tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post4386275126549954062..comments2024-03-17T03:16:44.995-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Whig Standard On On-Line Libelbigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-71771630961952256802009-04-02T21:03:00.000-04:002009-04-02T21:03:00.000-04:00How about "utterly predictable"? If you try to hol...How about "utterly predictable"? <BR/><BR/>If you try to hold people personally responsible for every comment made on their blog, these sorts of dirty tricks will become omnipresent and unstoppable. Barring forcing people to send in their driver's license to register to the site, you will <I>always</I> be vulnerable to this.<BR/><BR/>That's why you can't sue AT&T for a nasty phone call, can't sue your ISP for a nasty email, and shouldn't be able to sue a forum owner for a comment.Demostheneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14552994996411944134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-57087258486588110572009-03-31T13:23:00.000-04:002009-03-31T13:23:00.000-04:00"Is there a name for this kind of trick?"Attempt f..."Is there a name for this kind of trick?"<BR/><BR/>Attempt fraud?<BR/><BR/>Malicious prosecution?<BR/><BR/>Having someone plant libel in your comments and then tort for it is the ultimate SLAPP. If discovered, I'm not sure there is a specific tort or criminal charge which applies, unless someone has lied under oath.<BR/><BR/>It may be time to extend the Malicious Prosecution tort to include suing for malicious torts. <BR/><BR/>As for the top of your post dealing with libel online, I still argue that anonymous trolls ranting defamatory content cause little to no damage themselves. I mean, look at the veracity of the source!<BR/><BR/>It's the people with more credibility (if even a little more) who pick up the defamatory content and spread it who cause the problem.Mark Richard Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16331995640397477486noreply@blogger.com