|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Courts Frown on Online Bad-Mouthing
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Tweaker
Once again, we have a case of a media outlet attempting to distort existing case law to fit some bizarre definition of "freedom of speech."
Corporations are legally treated the same as individuals. If you slander either one, you can be tried for it. If the jury finds you guilty, it's your fault for slandering in the first place.
It doesn't matter if you take out a TV or radio ad, place a full-page insert in the newspaper, buy billboard space, or do it in a newsgroup or via e-mail. If you slander someone, you can end up in jail or being fined.
These cases have nothing to do with "free speech". They are about criminal activity that is using a new method of communication, the Internet. The only "new" information in the article is the one court's ruling that mass e-mail to privately-held domains constitutes a form of trespassing.
"Employers are winning key legal victories against former workers who criticize them online. Rulings in the waning days of 2001 could have a chilling effect on workers' use of cyberspace for years to come, civil libertarians say." Is this a violation of free speech or are employers simply protecting their image? NewsFactor breaks down which recent cases will have lingering effects on your freedom of speech on-line.
story here.
Source: News Factor
Posted by: JANNA
The difference is intent. the people trying to prove slander have to show intent that the person doing the slander intentionally is engaged in degrading another person. this does not include expressing opinions.
for instance saying bill gates sux on a email or newsgroup is not the same thing as organizing an anti-gates website with the intent to do harm to bill gates' reputation. the key to it all in all crime type stuff is they have to prove intent.
Posted by: Null Actor
Actually, I'd imagine the key to it is how visible the slander is. I mean, if you just call some rich guy a name in a dark alley, obviously nothing will happen. Even if he knows who you are.
However, as janna said, if you start organizating organizations dedicated to slandering, well, there you have a problem.
Posted by: JANNA
yup it has to be seen to be damaging to the target as well. the victim has to also show he/she/it(in case of legal entities) has suffered relatively significant damage by the slander. in the case of bill gates. if i say on a webpage on this site that gates sux and MS is total junk xbox's explode on startup etc nothing much they can do since they cannot demonstrate harm to microsoft and gates. if say ted koppel on niteline on national TV says the same thing then it qualifies as slander because he can be show to demonstrably be harming MS and Gates by slandering their reputation and name. the key to all criminal activity and prosecuting them is the prosecutor has to prove a crime was commited. ie produce a body or show evidence of damage. and prove intent.
someone standing on a street corner in hoboken and saying bill gates is a thief once a day is not the same as a celbrity doing it on national TV or in a national paper once a nite.
|
|
|
|
|
