NASCAR 2002: Be Careful What you say! Dont Slander even with proof, Real-world laws in cyberspace

Even if you are right, you can still lose your ass in court. You have to convince the court and jury that something you said was correct. If your a juvenile and post some crap about someone that isn't true you can cost your parents or your family a bundle. Lets say you call a person by name of handle a cheater and that person not or even does. He takes you to court. Or he doesn't and the State Attorney has a slow work and wants to barbecue your ass. hehe. Just a warning... Watch what you say.. Dont let someone set you up for a fall. ==================================================================================================== From the E-Magazine! ==================================================================================================== Online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Some people like to think of cyberspace as an actual place, complete with its own code of conduct and free from the limitations that apply anywhere else. But me, I cringe at the word "cyberspace." The Internet is a computer network, not some alternate dimension. And the people and computers it links are very much a part of the ordinary world and all its ordinary rules. Keep this in mind when considering the online equivalents of two basic American concepts: free speech and taxation. Although the Revolutionary War was fought over those very issues, many Americans seem to feel the rules that stem from those battles can be undone by merely flipping on their PC and dialing a modem. Let's start with speech. The federal courts in the United States have done a nice job reminding the US Congress that e-mail, Web sites and other forms of online speech deserve just as much First Amendment protection as anything the Founding Fathers might have put down with a quill and scroll. But they've sent mixed signals about speech posted anonymously, suggesting to civil libertarians and others that Web surfers should enjoy some special right to speak without being seen. People who post flaming criticisms in chat rooms often are surprised to learn that their targets can ferret out their identity by serving a subpoena on their chat room host or Internet service provider. Companies stung by online criticism often use this technique to silence their critics, eliciting protests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups. But these groups would be better off warning Web surfers that offline rules of slander and libel apply on the Internet as well. People post damaging untruths in chat rooms far more frequently than companies file frivolous lawsuits. And while the US Supreme Court has protected individuals' right to speak anonymously, companies like Yahoo or America Online aren't obligated to provide anyone with a forum for doing so. Companies that choose to fight for their users' anonymity will likely be rewarded with increased business from a grateful online community. But Net users should realize that such protection is a perk and not some online amendment to the Bill of Rights. Internet businesses, meanwhile, seem to think they have a right to compensation without taxation. The impression stems in part from a federal law that has imposed a moratorium on new Internet-related taxes. That moratorium is set to expire in October, though some members of Congress are trying to extend it indefinitely. But the real problem isn't the lack of new taxes but the inability of state and local officials to collect an old one Ð sales tax. The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can't force out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax on their behalf. That loophole allows online shoppers to check out of most online stores without paying the tax they'd owe for buying the very same items in their hometown. Online retailers protest that they couldn't possibly comply with thousands of state and local taxes. But some online businesses are already doing it, and local authorities have offered to simplify their tax codes in hopes that holdouts like Amazon.com will start asking customers to collect them. They're willing to go this far because without the tax revenues they're losing to online stores, they'll have an even harder time paying for schools and roads needed to educate future online shoppers and carry them to work. It seems silly to argue that one store shouldn't have to collect the same tax as a similar shop next door. But online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Congress can ban new taxes on Internet service, but it ought to do something to make sure government can collect the ones that already exist. E-commerce lobbyists will complain that sales tax will drive even more dot-coms into bankruptcy, and maybe they're right. But that's just one risk of doing business in the real world. And online businesses, despite what they might think, have been there all along.

