after reading this article I side with the cheerleader.

This is not holding a messageboard liable for the speech of its posters. The website owner reviewed the posts, and greenlighted the ones he felt were newsworthy, interesting, whatever. Because he was reviewing content and cherry-picking specific ones, I believe it to be libel if he picks ones that are demonstrably false.

..

His website, thedirty.com, allows users to submit posts - anonymously if they want - about anyone from the girl next door to professional athletes and politicians, often accusing them of promiscuity, cheating on their spouses or getting plastic surgery or picking apart their looks. Richie screens each post, decides what goes up and often adds his own commentary.
 ..


Richie said that the posts were submitted to him anonymously and that it was not up to him to judge their accuracy.

..

If that were true, then the Washington Post website could argue that tips and facts were submitted by anonymous sources and it was not up to them to judge accuracy.


Yeah. Leave that sort of behavior to CNN.
 
2013-12-09 12:23:13 PM

ChaosStar: m00: ChaosStar: That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?

But Fark mods don't greenlight comments they feel to be newsworthy. They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.

No but they do greenlight headlines they feel to be newsworthy and we've had outright lies in more than a few of those.


Indeed. And those lies could be cause for libel if this is upheld.
 
2013-12-09 12:23:50 PM

ChaosStar: hervatski: You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?

That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?


Only if the third party proves the comments that were posted were false and the media outlet refuses to issue an apology or take the comments down. The party would also have to prove tangible damages as a result. That's my 2 cents.
 
2013-12-09 12:23:54 PM
Ritchie reviews the posts himself, and posts them HIMSELF, along with his own commentary. If it were an automated system that allowed users to post without his intervention, then, no, I wouldn't think him to be so exposed to liability. His agency in the defamation is what is causing him problems.
 
2013-12-09 12:26:24 PM

m00: Actually, after reading this article I side with the cheerleader.

This is not holding a messageboard liable for the speech of its posters. The website owner reviewed the posts, and greenlighted the ones he felt were newsworthy, interesting, whatever. Because he was reviewing content and cherry-picking specific ones, I believe it to be libel if he picks ones that are demonstrably false.

..

His website, thedirty.com, allows users to submit posts - anonymously if they want - about anyone from the girl next door to professional athletes and politicians, often accusing them of promiscuity, cheating on their spouses or getting plastic surgery or picking apart their looks. Richie screens each post, decides what goes up and often adds his own commentary.
 ..


Richie said that the posts were submitted to him anonymously and that it was not up to him to judge their accuracy.

..

If that were true, then the Washington Post website could argue that tips and facts were submitted by anonymous sources and it was not up to them to judge accuracy.


Plus, he added his own comments to the articles he posted which, according to the judge, gave some validation to the posts.

I've never been to that site, so I have no idea what the setup is, but I presume if it was fairly prominent that all the posts were anonymous and completely unsubstantiated, he'd be in a better spot.  But if not, he definitely ran a risk.
 
2013-12-09 12:34:26 PM

d23: she deserves a HERO tag!

//queue the "double standard" haters


"If that's child molestation, I would wish this curse on every young boy."  - Charles Fawcett, on the affair he had with his best friend's mother when he was 15 years old.


Wonder how that would read like this:

"If that's child molestation, I would wish this curse on every young girl." - Charlotte Fawcet, on the affair she had with her best friend's father when she was 15 years old.
 
2013-12-09 12:52:27 PM
Christ, she is a smokin' hottie.
 
2013-12-09 12:56:51 PM
m00:
Richie said that the posts were submitted to him anonymously and that it was not up to him to judge their accuracy.

..

If that were true, then the Washington Post website could argue that tips and facts were submitted by anonymous sources and it was not up to them to judge accuracy.


You forgot the first rule of blogs:  If we do something illegal then we're not journalists.  If we can't get respect or access to information we want THEN we're journalists.
 
2013-12-09 01:00:49 PM

MadMattressMack: ChaosStar: m00: ChaosStar: That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?

But Fark mods don't greenlight comments they feel to be newsworthy. They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.

No but they do greenlight headlines they feel to be newsworthy and we've had outright lies in more than a few of those.

