Jury awards $11.3M for defamatory Internet posts

Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts​

By Laura Parker, USA TODAY

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."

Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. - first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review - represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing." To Read More: Click Here

Good Luck!

 

That's astonishing....better be careful what i say about anyone on this site now..lol

In fact a friend of mine has been listed on a well known website by his ex, as being a no good, low-down, womanizing, male chauvinist pig.
The fact that he is all of these and more, doesn't deter him from visiting his lawyer and attempting to extract revenge.

Where does that leave this woman now, if she cant pay the 11+ Mill?
And has the plaintiff really scored a victory (other than making a point)?

That amount of money for a few bad comments (especially when they new she couldn't pay).......has the legal system gone mad?

Regards....

 

HAHA.....bring it on...was wondering how I was going to afford to ever retire

 

hmmm I remember a couple of slanderous remark a certain person made about my gender just now......... Hmm if only I had a lawyer, OH thats right! I work for a law firm! ... Bad luck Lev

 

HAHA...go for it...you are welcome to 100% of nothing hunny

 

Well you must have something! i'll take that dancing avatar for a start although I don't think it would suit me

 

Put your skirt on and it will

 

I've never said anything about a skirt.... have you been going through my wardrobe ? ? ? Its not mine any way, a .. er .. um.. friend left it there.

So what are we at now:

2 x counts of libel
1 x count of breaking and entering
1 x count of trespassing
1 x count of being lev

PS do you have a house ?! I quite fancy a new place lol

 

er its spelt precedent......

Halo can't spell! (oh crap am I to be sued too now ? )

 

Halo does have a very good point though

I think with the article in question, the things that were said were specifically targetted at someone with the intent of hurting them (emotionally perhaps) and with the intent of possibly ruining a reputation they may or may not have had.

The other part about fixing people computers is also very interesting, especially bearing in mind the amount of work we do in the malware forums. Does MGs have a legal advice team we could consult ?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1889311,00.html#article_continue

Coincindence I was just ranting about this in the lounge,what does it mean for us,will people become afraid to post what they think,personally I think its for the recipient and admin to deal with the messages and isnt the job of the courts,if I started a website as in the UK story I'd expect a fair share of racism,sexism,trolling,spam ect it just comes with the territory,one of the drawbacks of free exchange of ideas

If you dont know how to delete racist\deflamtory messages from a website with the admin tools or if the messages from obviously mindless morons offend you stay away from the internet

leave it for us grownups

Both cases are silly IMO the woman deserved a slap on the wrist,11 million in the UK story its just Politically Correct anti racism gone mental,over here drink drivers get similar jail time for killing people

 

If someone from the UK wanted to sue through the court system of someone in the US, they would first need to approach the UK courts and request that they approach the US courts on their behalf to gain permission to sue, is my understanding. High court stuff and long winded process which many wouldn't bother with, especially if they have to financially outlay upfront.

Moral of the story...only offend those in a different continent

 

And if the defendant had the assets?

She'll appeal of course. I don't see this case standing as is.

Collecting is, of course, another issue. If she had the money, and the article says not, she'd appeal. As is, it is in another state, and most states limit how much you can take (Houses and cars tend to be vorbotten), so this isn't very meaningfull.

Betcha someone donates money for an appeal. It is pretty exessive.

 

One consideration, it’s not judge and jury…..just the jury, that gave the money away………wobbles

 

One consideration, it’s not judge and jury…..just the jury, that gave the money away………wobbles

 

Thats libel to you

 

YES!