| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Gaming | VB Image Host | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| New Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1
Grams: 667.55 Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| You are correct and i should have thought before i posted. It is aggravating that an officer could get away with something like this. |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |
Advertisement | |
| | #2 |
| Sr. Member Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 829
Grams: 5,811.72 Groans: 1
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanks: 15
Thanked 252 Times in 90 Posts
| Instead of asking everyone here to believe what you are saying on blind faith, why don't you post some corroborating sources/information. ![]() |
| | |
| | #3 |
| Jr. Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 120
Grams: 809.15 Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| I don't think anyone should follow your advice. The officer in question could use your post to make a prima facie case for a form of defamation called libel (this is when the defmation is printed: if its oral its called slander). To establish a defamation case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant used 1) defamatory language 2) concerning the plaintiff and 3) published it to a third person and this 4) damages the reputation of the plaintiff. Something is defamatory if it tends to adversely affect your reputation. This language is defamatory because it adversely affects the officers reputation. The language is concerning the plaintiff because it identifies him by name. Posting your allegations on the internet satisfies the publication element. From my understanding the publisher could get in trouble too. I know that a newspaper that carries defamatory articles can be liable for the same extent that the author is liable. I'm not sure whether an internet site would fall into the same rubric. This certainly damages his reputation and your asking people to contact newspapers to further hurt him. I know that if the defamation is against a public official or a celebrity the burden is on that official to prove that your statement is false and that you were at fault. I think that a police officer would fall into this category of a public official but I'd have to do further research on lexis to determine this. I know that Sullivan is the seminal case on this and if the cop is considered a public official for these purposes he would have to present clear and convincing proof that the statement was made with malice. I think your post leads me to believe that it was done with malice. Perhaps someone else might know if police officers are the considered public officials for defamation purposes. Libel damages are presumed by law and unlike slander you dont need to prove special damages. Usually courts look to whether the material is permanent to decide whether its libel or slander. That makes an internet post sort of a gray area. Certainly there is an archive function on the site but then on the other hand the administrator could delete it any time. ITs really hard to sue a website though because of jurisidctional issues plus its doubtful the cop would find out about your post unless someone told him. In any event, I just don't think its a smart idea to post messages that target a person in this way, especially when your only evidence is anecdotal hearsay and the main witness is bound by a confidentiality statement. I think that if this cop gets wind of this, he may very well have a strong case against you. |
| | |
| | #4 | |
| Jr. Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 226
Grams: 1,510.60 Groans: 0
Groaned at 1 Time in 1 Post
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
| Quote:
In our country, with this senseless prohibition of marijuana, we have little recourse to expose the rampant police corruption that prohibition causes. If it is true that the officer broke the law, then let him answer for it. If they are lies then remove them, but otherwise go forward with your story if you know that it is true. Law420 is obviously a cop. Probably someone who is part of the conspiracy. The obviously only opened their account so they could comment about this one thread. (Just kidding) Law420 says that the cop may have a case against you for libel. But does that officer really want to persue a libel case that would involve the courts learning about allegations of their very own misuse of police powers? If the allegations are true then you should win the libel case anyway. If the cop is truly guilty they would probably not go forward with a libel suit. | |
| | |
| | #5 | |
| Buddhist Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,167
Grams: 42,590.24 Groans: 33
Groaned at 42 Times in 35 Posts
Thanks: 486
Thanked 3,509 Times in 1,778 Posts
| Quote:
I wish the original poster had not edited all the content from the initial post in this thread so readers could have a better idea about what's going on here.
__________________ McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Do we really want four more years of the same old shit? ~ Buzzby, 08/31/2008 | |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |
Advertisement | |
| | #6 | |
| Jr. Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 120
Grams: 809.15 Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #7 |
| Buddhist Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,167
Grams: 42,590.24 Groans: 33
Groaned at 42 Times in 35 Posts
Thanks: 486
Thanked 3,509 Times in 1,778 Posts
| I'm not clear how Marijuana.com can be held liable for things posted here by people not in the employ of the site. What's published by a newspaper is limited to things that get editorial approval, i.e. the newspaper controls the content. On an online forum, material is posted without the knowledge of the people owning and maintaining the site, i.e. the website functions as a communications medium, like the postal service or the phone company. Have precedents been established in regards to this situation? |
| | |
| | #8 | |
| Jr. Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 120
Grams: 809.15 Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #9 | ||
| Buddhist Curmudgeon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 14,167
Grams: 42,590.24 Groans: 33
Groaned at 42 Times in 35 Posts
Thanks: 486
Thanked 3,509 Times in 1,778 Posts
| Earlier you said: Quote:
Quote:
| ||
| | |
| | #10 | |
| Jr. Member Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 120
Grams: 809.15 Groans: 0
Groaned at 0 Times in 0 Posts
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| Quote:
I would have to do more reasearch to determine when and how a court would subpoena a website for membership records. If you want to probe further into this topic I suggest you consult an attorney. In regards to the note form the aforementioned case, I will tell you the holding but again please do not rely on this and I am not giving you legal advice. It is interesting to note that there are circumstances that a subpoena can be issued for membership records. In Dendrite, the NJ case cited in Donato, the court held that a discovery request to the establish identity of anonymous user of Internet service provider's (ISP) message board required the plaintiff to show harm from the user's allegedly defamatory statement and balanced the request for disclosure in light of the user's competing right of anonymity in the exercise of his right of free speech. This Court held that the need to provide injured parties with a forum in which they may seek redress for grievances must be balanced against the legitimate and valuable right to participate in online forums anonymously or pseudonymously. This court relied on the case of Columbia Ins. Co., v. Seescandy.Com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (N.D.Cal.1999), which provided a four prong test to “ensure that this unusual procedure will only be employed in cases where the plaintiff has in good faith exhausted traditional avenues for identifying a civil defendant pre-service, and will prevent use of this method to harass or intimidate.” The test is as follows: “First, the plaintiff should identify the missing party with sufficient specificity such that the Court can determine that defendant is a real person or entity who could be sued in federal court. Second, plaintiff must identify all previous steps taken to locate the elusive defendant to demonstrate that plaintiffs have made a good-faith effort to comply with the requirements of service of process. Third, and most relevant to this appeal, plaintiff should establish to the Court's satisfaction that plaintiff's suit against defendant could withstand a motion to dismiss. Fourth, the moving plaintiff should file a request for discovery with the Court, along with a statement of reasons justifying the specific discovery requested as well as identification of a limited number of persons or entities on whom discovery process might be served and for which there is a reasonable likelihood that the discovery process will lead to identifying information about defendant that would make service of process possible.” | |
| | |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |
Advertisement | |