http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
I wonder if it will stand up on appeal.
I wonder if it will stand up on appeal.
OUCH! Over $11M awarded due to Internet flaming (news)
- Thread starter $5 Submissions
- Start date
- Status
soo.. if i understood this correct, someone posted something bad about someone else on a message board.. and she got to pay 11 mln dollar for a few stupid posts 
mg: ?
mg: ?
too bad she prolly won't get a dime from the verdict's award, it actually cost the plaintiff $$$
from the article:
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
i guess u could work an angle on this and set it up to make some money if the person u were suing had insurance for this (if there is such a thing)
from the article:
"What's interesting about this case is that (Scheff) was so vested in being vindicated, she was willing to pay court costs," Lidsky says. "They knew before trial that the defendant couldn't pay, so what's the point in going to the jury?"
Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Scheff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that."
i guess u could work an angle on this and set it up to make some money if the person u were suing had insurance for this (if there is such a thing)
Default judgements are not the thing landmark cases are based upon.
Big waste of time for everyone. Clearly the defendant has no means to pay the judgement and the plaintiff will never see a dime.
She thinks she vindicated herself, and she did no such thing. The other person wasn't there to provide the other side of the story. She simply one by default. She did not prove or win anything.
It is too bad the other lady did not show up, because I suspect the original person probably deserved the comments, and probably easily could have been supported to a degree to have turned the verdict the other way.
Big waste of time for everyone. Clearly the defendant has no means to pay the judgement and the plaintiff will never see a dime.
She thinks she vindicated herself, and she did no such thing. The other person wasn't there to provide the other side of the story. She simply one by default. She did not prove or win anything.
It is too bad the other lady did not show up, because I suspect the original person probably deserved the comments, and probably easily could have been supported to a degree to have turned the verdict the other way.
WHAT AN ASSHAT!
The Plaintiff proceeded with the lawsuit knowing the defendant was affected by Hirrcane Katrina and would be unable to show up to court (besides not being able to afford it).
But there are non-profits out there that defend your right to free speech, so who knows what the real story is.. Too boring for me to read the lawsuit, albeit scary that someone can sue you like that.
The Plaintiff proceeded with the lawsuit knowing the defendant was affected by Hirrcane Katrina and would be unable to show up to court (besides not being able to afford it).
But there are non-profits out there that defend your right to free speech, so who knows what the real story is.. Too boring for me to read the lawsuit, albeit scary that someone can sue you like that.
- Status