Gee, that's funny. I could've swore the burden of proof was on the plantiff in such a case, that they had to prove that such comments were injurious(?) to their character. I doubt any DA or State Attorney would take a case dealing with 'cheaters' in the world of online NASCAR. Who wrote this crap? "Don Wilshe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tO2x9.105161$[email hidden]... Even if you are right, you can still lose your ass in court. You have to convince the court and jury that something you said was correct. If your a juvenile and post some crap about someone that isn't true you can cost your parents or your family a bundle. Lets say you call a person by name of handle a cheater and that person not or even does. He takes you to court. Or he doesn't and the State Attorney has a slow work and wants to barbecue your ass. hehe. Just a warning... Watch what you say.. Dont let someone set you up for a fall. ==================================================================================================== From the E-Magazine! ==================================================================================================== Online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Some people like to think of cyberspace as an actual place, complete with its own code of conduct and free from the limitations that apply anywhere else. But me, I cringe at the word "cyberspace." The Internet is a computer network, not some alternate dimension. And the people and computers it links are very much a part of the ordinary world and all its ordinary rules. Keep this in mind when considering the online equivalents of two basic American concepts: free speech and taxation. Although the Revolutionary War was fought over those very issues, many Americans seem to feel the rules that stem from those battles can be undone by merely flipping on their PC and dialing a modem. Let's start with speech. The federal courts in the United States have done a nice job reminding the US Congress that e-mail, Web sites and other forms of online speech deserve just as much First Amendment protection as anything the Founding Fathers might have put down with a quill and scroll. But they've sent mixed signals about speech posted anonymously, suggesting to civil libertarians and others that Web surfers should enjoy some special right to speak without being seen. People who post flaming criticisms in chat rooms often are surprised to learn that their targets can ferret out their identity by serving a subpoena on their chat room host or Internet service provider. Companies stung by online criticism often use this technique to silence their critics, eliciting protests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups. But these groups would be better off warning Web surfers that offline rules of slander and libel apply on the Internet as well. People post damaging untruths in chat rooms far more frequently than companies file frivolous lawsuits. And while the US Supreme Court has protected individuals' right to speak anonymously, companies like Yahoo or America Online aren't obligated to provide anyone with a forum for doing so. Companies that choose to fight for their users' anonymity will likely be rewarded with increased business from a grateful online community. But Net users should realize that such protection is a perk and not some online amendment to the Bill of Rights. Internet businesses, meanwhile, seem to think they have a right to compensation without taxation. The impression stems in part from a federal law that has imposed a moratorium on new Internet-related taxes. That moratorium is set to expire in October, though some members of Congress are trying to extend it indefinitely. But the real problem isn't the lack of new taxes but the inability of state and local officials to collect an old one Ð sales tax. The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can't force out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax on their behalf. That loophole allows online shoppers to check out of most online stores without paying the tax they'd owe for buying the very same items in their hometown. Online retailers protest that they couldn't possibly comply with thousands of state and local taxes. But some online businesses are already doing it, and local authorities have offered to simplify their tax codes in hopes that holdouts like Amazon.com will start asking customers to collect them. They're willing to go this far because without the tax revenues they're losing to online stores, they'll have an even harder time paying for schools and roads needed to educate future online shoppers and carry them to work. It seems silly to argue that one store shouldn't have to collect the same tax as a similar shop next door. But online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Congress can ban new taxes on Internet service, but it ought to do something to make sure government can collect the ones that already exist. E-commerce lobbyists will complain that sales tax will drive even more dot-coms into bankruptcy, and maybe they're right. But that's just one risk of doing business in the real world. And online businesses, despite what they might think, have been there all along.

"Pickaxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1z4x9.2657$[email hidden]... Gee, that's funny. I could've swore the burden of proof was on the plantiff in such a case, that they had to prove that such comments were injurious(?) to their character. I doubt any DA or State Attorney would take a case dealing with 'cheaters' in the world of online NASCAR. Who wrote this crap? ____________________ While the law may vary from place to place, in general if you make a defamatory comment and you end up going to court, the person you defamed doesn't have to prove you wrong, and if you can't prove you're right, you'll lose the case. IANAL but it's worth bearing the above general rule in mind whenever you post on usenet. Slander (verbal instead of written comment) works in much the same way I believe. Malc.

"Malc" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Dcbx9.1652$XN5.192065@wards... > "Pickaxe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:1z4x9.2657$[email hidden]... > Gee, that's funny. I could've swore the burden of proof was on theplantiff > in such a case, that they had to prove that such comments wereinjurious(?) > to their character. I doubt any DA or State Attorney would take a case > dealing with 'cheaters' in the world of online NASCAR. Who wrote thiscrap? > ____________________ > > > While the law may vary from place to place, in general if you make a > defamatory comment and you end up going to court, the person you defamed > doesn't have to prove you wrong, and if you can't prove you're right,you'll

Quoted text (8 lines)

> lose the case. > > IANAL but it's worth bearing the above general rule in mind whenever you > post on usenet. Slander (verbal instead of written comment) works in much > the same way I believe. > > Malc. >

