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 9
    More: Asinine, NFL Cheerleader, Communications Decency Act, history of human sexuality, reckless disregard, oral arguments  
•       •       •

10321 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Dec 2013 at 12:00 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-09 01:29:07 PM
3 votes:

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


img.fark.net
2013-12-09 11:40:13 AM
2 votes:
Well it is a crime on humanity!!

We should never discourage cheerleaders from having sex!

img30.imageshack.us

cheerleader!
2013-12-09 02:04:58 PM
1 votes:

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 01:44:50 PM
1 votes:
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 12:23:54 PM
1 votes:
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 12:22:11 PM
1 votes:

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.
m00
2013-12-09 12:14:23 PM
1 votes:

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.
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-09 12:13:07 PM
1 votes:
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.
m00
2013-12-09 12:12:23 PM
1 votes:
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.
 
Displayed 9 of 9 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report