MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> By that logic, the three other posters who quoted
> the wrong information are also "liable,"
Yes, they are.
> but you seem to be focused on eesh.
I focused on him because his publication of the pm, combined with the "LOL" and the refusal to remove the (obvious by this point) defamatory material struck me as especially obnoxious.
> Probably because you
> don't know what you're talking about and are only
> throwing these bullshit suggestions up because you
> think eesh is a big ol' meanie-pants.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, and maybe eesh shouldn't dish it out if he can't take it.
What goes around comes around, karma is a bitch, etc, etc.
That said, let me further emphasize that you have failed to demonstrate that any of the legal or factual points that I've made are inaccurate, and in fact I do not believe anything I've said is inaccurate.
> Even in an alternate reality where any part of
> what you've written is true, there's still the
> whole "the CPA firm has to have an official court
> order to get the server logs from Cary and start
> the process of proving that eesh is who you say he
> is and that his IP address can be directly linked
> to him as a person instead of just an end-point"
> thing. See also: every other legal threat ever
> made in the entire history of this website.*
Yeah, there is that. It's relatively rare that a potential defamation claim arises at all on this blog, because you can't defame an anonymous handle.
And often, when an actual or potential such claim does arise, the potentially defamed person lacks the resources to pursue a claim (eg, someone who wantonly tosses an unlit (?) cigarette at the head of an otherwise estimable citizen typically lacks the resources to pursue a defamation claim).
In this case, however, it appears the potential plaintiff, being a CPA firm, does have the resources.
Also, if you read the pm by "jwood," he seems pretty hip to the liability issues that are presented here.
> It looked fun when you started throwing around
> legal jargon that had nothing to do with anything,
> so I figured I'd give it a try. It was pretty
> sweet. Good call.
Ditto my use of "blog."
That said, we are reasonable men. Just for kicks, let's look at the elements of a potential claim, shall we?
How to prove libel
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, first, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, the person must prove that the statement caused harm. Third, the person must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen.
For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth. Usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".
Restatement (Second) of Torts**
Analysis:
(1) The employee is a private not a public figure, so there is a lower burden of proof.
(2) The first element depends on whether the assertions of "Bik" and "jwood" are true.
At a minimum, however, those statements place Basl in the position of having "reason to know" his association of the employee with the criminal driver is false.
Thus the first element appears to be satisfied.
(3) In a defamation per se claim, no proof of harm is required.
Thus the second element is satisfied.
(4) Clearly, Basl did not do adequate research into the truthfulness of his claims associating the employee with the criminal driver.
If a claim is indeed brought against him, good luck proving otherwise.
(5) As discussed in my prior posts, there are two potential claims against Basl, republication of defamatory material, and first publication of new defamatory material.
Basl's intent is not particularly relevant to the second of these claims, but it may be relevant to the first.
As discussed above, his refusal to remove his republication of defamatory material after being advised of its defamatory nature evidences his intent to spread defamatory information about someone he knows, or has reason to know, is innocent.
Thus all the elements of a potential defamation claim are satisfied.
Whether an actual claim will be brought remains to be seen. Regardless, it would be prudent for eesh to remove the potentially defamatory material as soon as possible.
I don't expect him to take this advice - although it actually is good advice - any more than I expected PL to take eesh's advice when eesh warned him about recklessly posting defamatory material about Christopher A. W. and William Z.
*Notably, one such claim that did succeed, at least in part, arose from a thread begun by eesh.
**That's a joke. The quote is from Wikipedia, my primary legal resource.