Watch What You Say Here

[Farmer Ted]

I think this stuff was said on an "official" blog, but you never know who's reading.

PITTSBURGH -- Pittsburgh police and the NHL's security office have investigated a death threat made against Washington Capitals star Alex Ovechkin on a Pittsburgh Penguins fan message board.

The post, reportedly written by a teenager from Chambersburg, Penn., said: "I'm killing Ovechkin and I don't care what happens to me."

The Penguins immediately informed local police, as well as the NHL and the Capitals.

"We were notified of the message and immediately turned over all information to the authorities," the Penguins said in a statement.

It is not known if criminal charges are pending, but officials don't believe Ovechkin was ever in any real danger. Ovechkin was aware of the threat, but did not comment when the incident was first reported by a local television station in Pittsburgh.

"We are aware of it. NHL security was contacted and worked with local law enforcement in handling the matter," NHL spokesman Frank Brown said Thursday.

"We became aware of an inappropriate comment on a message board and referred it to appropriate authorities," the Washington Capitals said in a statement. "We appreciate their diligence and have every confidence in our club's safety."

Ovechkin, the NHL's leading goal scorer, has five goals in the first three games of the NHL Eastern Conference semifinal series against Pittsburgh. He scored the game's first goal during Washington's 3-2 overtime loss in Game 3 on Wednesday night, hours after the threat was posted.

The Capitals and Penguins play Game 4 in Pittsburgh on Friday night. The series continues in Washington with Game 5 on Saturday night.

[stevejrogers]

I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though.

I could go on a rant about how much I hate my commute, say something about how there are times where I WANT to cause an accident, get into an accident, but not have that particular post come back to haunt me.

Has to do with lack of proof of actual intent or whatnot.

[Guest themetfairy]

="SteveJRogers":3s1uvtiw]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:3s1uvtiw] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.

SteveJRogers May 07 2009 05:52 PM

="themetfairy":19umiulu] ="SteveJRogers":19umiulu]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:19umiulu] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:19umiulu] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum. Then again, everyone suspects that the Big Guy in question isn't exactly what one would call a GOOD lawyer. themetfairy May 07 2009 06:00 PM If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity. Kong76 May 07 2009 06:08 PM I got a call from NYPD because I threatened to toss SJJeets off the Empire State Building. I explained the situation and the sarge apologized and told me to do what I gotta do. Ashie62 May 07 2009 06:13 PM ="SteveJRogers":1t8avs4x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. I could go on a rant about how much I hate my commute, say something about how there are times where I WANT to cause an accident, get into an accident, but not have that particular post come back to haunt me. Has to do with lack of proof of actual intent or whatnot.[/quote:1t8avs4x] Hey Rogers..your ISP address is always retrievable Gwreck May 07 2009 09:12 PM ="SteveJRogers":lfrprm3x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though.[/quote:lfrprm3x] Yeah, that's basically 100% untrue. It might make you slightly more difficult to catch is all. Edgy DC May 07 2009 09:32 PM ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2] ="themetfairy":b6ybtpm2] ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:b6ybtpm2] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Irony. Deep and thick. SteveJRogers May 07 2009 10:00 PM I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet. Ashie62 May 07 2009 10:14 PM ="Edgy DC":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9] ="themetfairy":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[stevejrogers]

="themetfairy":19umiulu] ="SteveJRogers":19umiulu]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:19umiulu] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:19umiulu] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum. Then again, everyone suspects that the Big Guy in question isn't exactly what one would call a GOOD lawyer. themetfairy May 07 2009 06:00 PM If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity. Kong76 May 07 2009 06:08 PM I got a call from NYPD because I threatened to toss SJJeets off the Empire State Building. I explained the situation and the sarge apologized and told me to do what I gotta do. Ashie62 May 07 2009 06:13 PM ="SteveJRogers":1t8avs4x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. I could go on a rant about how much I hate my commute, say something about how there are times where I WANT to cause an accident, get into an accident, but not have that particular post come back to haunt me. Has to do with lack of proof of actual intent or whatnot.[/quote:1t8avs4x] Hey Rogers..your ISP address is always retrievable Gwreck May 07 2009 09:12 PM ="SteveJRogers":lfrprm3x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though.[/quote:lfrprm3x] Yeah, that's basically 100% untrue. It might make you slightly more difficult to catch is all. Edgy DC May 07 2009 09:32 PM ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2] ="themetfairy":b6ybtpm2] ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:b6ybtpm2] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Irony. Deep and thick. SteveJRogers May 07 2009 10:00 PM I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet. Ashie62 May 07 2009 10:14 PM ="Edgy DC":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9] ="themetfairy":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[Guest themetfairy]

