Communications Decency Act of 1996 - check this crap out

[NY Muscle]

the Communications Decency Act protects individuals from civil liability for posting to an Internet newsgroup a statement created by another.

So basically ANYTHING can be said about another person, true or false and you cant get in trouble.

wow, unreal.

 

[manny78]

well let's take advantage of it !!!

 

[Warik]

Ever read the First Amendment?

-Warik

 

[spentagn]

the Communications Decency Act protects individuals from civil liability for posting to an Internet newsgroup a statement created by another.

So basically ANYTHING can be said about another person, true or false and you cant get in trouble.

wow, unreal.

I assume that's because any statement created by another and restated by an individual constitutes hearsay, which is almost never admissible.

 

[NY Muscle]

So defamatory remarks is legal online....interesting

 

[Warik]

Good. They should be legal everywhere. You can't police the mind.

-Warik

 

[HappyScrappy]

you guys are all serial rapists.

what about stuff said about themselves?

like what if supersizeme said that he likes to fuck goats?

 

[NY Muscle]

ok well how about direct threats? or harassment online? I read that online harassment is just as illegal as telephone/in-person harrassment.

 

[spentagn]

So defamatory remarks is legal online....interesting

Defamation occurs if the statement was made as a fact, wether the truth is known or not. It must also by definition go against the person's good reputation. The statement must also be false. The burden of proof, except in the cases public figures, the burden of proof lies on the defendant (though in some states the burden is always on the defendant to prove their statement was true). The statement must also be communicated to at least one third party person, and cause actual harm.

In the case of Internet forums such as this one, would-be plantiffs would have difficulty proving harm from an anonymous group. While tort law does differ from state to state, an internet case would likely involve a diversity of citizenship, therefore making it a federal case.

The laws are written seemingly to discourage litigation, especially since the courts are already so heavily burdened.

 

[Citruscide]

There is probably a good reason for it...

An online bulletin board isn't really taken serioulsy in most cases... and if something is said, it is usually an opinion, which is never defamation or in this case, libel.

If what is said can be found to be really an unbelieveable statement, or in legitimate jest, then it wouldn't really be bad... hence, they made this act up to protect those people and the courts (from getting overflowed with lawsuits) of this type.

Now, I'm sure, in certain situations, the Act would not apply.

C