Lawsuits/AFF/FACEBOOK/MYSPACE

[jeffadams]

I think everyone should take a little time and research this subject. From what I know and I just happen to be an Attorney, you can be held accountable for many types of legal actions from things said on open forums.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by jeffadams

I think everyone should take a little time and research this subject. From what I know and I just happen to be an Attorney, you can be held accountable for many types of legal actions from things said on open forums.

I don't have time to weed through this, but there may be something on this site.

http://oedb.org/library/starting-a-c...o_internet_law

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by jeffadams

I think everyone should take a little time and research this subject. From what I know and I just happen to be an Attorney, you can be held accountable for many types of legal actions from things said on open forums.

Jeff,
We would all be benefitted if you were able to determine where (if any where) any kind of defamation (slander/libel) civil charge resulted in a successful award to the plaintiff based solely on information posted on a discussion board.

Is the person paying the ISP for the IP address ultimately responsible?
Are we legally obligated NOT to have our local computers 'remember' our passwords since a fraud of identity could be perpetrated by either another physical user or a phishing scheme?

[jeffadams]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Jeff,
We would all be benefitted if you were able to determine where (if any where) any kind of defamation (slander/libel) civil charge resulted in a successful award to the plaintiff based solely on information posted on a discussion board.

Is the person paying the ISP for the IP address ultimately responsible?
Are we legally obligated NOT to have our local computers 'remember' our passwords since a fraud of identity could be perpetrated by either another physical user or a phishing scheme?

Several aspects of the case would involve the Owner of the forum, the parties included in the words in question and those who made post involving any defaming accusations.

Most people do not understand that just because something is true that it cannot be used in a defamation case. I do not want to get involved in giving legal advise on a forum...so this is all I will post about this subject.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by jeffadams

Several aspects of the case would involve the Owner of the forum, the parties included in the words in question and those who made post involving any defaming accusations.

Most people do not understand that just because something is true that it cannot be used in a defamation case. I do not want to get involved in giving legal advise on a forum...so this is all I will post about this subject.

Jeff,
thanks.
I never thought pointing out (identifying) a case that was successfully adjudicated in favor of plaintiff was "giving legal advise on a forum".

You introduced a suggestion that we ALL should consider this potential for an exposure, I was hoping to not have to search randomly if any kind of presidence was known to you that involved an online discussion community.

[jeffadams]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Jeff,
thanks.
I never thought pointing out (identifying) a case that was successfully adjudicated in favor of plaintiff was "giving legal advise on a forum".

You introduced a suggestion that we ALL should consider this potential for an exposure, I was hoping to not have to search randomly if any kind of presidence was known to you that involved an online discussion community.

Heres a link with some information. There are millions of suits filed over information posted on web sites each year. Most law suits are resolved outside of the court room. The biggest problem is when someone files, all of the parties involved have expenses, attorneys for defending them, travel, being deposed etc... Hope this helps

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by tbpew

Jeff,
thanks.
I never thought pointing out (identifying) a case that was successfully adjudicated in favor of plaintiff was "giving legal advise on a forum".

Don't worry tb giving out a general statement is not practicing law or giving "legal advise" (sic), I believe the "counselor" meant to say legal advice. And the Admin and Owner have attorneys with whom they occasionally consult.

Giving your opinion on a theological position cannot be considered defamation.

Personal attacks on a forum would rarely warrant such without maliciously posting untrue and outrageous acts which gave rise to actual monetary damages.

I personally denounce personal attacks (the foundation of the tort of "defamation") in contrast to opposing doctrines, because they are unchristian, and many will ultimately answer to a higher power than the courts.

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Don't worry tb giving out a general statement is not practicing law or giving "legal advise" (sic), I believe the "counselor" meant to say legal advice. And the Admin and Owner have attorneys with whom they occasionally consult.

Giving your opinion on a theological position cannot be considered defamation.

Personal attacks on a forum would rarely warrant such without maliciously posting untrue and outrageous acts which gave rise to actual monetary damages.

I personally denounce personal attacks (the foundation of the tort of "defamation") in contrast to opposing doctrines, because they are unchristian, and many will ultimately answer to a higher power than the courts.

So James,
If VL loses financial support from either church membership or sponsorship from his parents, has DA become party to a defamation?

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by tbpew

So James,
If VL loses financial support from either church membership or sponsorship from his parents, has DA become party to a defamation?

Are you aware of any totally false, outrageous, personal actions that DA has claimed VL committed that are not rooted in opinion of his theology?

:-)

[Glenda B]

I personally don't believe hair in itself has magical powers, and I don't believe
These speakers use the words "Magic Hair Doctrine" that is a label used by people on the forum who don't believe in uncut hair.