If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity.

[Guest Kong76]

I got a call from NYPD because I threatened to toss SJJeets off the Empire
State Building. I explained the situation and the sarge apologized and told
me to do what I gotta do.

[ashie62]

="SteveJRogers":1t8avs4x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. I could go on a rant about how much I hate my commute, say something about how there are times where I WANT to cause an accident, get into an accident, but not have that particular post come back to haunt me. Has to do with lack of proof of actual intent or whatnot.[/quote:1t8avs4x] Hey Rogers..your ISP address is always retrievable

Gwreck May 07 2009 09:12 PM

="SteveJRogers":lfrprm3x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though.[/quote:lfrprm3x] Yeah, that's basically 100% untrue. It might make you slightly more difficult to catch is all. Edgy DC May 07 2009 09:32 PM ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2] ="themetfairy":b6ybtpm2] ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:b6ybtpm2] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Irony. Deep and thick. SteveJRogers May 07 2009 10:00 PM I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet. Ashie62 May 07 2009 10:14 PM ="Edgy DC":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9] ="themetfairy":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[Gwreck]

="SteveJRogers":lfrprm3x]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though.[/quote:lfrprm3x] Yeah, that's basically 100% untrue. It might make you slightly more difficult to catch is all.

Edgy DC May 07 2009 09:32 PM

="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2] ="themetfairy":b6ybtpm2] ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:b6ybtpm2] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Irony. Deep and thick. SteveJRogers May 07 2009 10:00 PM I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet. Ashie62 May 07 2009 10:14 PM ="Edgy DC":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9] ="themetfairy":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[Guest Edgy DC]

="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2] ="themetfairy":b6ybtpm2] ="SteveJRogers":b6ybtpm2]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:b6ybtpm2] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:b6ybtpm2] Irony. Deep and thick. SteveJRogers May 07 2009 10:00 PM I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet. Ashie62 May 07 2009 10:14 PM ="Edgy DC":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9] ="themetfairy":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[stevejrogers]

I think the thread was in reference to people not getting into legal trouble because of pics on the internet.

[ashie62]

="Edgy DC":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9] ="themetfairy":8mn149g9] ="SteveJRogers":8mn149g9]I've been told that legally stuff like that can be in the clear because of the anonymity of the internet though. [/quote:8mn149g9] I'm reasonably sure you've been told wrong.[/quote:8mn149g9] Uh-oh... Huh. I was told by a supposed lawyer on a different Met forum.[/quote:8mn149g9] Irony. Deep and thick.[/quote:8mn149g9] ironic & anonymous..too funny duan May 08 2009 06:55 AM side issue but funnily enough I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Edgy DC May 08 2009 07:00 AM British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US? Nymr83 May 08 2009 07:06 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries) RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough ="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit). Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM Shall we adjourn to Non-BB? duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it' In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic. Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM ="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing. duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM but why is the right to my good name "odd" Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I. Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM ="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[duan]

I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really).

The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.

[Guest Edgy DC]

British journalism has a higher standard of libel than the US?

[nymr83]

="duan":3q0j2xcf]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.[/quote:3q0j2xcf] Libel laws became wrapped up pretty early on in the American identity with the Zenger trial, even if today's issues in the defamation area have nothign to do with Zenger (truth as a defense) I'd also posit that Americans put a much greater emphasis on freedom of speech than other democracies (i wont even bother talking about non-democratic countries)

RealityChuck May 08 2009 09:30 AM Re: side issue but funnily enough

="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really). That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. ]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair. Let's go over a few misconceptions: Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech. Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play. Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway. The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday. Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer. Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech. A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit).

Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:00 AM

]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 08 2009 10:18 AM

Shall we adjourn to Non-BB?

duan May 08 2009 10:56 AM well it'

In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic.

Nymr83 May 08 2009 12:11 PM

right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa

RealityChuck May 08 2009 02:27 PM

="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there? Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing.

duan May 08 2009 04:11 PM

but why is the right to my good name "odd"

Kong76 May 08 2009 07:29 PM

tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<< Lol, so do I.

Nymr83 May 08 2009 10:46 PM

="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court. duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!] cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[RealityChuck]

="duan"]I've never understood the US's attitude to Libel. An attitude that's become more pervasive worldwide as the values held by US companies become imposed elsewhere through the internet (not through any fault of the US' - why should the New York Times have to worry about Irish libel laws really).

That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance.

]The right to say whatever you like about someone seems to be wrapped up in a Freedom of Speech banner and I don't know that that's actually fair.

Let's go over a few misconceptions:

Libel is not a free speech issue. You can't avoid libel by claiming free speech.

Libel is defined as a false statement of fact. It is not libel to say someone looks like a steroid user; that's your opinion, not a fact. It is libel to claim someone took steroids unless you have evidence to back it up. Since most of the posts on a message board are usually opinion, libel isn't in play.

Public figures have a higher standard for proving libel than the general public. Someone can libel you and you can win by proving they were making false statements. For a public figure (an that would probably include ballplayers), the person claiming libel not only must show the false statement, but must also prove that the person publishing them knew that they were false and published them anyway.

The truth is pretty much an iron clad defense against libel. Angel Pagan, for instance, can't sue newspapers for reporting about his arrest yesterday.

Suits are often brought for defamation and called libel. There is a difference. These are often nuisance suits -- it's hard to prove actual defamation without libel, but it does force the defendant to hire a lawyer.

Making a threat is not libel, and it is not usually allowed under free speech.

A bulletin board has no special privileges when it comes to libel. However, since posts are usually clearly opinion, they will generally be in the clear (though they would have to pay legal costs in a suit).

[nymr83]

]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance.

restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more
i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Shall we adjourn to Non-BB?

[duan]

In Ireland & UK (where much of our law stems from anyway) if you publish something, the burden is on you to be able to prove that it's true, not the other way round. It's a very different dynamic.

[nymr83]

right, and that is a free speech issue because i'm sure the british laws stifle alot more potential speech than the american laws do... whether thats good or not is for everyobe to decide, but i'd suspect americans prefer the law we have and vice versa

[RealityChuck]

="Nymr83"] ]That's an odd statement. US libel laws are far less restrictive than those in places like the UK, for instance. restrictive to who? in the U.S. the laws are less restrictive in the sense that you (the alleged libel-er) can say more i believe that in the UK the burden of proof is backwards. here in the U.S. you (the person aggrieved) must prove the falseness of the statement, don't they place the burden on the libel-er to prove the statement is true over there?

Yes -- less restrictive on the press and publisher. Libel, after all, is a suit against the person who publishes the material, not the other way around. Libel laws don't restrict the person suing.

[duan]

but why is the right to my good name "odd"

[Guest Kong76]

tmf: If someone is making actual threats on a message board, the authorities have the power to pierce the veil of anonymity <<<

Lol, so do I.

[nymr83]

="duan":2nv96i5t]but why is the right to my good name "odd"[/quote:2nv96i5t] if your name is "good" you can prove so in court.

duan May 09 2009 01:58 PM

have you ever had to go to court? why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me. [for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!]

cooby May 09 2009 10:24 PM

Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree

[duan]

have you ever had to go to court?
why should the burden of proof belong to me, not the person who says things about me.
[for the record, i'm only talking this out, not necessarily advocating!]

[Guest cooby]

Steve I think your other-Mets-Forum-lawyer-friend might have a correspondence course degree