Libel and slander are the same; they just define the method of defamation. Libel is written, slander is spoken. It's important to remember that defamation involves FALSE statements. IIRC, in this type of action the burden of proof does shift to the defendant to prove that the statement is true. I must say that the article is alarmist. While it reports the obvious (laws apply online) it fails to convey the reality that defamation actions are rarely brought because of expense vs. reward. Lawyers do not waste their time with petty defamation cases with judgment values in the hundreds of dollar range. Think about it. What kind of settlement or verdict do you think you'd get if someone calls you a NASCAR 2002 cheater? $500? $1000? Defamation suits are FAR more frequent when the slanderous/libelous material causes significant damage to a business (i.e., a magazine review LIES about seeing rats in a restaurant and the restaurant ends up closing due to a severe loss of clientele). I think we're all safe here at r.a.s. Let's give it a try: Hey Don Wilshe, you're a big fat cheater! :0) <joke> PS-An obvious joke or an opinion (as in "I think you're stupid") cannot defamatory. -- Joe M.

Well stated. Maybe you could head over to Race Sim Central and explain some things to folks there. Moderators there, (well, at least one) seem to think they have some sort of right not to be offended. How pleasant life would be if I had reached 47 years of age without ever being offended. Pure Nirvana if I had never offended anyone else.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Libel and slander are the same; they just define the method of defamation. > Libel is written, slander is spoken. It's important to remember that > defamation involves FALSE statements. IIRC, in this type of action the > burden of proof does shift to the defendant to prove that the statement is > true. > > I must say that the article is alarmist. While it reports the obvious

(laws

Quoted text (7 lines)

> apply online) it fails to convey the reality that defamation actions are > rarely brought because of expense vs. reward. Lawyers do not waste their > time with petty defamation cases with judgment values in the hundreds of > dollar range. Think about it. What kind of settlement or verdict do you > think you'd get if someone calls you a NASCAR 2002 cheater? $500? $1000? > > Defamation suits are FAR more frequent when the slanderous/libelous

material > causes significant damage to a business (i.e., a magazine review LIESabout > seeing rats in a restaurant and the restaurant ends up closing due to a > severe loss of clientele). > > I think we're all safe here at r.a.s. Let's give it a try: Hey DonWilshe,

Quoted text (9 lines)

> you're a big fat cheater! :0) <joke> > > PS-An obvious joke or an opinion (as in "I think you're stupid") cannot > defamatory. > > -- > Joe M. > >

Take em to court and hire Don as your lawyer!!!!!!! LMAO! "Rick Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Cyhx9.534$[email hidden]... > Well stated. > > Maybe you could head over to Race Sim Central and explain some things to > folks there. Moderators there, (well, at least one) seem to think theyhave

Quoted text (7 lines)

> some sort of right not to be offended. > > How pleasant life would be if I had reached 47 years of age without ever > being offended. Pure Nirvana if I had never offended anyone else. > > > > Libel and slander are the same; they just define the method of

defamation. > > Libel is written, slander is spoken. It's important to remember that > > defamation involves FALSE statements. IIRC, in this type of action the > > burden of proof does shift to the defendant to prove that the statementis > > true. > > > > I must say that the article is alarmist. While it reports the obvious > (laws > > apply online) it fails to convey the reality that defamation actions are > > rarely brought because of expense vs. reward. Lawyers do not wastetheir > > time with petty defamation cases with judgment values in the hundreds of > > dollar range. Think about it. What kind of settlement or verdict doyou > > think you'd get if someone calls you a NASCAR 2002 cheater? $500?$1000?

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > > > Defamation suits are FAR more frequent when the slanderous/libelous > material > > causes significant damage to a business (i.e., a magazine review LIES > about > > seeing rats in a restaurant and the restaurant ends up closing due to a > > severe loss of clientele). > > > > I think we're all safe here at r.a.s. Let's give it a try: Hey Don > Wilshe, > > you're a big fat cheater! :0) <joke> > > > > PS-An obvious joke or an opinion (as in "I think you're stupid") cannot > > defamatory. > > > > -- > > Joe M. > > > > > >

"Rick Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Cyhx9.534$[email hidden]... > Well stated. > > Maybe you could head over to Race Sim Central and explain some things to > folks there. Moderators there, (well, at least one) seem to think theyhave > some sort of right not to be offended. > I don't know which moderator you are talking about but if you have a specific problem with a member of our team we'd prefer it if you took it up directly with an admin in private rather than in public here. I have every confidence in all our moderators and trust them to keep an eye on the forums for us. This is important because unlike a newsgroup, the admins at RSC are legally responsible for every post made on the forums. This is why we have to employ moderators. Fortunately the sim racing community is generally a friendly bunch and we don't have to take action very often. The main problems we have are people posting race spoilers and requests for pirated software. We hardly ever have to ban people, I think we have banned a total of 5 people permanantly. Phil Lee --- Race Sim Central Administrator http://www.racesimcentral.com

"Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > I must say that the article is alarmist. > -- > Joe M. I must say that the lawsuit, if it ever saw a courtroom, would be frivolous. Sounds like some crap the Scientologists would do.

jon wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > "Joe M." <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > I must say that the article is alarmist. > > -- > > Joe M. > > I must say that the lawsuit, if it ever saw a courtroom, would be frivolous. > Sounds like some crap the Scientologists would do.

Another fan of the great L Ron Hubbard I assume....:-) http://www.ronthewarhero.org/ for some entertaining reading....:-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

All computer software and hardware is perfect. Zero flaws. I really mean that :) -Larry "Don Wilshe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tO2x9.105161$[email hidden]... Even if you are right, you can still lose your ass in court. You have to convince the court and jury that something you said was correct. If your a juvenile and post some crap about someone that isn't true you can cost your parents or your family a bundle. Lets say you call a person by name of handle a cheater and that person not or even does. He takes you to court. Or he doesn't and the State Attorney has a slow work and wants to barbecue your ass. hehe. Just a warning... Watch what you say.. Dont let someone set you up for a fall. ==================================================================================================== From the E-Magazine! ==================================================================================================== Online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Some people like to think of cyberspace as an actual place, complete with its own code of conduct and free from the limitations that apply anywhere else. But me, I cringe at the word "cyberspace." The Internet is a computer network, not some alternate dimension. And the people and computers it links are very much a part of the ordinary world and all its ordinary rules. Keep this in mind when considering the online equivalents of two basic American concepts: free speech and taxation. Although the Revolutionary War was fought over those very issues, many Americans seem to feel the rules that stem from those battles can be undone by merely flipping on their PC and dialing a modem. Let's start with speech. The federal courts in the United States have done a nice job reminding the US Congress that e-mail, Web sites and other forms of online speech deserve just as much First Amendment protection as anything the Founding Fathers might have put down with a quill and scroll. But they've sent mixed signals about speech posted anonymously, suggesting to civil libertarians and others that Web surfers should enjoy some special right to speak without being seen. People who post flaming criticisms in chat rooms often are surprised to learn that their targets can ferret out their identity by serving a subpoena on their chat room host or Internet service provider. Companies stung by online criticism often use this technique to silence their critics, eliciting protests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups. But these groups would be better off warning Web surfers that offline rules of slander and libel apply on the Internet as well. People post damaging untruths in chat rooms far more frequently than companies file frivolous lawsuits. And while the US Supreme Court has protected individuals' right to speak anonymously, companies like Yahoo or America Online aren't obligated to provide anyone with a forum for doing so. Companies that choose to fight for their users' anonymity will likely be rewarded with increased business from a grateful online community. But Net users should realize that such protection is a perk and not some online amendment to the Bill of Rights. Internet businesses, meanwhile, seem to think they have a right to compensation without taxation. The impression stems in part from a federal law that has imposed a moratorium on new Internet-related taxes. That moratorium is set to expire in October, though some members of Congress are trying to extend it indefinitely. But the real problem isn't the lack of new taxes but the inability of state and local officials to collect an old one Ð sales tax. The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can't force out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax on their behalf. That loophole allows online shoppers to check out of most online stores without paying the tax they'd owe for buying the very same items in their hometown. Online retailers protest that they couldn't possibly comply with thousands of state and local taxes. But some online businesses are already doing it, and local authorities have offered to simplify their tax codes in hopes that holdouts like Amazon.com will start asking customers to collect them. They're willing to go this far because without the tax revenues they're losing to online stores, they'll have an even harder time paying for schools and roads needed to educate future online shoppers and carry them to work. It seems silly to argue that one store shouldn't have to collect the same tax as a similar shop next door. But online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Congress can ban new taxes on Internet service, but it ought to do something to make sure government can collect the ones that already exist. E-commerce lobbyists will complain that sales tax will drive even more dot-coms into bankruptcy, and maybe they're right. But that's just one risk of doing business in the real world. And online businesses, despite what they might think, have been there all along.

