Defamation of Character and internet message boards.

[LoraJ]

I post on a message board that has been set up for people who live in my neighborhood. There is another message board for a more general area of where I live. The woman who runs that board censors anyone who defends of supports our city councilman. She hates the guy. If you debate her about what she complains about, she bans you and erases anything you wrote giving the other side of the story. She'll then claim that the poster was really a paid person for the councilman, when in reality, they are just someone who agrees with his position.

Anyway, most of the people who get banned from that site come over to message board I post on to complain about it. The woman who does all of the censoring is the head of that neighborhood association. So they mostly complain that their voice is not getting heard and they are not being represented.

I participated in one of these threads. Someone had posted a picture of Leona Helmsly and said "(censoring woman) Is The Queen of Mean". I had just seen the actual woman's picture in the local paper and she actually did look like Leona and I commented on that. Nothing really mean, just that she did look like her.

So now I just read on the other board that she is taking all of our posts to her lawyer and plans on suing us for defamation of character. I thought that was only if you are making up stories about someone. But if people are actually speaking the truth or just stating their opinions, does she have a case?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not sure on defamation of character--but the defense for libel and slander is TRUTH and if she resembles someone that is just too darn bad.

If they are getting unfairly booted for whatever reason and sharing their dissent on another board--not sure what exactly she can sue for. You cannot sue to make people like you no matter how hard you try.

(Actually you can sue for anything--what I mean to say is that you won't get very far).

Good luck--but I wouldn't worry.

(This was brougth up on the family board b/c someone had a bad experience at Harmony Barber shop in MK. Someone tried to tell us that the OP could be successfully sued for slander. But she just told the truth about her experience and there were no grounds for anything.)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Here you go:

Defamation of character is the general term used to describe both libel and slander under one umbrella. The best defense from being convicted of defamation of character is "truth" according to the courts. The concept of truth is mutually exclusive to defaming one's character since "truth" and "character" go hand-in-hand.

The second component of defamation of character, according to most courts and jurisdictions, is the idea of "malice" on the part of the alleged defamer. If the alleged defamer spoke or wrote fallacy instead of fact, fiction and falsehood instead of commonly accepted evidence, then this in and of itself is not defaming without malice. Malice aforethought is a legal term usually used to convict someone of first-degree murder. It means someone had cognizant intent before committing a crime. With defamation of character, this kind of malice must be proven as well.

According to a definition in die.net, "Malice is a stronger word than malevolence, which may imply only a desire that evil may befall another, while malice desires, and perhaps intends, to bring it about. Malignity is intense and deep-seated malice. It implies a natural delight in hating and wronging others. One who is malignant must be both malevolent and malicious; but a man may be malicious without being malignant."

When can defamation of character be malicious and not be considered defaming? If malicious and false statements are made towards an unidentifiable group of people or organization it cannot be considered defaming. For instance, saying "the flatulent cows are ruining the ozone" may be false, inflammatory and ill-willed toward the cows but no cow has been singled out as an identifiable victim. The same can be said of the statement, "All telemarketers are criminals!" Because a company or person has not been specified in this statement, the statement cannot be considered defamation of character.

Insults and epithets are also not considered to be defamation of character. Instead these are considered to be angry outbursts of emotion with no real content other than to show extreme dislike. Opinion is also not considered to be defamatory as long is it is clear that it is one's opinion which is being asserted and cannot be mistaken for an assertion of fact.

For those who believe they have been a victim of defamation of character, you can sue for both actual and punitive damages. The court or the jury can assess damages in such cases.

For instance, a person may wish to sue one of the credit bureaus for negligent and willful violations in a credit repair situation. Being turned down for credit because of false information on the credit reports can result in mental anguish and humiliation. Actual damages of this type can occur even if not out-of-pocket expenses are incurred. This happened in United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 91-7142, John STEVENSON vs. TRW, April 1, 1993. Mr. Stevenson was awarded $30,000 in actual damages, $100,000 in punitive damages and $20,700 in attorney's fees.

Defamation of character cases can be won, especially if good records are kept and actual damages can be assessed.

http://www.personal-injury-info.net/defamation-of-character.htm

 

[grinningghost]

Doesn't sound like a very useful board.

 

[LoraJ]

Thanks! I feel better now.
I was going to post what you quoted on the thread where they said they were going to sue us. But she must have deleted it. Typical.

 

[va32h]

Maybe Leona has a case - if this lady is implying that being compared to her is defaming!

The thing about message boards is that they are so easy to set up - for just about every board I belong to there is an "Ant-board" and even an "anti-anti-board" for some of them!

If every one of the posts on one board that slam a user on another board were considered defamation of character, the courts would be swamped with lawsuits.

 

[tmt martins]

I know on a board from a sport I played that they made fun of and questioned the character of a certian person.

That person Sued and the board had to turn over all threads related to this person and people were called into court.I sorta lost contacy with them and don't visit that board anymore so I don't know the outcome .

 

[dcentity2000]

Sorry, but she's full of industrial strength fertiliser.

Commenting on a character without some agenda to destroy their standing in the world is common practice and perfectly legal (just think what politicians accuse each other of )



Rich::

 

[bicker]

The key distinction typically comes down to being in a position of credibility. You cannot be defamed by an anonymous source, because such a source has no credibility. The ability to be defamed increase from there, as the source of the defamation becomes more definitive and gains greater credibility. (What's really interesting is that when you get to what many people would consider the "top" -- i.e., Members of Congress, they're exempt from defamation charges for things they say in session, as a matter of law! I suppose that shows just how credible they consider themselves.)

 

[Charade]

Link??

 

[MorganLeFey]

another thought...plaintiffs' lawyers don't work for free. they either get paud by the hour or they work on a contingency fee basis -- theycollect a portion of any award their client might get. so there usually has to be some sort of financial incentive to a suit even if the woman had been "defamed" if she suffered no financial harm by reason of the defamation a lawsuit wouldn't be worthwhile.

this situation is a little stickier than most internet boards, wehre the posters come from all over the country and are usually anonymous. (and yes, there are many boards where someone has threatened to sue because they didn't like what was said about them.) but nevertheless, opinions are not "defamation".