Indeed. And those lies could be cause for libel if this is upheld.


This.

Drew better hire some good lawyers if this stands. I can see the liberal butt-hurt lawyering and suing over such slanderous, libel, lying, liberal, potato headlines here:

http://www.fark.com/politics/

/I don't always derp
//but when I herp
///I derp
 
2013-12-09 01:05:35 PM

ColonelCathcart: MadMattressMack: ChaosStar: m00: ChaosStar: That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?

But Fark mods don't greenlight comments they feel to be newsworthy. They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.

No but they do greenlight headlines they feel to be newsworthy and we've had outright lies in more than a few of those.

Indeed. And those lies could be cause for libel if this is upheld.

This.

Drew better hire some good lawyers if this stands. I can see the liberal butt-hurt lawyering and suing over such slanderous, libel, lying, liberal, potato headlines here:

http://www.fark.com/politics/

/I don't always derp
//but when I herp
///I derp


Which is why I really don't think this will stand.
It's hardly reasonable to expect a website to research each and every submission, especially if the abiilty to submit it anonymously is present.
 
2013-12-09 01:07:02 PM
media.azfamily.com

HOT!

See?  103°  That's really hot.
 
2013-12-09 01:15:22 PM

EdNortonsTwin: Judge ruling gets slapped down in 3...2...1...


Yeah from what I'm seeing in the facts here its gonna be a bit of a stretch to reach the actual malice standard as required by NYT v Sullivan test for defamation.

Then again I'm kind of wondering why her attorney decided to bring this into court claiming she was a public figure, which again the article seems to suggest.  If theygone fordefamation  with her as a private person of no great public renown, then this would have been a much easier case. Prove falsity and done. Walk out of court with a respectable check.

Side note to everyone: Remember when you copy-pasta you legally make the statement your own for the purposes of dissemination and can be held liable for it.
 
WGJ
2013-12-09 01:25:39 PM
How in the hell does an 18 year old kid hook up with a professional cheerleader?
 
2013-12-09 01:29:07 PM

WGJ: How in the hell does an 18 year old kid hook up with a professional cheerleader?


img.fark.net
 
2013-12-09 01:29:33 PM

m00: They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.


The hell they don't. Moderators remove comments all the farking time for any reason or no reason at all.
 
2013-12-09 01:33:12 PM

George Babbitt: WGJ: How in the hell does an 18 year old kid hook up with a professional cheerleader?

[img.fark.net image 300x300]


Damn't, but mine's bigger...

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-12-09 01:44:50 PM
Oral arguments begin in early 2014.  I'd just like to say that, based on the pics, there's no argument from me about oral at this point.
 
2013-12-09 02:04:26 PM
Once every two months this story pops up on fark.
 
2013-12-09 02:04:58 PM

Madbassist1: m00: They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.

The hell they don't. Moderators remove comments all the farking time for any reason or no reason at all.


Picking comments to remove is a lot different than picking comments to post.  And the adding of personal commentary by the owner of the website to each post seems like he's actively taking responsibility for the content.
 
2013-12-09 02:21:23 PM

wxboy: Picking comments to remove is a lot different than picking comments to post. And the adding of personal commentary by the owner of the website to each post seems like he's actively taking responsibility for the content.


Not so much, no. You're still molding the overall message to your standards.

Your second point I can agree with.
 
2013-12-09 02:24:26 PM

wxboy: Madbassist1: m00: They allow everyone to say whatever they want, and are not responsible for the contents because they don't pick and choose the ones they like. That's the difference.

The hell they don't. Moderators remove comments all the farking time for any reason or no reason at all.

Picking comments to remove is a lot different than picking comments to post.  And the adding of personal commentary by the owner of the website to each post seems like he's actively taking responsibility for the content.


Is there a way to see tell a difference between the owner's commentary and the user's commentary? I'm asking because I don't know and don't want to give him any web traffic.
 
2013-12-09 02:30:54 PM
img.fark.net

Makes me feel like kicking the dog.


