Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on October 12, 2006, 05:47:01 am
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."
BEWARE OF BLOGS: Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites
Lidsky says the case could represent a coming trend in court fights over online messages because the woman who won the damage award, Sue Scheff of Weston, Fla., pursued the case even though she knew the defendant, Carey Bock of Mandeville, La., has no hope of paying such an award. Bock, who had to leave her home for several months because of Hurricane Katrina, couldn't afford an attorney and didn't show up for the trial.
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
The dispute between the two women arose after Bock asked Scheff for help in withdrawing Bock's twin sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Bock had disagreed with her ex-husband over how to deal with the boys' behavior problems. Against Bock's wishes, he had sent the boys to the boarding school.
Scheff, who operates a referral service called Parents Universal Resource Experts, says she referred Bock to a consultant who helped Bock retrieve her sons. Afterward, Bock became critical of Scheff and posted negative messages about her on the Internet site Fornits.com, where parents with children in boarding schools for troubled teens confer with one another.
In 2003, Scheff sued Bock for defamation. Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him.
When Katrina hit in August 2005, Bock's house was flooded and she moved temporarily to Texas before returning to Louisiana last June. Court papers that Scheff and her attorney David H. Pollack mailed to Bock were returned to Pollack's office in Miami.
After Bock didn't offer a defense, a Broward Circuit Court judge found in favor of Scheff. A jury then heard Scheff's arguments about damages. Pollack did not seek a specific amount for the harm he says Scheff's business suffered.
"Even with no opposing counsel and no defendant there, $11 million is a huge amount," says Pollack, adding that Scheff is considering whether to try to collect any money from Bock. "The jury determined this was a significant enough issue. It's not just somebody's feelings are hurt; it's somebody's reputation is ruined."
Bock says that when she moved back to her repaired house over the summer, she knew the trial was approaching but did not know the date. She says she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked.
"I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side."
The US courts system never fails to amaze me....
-
*Entirety of HLP sues an0n*
-
To be fair it sounds like Bock got exactly what she wanted and then turned around and libelled her on an internet forum. Sounds like all Scheff wanted to do is prove that she was being libelled.
-
I can never undestand how people can be sued for millions of dollars.
-
Greed plays a small part no doubt :p
-
*Sues Scheff for ruining someone's life*
*Libels random people*
*Says: Without giving out personal information, try to identify me*
*Wonders how one tracks who a blogger is*
-
Pricks are rewarded, the innocent suffer: clearly, the system works.
-
Yay ! :D
Thank god for crushing the underdogs............
-
How deeply does this run?
I mean if someone types "Jon Doe is an idiot" on a forum, is that grounds for a lawsuit?
-
I can only assume if it would work in another media (like tv)
-
Hmmm. I don't think people caught my point earlier.
Lets say I get a dead mouse, go to a sandwich shop and put it inside so that I can claim damages from the owner. I think everyone agrees that doing that would be fraud and should be punishable. But what if I don't do it for money but just cause I don't like the owner of the store? Shouldn't that be punishable too? And if it should be then why shouldn't what this woman did also be punishable depending on what she actually did.
We don't have the specifics of the case so we don't know what exactly was said. Did Bock only use the insults or did she actually lie\misrepresent the services that Scheff had provided? Cause there is a difference between making a legitimate complaint about someone on a public forum and making comments which aren't true and are designed to make them lose business.
Unless someone has actually looked up the case and seen which of those were going on then it's pretty silly to start claiming that this was just about someone using insults in a public forum.
So all we're left with is the size of the award. That is ridiculous.
-
Sooo... since we don't know the specifics, we give the benefit of the doubt, but the award is crazy. Yep.
11 Million makes the other person bankrupt. Period. (is that ellipses?)
-
Sooo... since we don't know the specifics, we give the benefit of the doubt.
Given that 12 people on the jury heard the entire case and gave her the award anyway I tend to feel that even though it was a crazily high amount they probably understood the facts of the case better than we do.
Although it may be that the plantiff never bothers to collect. From what I can read of the case this was a lawsuit over principle.
-
Hey, this means I can sue Kazan for calling me a christo-fasist. :p
-
We can sue CIC for their claims LOL :D
-
*Sues Scheff for ruining someone's life*
*Libels random people*
*Says: Without giving out personal information, try to identify me*
*Wonders how one tracks who a blogger is*
No one is anonymous on the Internet. Everything can be traced.
Of course, getting the necessary information may violate some laws and therefore be difficult, but it's nonetheless possible to trace anyone.
-
Hey, this means I can sue Kazan for calling me a christo-fasist. :p
no you cannot
1st for something to be libel it has to be false
2nd for something to be libel it has to be proven the person intended to engage in character defamation
3rd you must have material losses resulting from said defamation
you have no case as you fail 1 and 3, and depending on point of view 2 -- you are most certainly a theocon who cannot keep your religion out of government
-
Hey, this means I can sue Kazan for calling me a christo-fasist. :p
no you cannot
1st for something to be libel it has to be false
2nd for something to be libel it has to be proven the person intended to engage in character defamation
3rd you must have material losses resulting from said defamation
you have no case as you fail 1 and 3, and depending on point of view 2 -- you are most certainly a theocon who cannot keep your religion out of government
This means it is a fact that he is a christo-facist, and that by calling him that, you are only stating a fact, and not meaning to insult him?
-
yes
-
LOL...
Beware of people and theri definitions...
Let it be known that from now on I won't classify/define anything I say as an insult...thus no one has grounds for suing me, no matter what I say.
-
trashman that was the legal definition i gave - you must prove A) harmful intent, B) actual damage to be able to claim libel
and in the case of weatherop he's demonstrated that my statement is true, there was no harmful intent, and no actual damage took place
-
Relax, I was only kidding :D
But I have to ask myself does that case in the begining of hte thread meet all qualifications?
I mean I know that the jury in USA can be incredibly dumb - we all seen some pretty f*** up trials before.
-
But I have to ask myself does that case in the begining of hte thread meet all qualifications?
As I said earlier if the defendant lied about the way the plantiff had supplied her services in order to damage her reputation and make her lose business then yes it did.
So what we have here is a case decided in a court of law (which hopefully decided based on the evidence) vs people talking about the case on an internet forum (Who haven't even seen the evidence). Stupidity of american juries aside I think I can guess who is more likely to have made the right decision.
-
Hey, this means I can sue Kazan for calling me a christo-fasist. :p
no you cannot
1st for something to be libel it has to be false
2nd for something to be libel it has to be proven the person intended to engage in character defamation
3rd you must have material losses resulting from said defamation
you have no case as you fail 1 and 3, and depending on point of view 2 -- you are most certainly a theocon who cannot keep your religion out of government
Does lose of bladder control and gut pains while reading your posts count? :p
-
Man, is this video/song ever relevant these days... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcDuh4QiyLg)
-
I think the judge knew she couldn't pay the damages so just picked a high number for a laugh
-
Wouldn't we all :lol:
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15264582/?GT1=8618
WILMINGTON, Del. - Lucille Greene takes baking and mailing about 30 fruitcakes as Christmas gifts seriously. Seriously enough that the 88-year-old grandmother sued the U.S. Postal Service for emotional distress after accusations of being a terrorist from a postal clerk, according to her federal lawsuit.
:lol:
-
Ummm isn't sending somebody a fruitcake considered a terroristic act? :lol:
-
Which one's the fruitcake?