It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Now you can be sued for posting on a forum

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Now you can be sued for posting on a forum


www.flightglobal.com

Eclipse Aviation has confirmed it is behind an attempt to get Google to release the IP addresses of people who have posted to a website that discusses Eclipse 500 information and is often critical of the company.

Evidence of the legal action started on 22 April, when blogger Shane Price, who hosts the "Eclipse Aviation Critic NG" site on Google's blogspot service, received and posted an email from Angela Storey, of the San Jose, California-based law firm of Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Be critical of a compnay and you get sued by them - so much for the internet and freedom of speech huh.

www.flightglobal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:20 AM
link   
It depends if what you posted is true. The internet has been a haven for cowards spouting lies hiding behind a veil of anonymity for decades. I hope they win and people take a measure of responsibility on what they post and say. Libel and slander laws exist for a reason, and simply because you post on the net should not make you exempt from them.

Freedom of speach is a privilege and should be treated as such.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Just because they want to sue does not mean that they will win. If it can be proven that what is posted is within the confines of free speech and not simply an attack of libel or malice with no factual backing, then the counter suits for lost wages and legal fees shall start.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Maybe RATS will finally have a legitimate reason to exist : To slander such idiotic companies who think they can limit free speech.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:30 AM
link   
I would like to think my signature disclaimer below will cover my @ss in all cases. Otherwise, I am surely screwed



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Meh, I actually agree with this. People get away with murder online. There is no accountability for false statements.

Libel is just as illegal online as it is in the newspaper. Free speech doesn't protect liars.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

First Amendment - Religion and Expression

Amendment Text | Annotations
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shere Khaan
It depends if what you posted is true. The internet has been a haven for cowards spouting lies hiding behind a veil of anonymity for decades. I hope they win and people take a measure of responsibility on what they post and say. Libel and slander laws exist for a reason, and simply because you post on the net should not make you exempt from them.

Freedom of speach is a privilege and should be treated as such.


Actually, NO, Free Speech is a right spelled out in the First Amendment to the Constitution. "Privilege"? Where'd you get that?

And frankly, yes, there's a lot of stupid crap on the Net that probably should get someone sued. Libel/slander, threats of violence, etc. However, this idea that companies like Google should just roll over and hand out IP addresses (which frankly won't do squat for catching the offenders, IP addies aren't actual people) really disgusts me. What if someone has a legitimately bad experience with a company, tells the truth, and gets sued? A big corporation can eat the cost of legal action, while the citizen goes bankrupt defending themselves. And what if the offender is in another country, with different libel laws? This whole thing is both shady, and seemingly unworkable...



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
sorry about above post it was supposed to be a reply to Shere KHaan,
but hit the button to fast.
here in the old U.S.A, driving is a privilege,voteing is a privilege and a duty ,but free speech is a right,at least that is the theory,as put down by the constitution.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shere Khaan

Freedom of speach is a privilege and should be treated as such.


Um, maybe where you are free speech is a privilege, but where I come from it is a right, just like the freedom to practice my religion, and to peaceably assemble. Of course, that does not give me the right to slander or libel. My driver's license is a privilege.


Our constitutional commitment to free speech is predicated on the belief that a free society cannot function with coercive legal censorship in the hands of persons supporting one ideology who are motivated to use the power of the censor to suppress opposing viewpoints.
www.uottawa.ca...



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
No way, if congress can be immune from lawsuits based on slander and lies then internet forrums should be too. I argue that internet forums should hold the same protection granted congress because of the verry nature of the beast at hand. Be mighty carefull about this here because of the nature of this board and the way evidence is presented. Heck Haliburton could very well have a class action lawsuit on their hands with ATS.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by robert204
sorry about above post it was supposed to be a reply to Shere KHaan,
but hit the button to fast.
here in the old U.S.A, driving is a privilege,voteing is a privilege and a duty ,but free speech is a right,at least that is the theory,as put down by the constitution.


Not applicable.

The first amendment only prevents the government from banning free speech. It has absolutely no bearing on statements said or written by citizens or other private entities about one another. You can certainly be sued for making false statements about a person or a business. That's why we have slander, libel and defamation laws on the books here in the US.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin


Be critical of a company and you get sued by them - so much for the internet and freedom of speech huh.

www.flightglobal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


The internet should not be treated any differently then speaking in public, writing in a paper/book what ever..

Only its all anonymous .. which imo is wrong, our names should be public information, taking accountability for our words. If it is sueable off the net, why not on the net?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The internet has been around for DECADES !?!?!?! ... And aren't most of the stories here at ATS ... at least the ones I like to dwelve into saw by most a "STORY" at best .... Who are we to say they are lies ?!!! People wouldn't believe I could find water with sticks either I suppose /?


Originally posted by Shere Khaan
It depends if what you posted is true. The internet has been a haven for cowards spouting lies hiding behind a veil of anonymity for decades. I hope they win and people take a measure of responsibility on what they post and say. Libel and slander laws exist for a reason, and simply because you post on the net should not make you exempt from them.

Freedom of speach is a privilege and should be treated as such.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The internet should not be treated any differently then speaking in public, writing in a paper/book what ever..


There's a problem with this line of thinking. Let's say Company A is engaged in shady activities and Whistleblower B decides to break the news on the Net, because he has some measure of anonymity. Company A tracks down the whistleblower, fires him, sues him, bankrupts him in his attempts to defend himself, and in the end Whistleblower B is a ruined man, and Company A keeps on doing whatever dirty things they were doing before. Whistleblower B also serves as an example to others who might have a "crisis of conscience" and consider becoming whistleblowers themselves.

What Whistleblower B said was true, but because he doesn't have the resources to mount an adequate defense, he takes the fall and the cover-up is complete.

There's a whole lot of Whistleblower B's out there who I believe are the real targets of this plan.


Only its all anonymous .. which imo is wrong, our names should be public information, taking accountability for our words. If it is sueable off the net, why not on the net?


If the Net didn't have some level of anonymity I don't think most people would even use it.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Given the anonymity of the internet, I have to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Unless its particularly malicious, I think its probably a waste of time prosecuting anonymous internet posters for slanderous/libelous statements. Why? Most people know that the average message board poster, particularly a nameless, faceless one, has absolutely no credibility anyway, so why bother?



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
I'm not worried. A clever lawyer could argue that an IP address is neither a picture or a dna sample...last I checked, I wasn't being video recorded everytime I signed onto the web....



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Depends on the information "whistle blower" was talking about. Information owned by the corporation, or outing the fact that there are crazy drug parties with prostitutes on the 15th floor of the office building?

The difference is one kind of information is protected by law, the other can be prosecuted by law. They each effect a different party..

The anonymity of the internet is nothing more then Cowardice. So many whistle blowers are nothing more then frauds.

And besides, even without a name, a company could still track down a poster.. its rather easy to do.



posted on Apr, 23 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
You guys are getting way too overexcited about this. This is strictly for cases of libel. This isn't online conspiracies and the such.

Just remember to use the words "supposedly", "my source tells me", and "allegedly" a lot.

Basically, just watch the news and see how they use smear tactics. You can do the same thing, just make sure you do it like they do. Otherwise, it's illegal (online or otherwise).

 


And I agree with MS, it would be difficult to prove in a court of law who posted the message online. IPs may implicate the computer but not the person behind it.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join