/not a euphemism
//would not actually kick the dog
 
2013-12-09 02:36:32 PM
I don't know what side to go with. My only ruling is that teacher/cheerleader is hot.
You gotta give the kid credit for hitting that. Even if he is swinging a big bat it's not like he didn't have to get into the ballpark first and she wasn't an unattractive girl so he must have some good game too.
 
2013-12-09 02:53:26 PM
"oral arguments" - heh, heh, heh...
 
2013-12-09 02:56:20 PM

MadMattressMack: Is there a way to see tell a difference between the owner's commentary and the user's commentary? I'm asking because I don't know and don't want to give him any web traffic.


No clue really, I'm going off the article's description of the website.  I've not been there previously and from the description it is probably borderline NSFW, so I can't go check it now.

Madbassist1: wxboy: Picking comments to remove is a lot different than picking comments to post. And the adding of personal commentary by the owner of the website to each post seems like he's actively taking responsibility for the content.

Not so much, no. You're still molding the overall message to your standards.

Your second point I can agree with.


At least by being reactionary (removing posts) that content is still there and unfiltered to be viewed by the public for a time.  If something is left up, you can always claim you missed it.  And this also kind of is an application to "once it's on the internet, it's there forever".

On the other hand, when approving posts for public view and keeping everything else hidden, you assert complete control and discretion over the content 100% of the time, which is akin to basically writing everything yourself.  It sounds as if this guy is basically running a "news" blog and citing "anonymous" sources.  It's hard to say "I'm not responsible" for a post when you are the only way a post can be made public.

As for there being a difference in the legal sense, that's a more fuzzy question and I guess that's why this is currently in court.
 
2013-12-09 03:20:10 PM

ChaosStar: hervatski: You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?

That's the issue at hand here.
How many times have not true things been posted on Fark via the comments? Or a headline?
Should a third party have a valid lawsuit against Fark for those writings?


Does Drew approve every comment?
 
2013-12-09 03:27:08 PM

wxboy: As for there being a difference in the legal sense, that's a more fuzzy question and I guess that's why this is currently in court.


I figured that he was getting called out because he was being libelous while hiding behind "anonymous posts" for protection from slander. That's why I was wondering if there was an ability to tell a difference from anonymous posts and his. That he intentionally made the line between his and user posts blurry then refused to take anything slanderous down claiming it was all from anonymous posts. This guy sounds like someone who was trying to play a gray area to generate hits based on thinly veiled slanderous accusations and is being called out on it. At least that's my 2 cents without looking at his site.

The big internet players are involved because a poorly worded ruling could really screw everything up.
 
2013-12-09 09:18:33 PM

m00: Actually, after reading this article I side with the cheerleader.

This is not holding a messageboard liable for the speech of its posters. The website owner reviewed the posts, and greenlighted the ones he felt were newsworthy, interesting, whatever. Because he was reviewing content and cherry-picking specific ones, I believe it to be libel if he picks ones that are demonstrably false.

..

His website, thedirty.com, allows users to submit posts - anonymously if they want - about anyone from the girl next door to professional athletes and politicians, often accusing them of promiscuity, cheating on their spouses or getting plastic surgery or picking apart their looks. Richie screens each post, decides what goes up and often adds his own commentary.
 ..


Richie said that the posts were submitted to him anonymously and that it was not up to him to judge their accuracy.

..

If that were true, then the Washington Post website could argue that tips and facts were submitted by anonymous sources and it was not up to them to judge accuracy.


Yeah, that was my understanding of the law, although my understanding is kind of dated, from college journalism classes.  Essentially, at that point, he is an editor deciding what to publish.

MadMattressMack: Indeed. And those lies could be cause for libel if this is upheld.


You could argue that anything posted as a Fark headline is clearly satire.
 
2013-12-09 11:42:02 PM

hervatski: You can't really say unsubstantiated shiat about people in writing, right? So, she should have a case, no?


Well, if you would stop beating kittens and kicking dogs... I've said to much, haven't I?
 
2013-12-10 08:26:39 AM

HoratioGates: You could argue that anything posted as a Fark headline is clearly satire.


Not really. Most subbys just copy the goddamned headline from the article and it gets greened.
 
2013-12-10 01:56:24 PM
I like turtles.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report