Lawsuits/AFF/FACEBOOK/MYSPACE

[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?

:-)

[tbpew]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

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?

:-)

No. I was keying more on the monetary loss that VL could be exposed to, because of Danny dragging him into a promotion of a Dan agenda.
.....

"that are not rooted in the opinion of his theology"....I presume you mean DA's?

If this is the 'stay out of damages card', we are all safe and secure in this crazy house.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by tbpew

No. I was keying more on the monetary loss that VL could be exposed to, because of Danny dragging him into a promotion of a Dan agenda.
.....

"that are not rooted in the opinion of his theology"....I presume you mean DA's?

If this is the 'stay out of damages card', we are all safe and secure in this crazy house.

A public figure's "doctrine" is fair game. Defamation would be a personal attack with the special circumstances above.