Ah, America, land of the infinite lawyers... You got to keep them employed ;) Pretty soon, people will go to court because someone on the street looked at them the wrong way... ;) -- Philippe "Philster" Sergerie Don Wilshe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:tO2x9.105161$[email hidden]... Even if you are right, you can still lose your ass in court. You have to convince the court and jury that something you said was correct. If your a juvenile and post some crap about someone that isn't true you can cost your parents or your family a bundle. Lets say you call a person by name of handle a cheater and that person not or even does. He takes you to court. Or he doesn't and the State Attorney has a slow work and wants to barbecue your ass. hehe. Just a warning... Watch what you say.. Dont let someone set you up for a fall. ============================================================================ ======================== From the E-Magazine! ============================================================================ ======================== Online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Some people like to think of cyberspace as an actual place, complete with its own code of conduct and free from the limitations that apply anywhere else. But me, I cringe at the word "cyberspace." The Internet is a computer network, not some alternate dimension. And the people and computers it links are very much a part of the ordinary world and all its ordinary rules. Keep this in mind when considering the online equivalents of two basic American concepts: free speech and taxation. Although the Revolutionary War was fought over those very issues, many Americans seem to feel the rules that stem from those battles can be undone by merely flipping on their PC and dialing a modem. Let's start with speech. The federal courts in the United States have done a nice job reminding the US Congress that e-mail, Web sites and other forms of online speech deserve just as much First Amendment protection as anything the Founding Fathers might have put down with a quill and scroll. But they've sent mixed signals about speech posted anonymously, suggesting to civil libertarians and others that Web surfers should enjoy some special right to speak without being seen. People who post flaming criticisms in chat rooms often are surprised to learn that their targets can ferret out their identity by serving a subpoena on their chat room host or Internet service provider. Companies stung by online criticism often use this technique to silence their critics, eliciting protests from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union and other public interest groups. But these groups would be better off warning Web surfers that offline rules of slander and libel apply on the Internet as well. People post damaging untruths in chat rooms far more frequently than companies file frivolous lawsuits. And while the US Supreme Court has protected individuals' right to speak anonymously, companies like Yahoo or America Online aren't obligated to provide anyone with a forum for doing so. Companies that choose to fight for their users' anonymity will likely be rewarded with increased business from a grateful online community. But Net users should realize that such protection is a perk and not some online amendment to the Bill of Rights. Internet businesses, meanwhile, seem to think they have a right to compensation without taxation. The impression stems in part from a federal law that has imposed a moratorium on new Internet-related taxes. That moratorium is set to expire in October, though some members of Congress are trying to extend it indefinitely. But the real problem isn't the lack of new taxes but the inability of state and local officials to collect an old one � sales tax. The US Supreme Court has ruled that states can't force out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax on their behalf. That loophole allows online shoppers to check out of most online stores without paying the tax they'd owe for buying the very same items in their hometown. Online retailers protest that they couldn't possibly comply with thousands of state and local taxes. But some online businesses are already doing it, and local authorities have offered to simplify their tax codes in hopes that holdouts like Amazon.com will start asking customers to collect them. They're willing to go this far because without the tax revenues they're losing to online stores, they'll have an even harder time paying for schools and roads needed to educate future online shoppers and carry them to work. It seems silly to argue that one store shouldn't have to collect the same tax as a similar shop next door. But online stores think they deserve diplomatic immunity simply because they've got a ".com" painted on the front window. Congress can ban new taxes on Internet service, but it ought to do something to make sure government can collect the ones that already exist. E-commerce lobbyists will complain that sales tax will drive even more dot-coms into bankruptcy, and maybe they're right. But that's just one risk of doing business in the real world. And online businesses, despite what they might think, have been there all along.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2002 20:38:33 -0500, Philster wrote: > Ah, America, land of the infinite lawyers... You got to keep them employed > ;) Pretty soon, people will go to court because someone on the street looked > at them the wrong way... ;) > > -- And land of the tofus it might seem, although I have no idea if Larry is from the U.S. ;-) uwe -- mail replies to Uwe at schuerkamp dot de ( yahoo address is spambox) Uwe Schuerkamp //////////////////////////// http://www.schuerkamp.de/ GPG Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61

? -Larry "Uwe Schuerkamp" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > And land of the tofus it might seem, although I have no idea if > Larry is from the U.S. ;-) > > uwe >