Legal mags - forum liability question

**irul&ublo** · 02-02-2007, 11:26 AM

Suit...In California, where I am licensed, the courts have ruled that the owner of a website open to access by the general public is generally not liable for postings...certainly if they remove "private" info at the request of the "victim". I see little issue.

I've read the statute, and apart from the fact that you are not in Colorado, raising a huge jurisdictional issue, the statute. for a # of reasons does not seem to apply. If you'd like, I can PM you on this, as I don't want to bore everyone (or at least no more than usual).

One thing I will note about the jism garggling douchenozzle DefJef, he is too fucking ignorant to understand the difference betwen "intra" and "inter". Federal issue because the communication is "intrastate"? H e must have gone to the same non major law school as Rontele.

Moron.

**Rontele** · 02-02-2007, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by irul&ublo

Suit...In California, where I am licensed, the courts have ruled that the owner of a website open to access by the general public is generally not liable for postings...certainly if they remove "private" info at the request of the "victim". I see little issue.

I've read the statute, and apart from the fact that you are not in Colorado, raising a huge jurisdictional issue, the statute. for a # of reasons does not seem to apply. If you'd like, I can PM you on this, as I don't want to bore everyone (or at least no more than usual).

One thing I will note about the jism garggling douchenozzle DefJef, he is too fucking ignorant to understand the difference betwen "intra" and "inter". Federal issue because the communication is "intrastate"? H e must have gone to the same non major law school as Rontele.

Moron.

I am proud that I am going to be a graduate of Nova Southeastern Law School

**lemon boy** · 02-02-2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Rontele

I am proud that I am going to be a graduate of Nova Southeastern Law School

course, you're still not licensed to practice law in Colorado

isn't there a law against maliciously and/or spuriously threatening legal action?

**HyRUPz** · 02-02-2007, 11:51 AM

IMO B11 hit it on the nail ... he accepted the consent agreement before officially joining the board - end of story.

Lord knows we all talk smack on this board ... shit talking back and forth is one thing, threatening to sue TGR is just plain stupid.

Inter vs Intra > Dowdy retard.

What's next, internet prohibition?

Please forward license plate number, I have some Italian friends we can reach out to as well, special law and order skills

**Buzzworthy** · 02-02-2007, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by BlurredElevens

Looks like two offenses have been committed right there.
Maybe suit wants to reinstate DefJefs membership so we can count the numerous threats he's made here.

BZ to the rescue: See Post #7 with Deffart threatening phyical harm, quoted

That is whack.

**MakersTeleMark** · 02-02-2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by El Chupacabra

Couple points.

1) Pope's right. Criminal statutes generally do not provide a basis for a civil lawsuit. (Conviction of a crime, however, may be strong evidence in establishing civil liability, if the civil claim requires some of the same elements as the crime.)

Check.

2) Dubious whether Colorado state law applies to an internet forum based in Wyoming.

Read the statute:

Any act prohibited by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section may be deemed to have occurred or to have been committed at the place at which the telephone call, electronic mail, or other electronic communication was either made or received.

3) Even more dubious whether this statute would apply to someone posting publicly-known info about Douchenozzle (which he placed in the public forum in myspace, etc).

3.1) Or whether "harassment" includes berating on an internet forum, where Douchenozzle voluntarily inserted himself, and was free to leave at any time. It's not like anyone was chasing Douchenozzle down.

4) As Blurred pointed out, Douchenozzle's own documented threats of physical violence to other members of the forum seem like they constitute violation of the statute. Plus, his threats were presumably originated in the state of Colorado (where he lives?), so there's a better argument for Colorado law actually applying in this situation.

Check.

Conclusion: Suit, nothing to worry about.

Agreed.

Disclaimer: not a licensed Colorado lawyer, so none of this is legal advice, recommend you consult a licensed Colorado lawyer for actual advice.

I am. He's puffing, tell him to fuck off.

**The Dad** · 02-02-2007, 01:07 PM

Fer crissakes. I'd talk to your lawyer, but still, this appears directly covered by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1):

Originally Posted by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)

(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Blumenthal v. Drudge found that section 230(c)(1) immunity shielded AOL from liability for republishing Matt Drudge's alleged defamations of Sidney Blumenthal, notwithstanding that AOL contracted with Drudge to carry his material and was his sole economic means of support.

