a friend quoth:
there are several statements on this page by you that could be legally construed as either harassment, libel or both. you are certainly engaging in defamation of character, and if you think the “anonymity” of this site is going to protect you, then you might want to do some research on third party tracing of IP traffic under subpoena. this site doesn't need to collect IP addresses in order for a face and a name to be connected with words. here are a few relevant cases. note that technicians were able, in one of those cases, to trace down over 14,000 defamatory messages on over 100 different websites and connect them with two different people. the jury awarded the person whose character was defamed on those 100 different message boards $425,000. just something to think about.
now, this made me curious about libel more generally. for a time i considered being a journalism major so i learned a bit about libel as part of my studies. while wikipedia isn’t a definitive source, it’s often a good starting point i find, and so it is here. one particular portion i’d like to share:
the wikipedia article quoth:
the fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. if the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. if it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, internet blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.
i wasn’t very satisfied with the depth of the wiki however (esp b/c the section on US law contains no supporting links), so i went on to my preferred site for all matters legal: findlaw. they had quite a bit to say about the subject of libel, actually, but i’d like to draw your attention particularly to the definition of what constitutes defamation:
the findlaw article quoth:
one essential element in any defamation action is that the defendant published something defamatory about the plaintiff. the restatement defines a communication as defamatory “if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him.” examples of defamatory statements are virtually limitless and may include any of the following:
a communication that imputes a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony
a communication that exposes a plaintiff to hatred
a communication that reflects negatively on the plaintiff's character, morality, or integrity
a communication that impairs the plaintiff's financial well-being
a communication that suggests that the plaintiff suffers from a physical or mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with the plaintiff
one question with which courts have struggled is how to determine which standard should govern whether a statement is defamatory. many statements may be viewed as defamatory by some individuals, but the same statement may not be viewed as defamatory by others. generally, courts require a plaintiff to prove that he or she has been defamed in the eyes of the community or within a defined group within the community. juries usually decide this question (emphasis mine).
most of us have encountered attack blogs here on soulcast. i don’t care about the ones that target me: i know who i am, i know what i write, and i know that only an idiot would believe the writers of the attack blogs. i can easily withstand the sound & fury, signifying nothing—although perhaps it would be more appropriate to describe it as some whining and a light drizzle.
but every now and again, i’ll encounter a blog entry so egregiously stupid that it goes from the merely laughable to the libelous. the matter of defamation (as libel and slander offenses are considered) as a cause for legal redress is well-known. indeed, in days past, a wronged party had the option of calling for a duel in such cases.
me, i don’t believe in responding to a verbal/written provocation with violence—that’s the way of the weak & insecure. and as anybody who’s heard a legal horror story (and really, who among us hasn’t?) can attest, legal trouble can be a whole lot worse than physical violence so i don’t take seriously the prospect of legal action in response—to my way of thinking, it’s even worse than threatening physical violence. after all, it involves lawyers. :>
i do however believe in mocking it. b/c quite simply, IMX, the single most valuable form of currency online is snark. and i’m a big spender. :>
so if you felt you were being libeled, how might you respond to it? do you consider the source, or treat all comments as significant? or perhaps you vary things based upon your history and/or relationship with the person in question? comment and let me know.
ed
