Gossip site wins appeal of cheerleader's lawsuit
Source: AP-EXCITE
By AMANDA LEE MYERS
CINCINNATI (AP) A former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader should not have been allowed to sue an Arizona-based gossip website over online posts about her sexual history, an appeals court ruled Monday in a case watched closely by Internet giants including Google and Facebook.
The ruling from the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a Kentucky federal judge's decision that allowed the cheerleader's lawsuit to proceed and further strengthens broad immunities enjoyed by Internet providers for content posted by third parties.
Former Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones sued thedirty.com and its owner, Nik Richie, over graphic posts about her and her ex-husband's sexual history. Jones said the posts were untrue and caused her severe mental anguish and embarrassment.
In July, federal Judge William Bertelsman rejected arguments from Richie's attorneys that the publisher should be immune from lawsuit. A jury later found the posts about Jones were substantially false and that Richie had acted with malice or reckless disregard by publishing them, and awarded Jones $338,000.
FULL story at link.
Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20140616/us--cheerleader_libel_lawsuit-bdd2728022.html
FILE - In this July 11, 2013 file photo, Nik Richie, left, owner of the gossip website TheDirty.com, leaves the Federal Courthouse in Covington, Ky., with his lawyer, David Gingra. An appeals court found Monday, June 16, 2014 that an Arizona-based gossip website should have been immune from being sued by Jones over online posts that she was promiscuous and had sexually transmitted diseases.The decision from the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a federal Kentucky judge's decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed. (AP Photo/Cincinnati Enquirer, Patrick Reddy) MANDATORY CREDIT; NO SALES
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)This does not meet the normal definition of "third-party content". As a result, the laws will eventually be updated to prevent this.
Until then....
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)If here I say Bush is Hitler should Skinner get sued because of my shit headed Ness?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If Richie had not done this directly, he certainly encouraged it. It was red meat for his site. It is a fine line and the law may not be adequate.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)The point of the law is to protect the admins of the site when the admins are not the posters.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)If a jury system on DU decides a post needs to be removed, is that editing/approving?
What if jury system decides post doesn't have to be removed, and somebody takes offense?
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)without active steps from the site owner/management. See the linked article in the OP.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)If he had created the comments, that would be "authoring".
"Editing" is when the original author or someone else changes the post. In this case Richie is the someone else. The would be the same as Skinner changing one of your posts by adding his own comments to it.
"Approving" is what Skinner does in the ATA forum.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)Otherwise website owners are in trouble over what somebody else is posing.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Obviously he doesn't want to be sued for stuff people post here.
alp227
(32,073 posts)TheDirty is INTENTIONAL defamation. It's pretty clear the site owner of thedirty knows what he's up to.
LisaL
(44,980 posts)The website didn't create the comments. Therefore he can't be sued.
alp227
(32,073 posts)A strict liability principle would hold the site accountable.