If you're worried that this might apply only against federal law, bear in mind that defamation law, like the Colorado statute discussed above, is state law.

**hutash** · 02-02-2007, 01:30 PM

You legal guys need to get a life need go skiing, or get laid. I tried to read through all that legal mumbo jumbo, and gave up at section 3 sub article 2f-ii.

Fuck, how do you guys stay awake reading that?

**Sinecure** · 02-02-2007, 01:33 PM

I love when lawyers tell you to seek counsel of a lawyer, then give counsel anyway. Awesome.

Of course, seems to me that "you get what you pay for" applies to online counsel as well.

The guy's a blowhard. Most harm he can do is cost you some $ in legal fees.

Where's the popcorn?

**The Suit** · 02-02-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by alpinedad

Fer crissakes. I'd talk to your lawyer, but still, this appears directly covered by 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1):

This way's more fun.

Thanks for bringing up section 230. I found a reference to it on the Electronic Frontier Foundation site. Section 230 does appear to cover forum hosts, and apparently even preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

**Steven S. Dallas** · 02-02-2007, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by hutash

Fuck, how do you guys stay awake reading that?

Stay awake?

**Mcwop** · 02-02-2007, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Hey, what if he's talking to Jackie Chiles?

The board members were lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous to my client!

"Oh, and by the way, they're real, and they're spectacular." - DefJef referring to the penis' coming out of his head.

**Woodsy** · 02-02-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Steven S. Dallas

Stay awake?

law books shred up nice into hamster nests....

**boarddad** · 02-02-2007, 02:26 PM

I'd say it's safe to call his bluff. Dibs on jury foreman if it goes to trial.

"But your honor, they photoshopped penises onto my head and posted it."

ROFLMAO!!

**Danno** · 02-02-2007, 02:32 PM

agree with everyone who has posted here. This ain't legal advice, though I am licensed in Colorado. The guy's a blowhard, and you could even put the offending thread back up and he couldn't do squat. The fact that he's threatening you with a criminal statute shows that he did not talk to a lawyer; any lawyer with even a pea brain would understand that only the government can pursue criminal charges.

He's a tool. I would "threaten" him right back, sending him quotes where he threatened numerous forum members. (I don't really mean threaten him, just tell him to STFU. And there'd be no question of jurisdiction, I recall Below Zero was one of the peeps he threatened, so both threatener and threatenee

are in CO.

**Danno** · 02-02-2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Rontele

I am proud that I am going to be a graduate of Nova Southeastern Law School

I have a friend who went to Nova!

**Redfish22** · 02-02-2007, 03:12 PM

DefJef just registered over at epicski as DefJef123. How long before he's kicked off there?

this has been some funny shit....

**irul&ublo** · 02-02-2007, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by Woodsy

law books shred up nice into hamster nests....

C'mon Woodsy, we all know those are gerbils you're raising.

**Cirquerider** · 02-02-2007, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Redfish22

DefJef just registered over at epicski as DefJef123. How long before he's kicked off there?

this has been some funny shit....

DefJef123 is not the same person. Its an alias.

**summit** · 02-02-2007, 07:06 PM

DefJef is DefJef on Epic

**Tunco** · 02-02-2007, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Summit

DefJef is CuseBuff on Epic and has been banned

Fixed it for ya.

**summit** · 02-02-2007, 07:23 PM

ah yes you are right... he used to be DefJef

**gbarnum** · 02-02-2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by hutash

Fuck, how do you guys stay awake reading that?

An old prof. back at school said "Lawyers are paid a lot of money for a reason. They have to do a lot of boring stuff that no one else can stay awake for..."

**Monique** · 02-03-2007, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by The Suit

This way's more fun.

Thanks for bringing up section 230. I found a reference to it on the Electronic Frontier Foundation site. Section 230 does appear to cover forum hosts, and apparently even preempts any state laws to the contrary: "[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

PM me if you want a direct contact with EFF...I know one of the legal staffers there and maybe he'd talk to you if it would be helpful.