imbsammy

You are correct and i should have thought before i posted. It is aggravating that an officer could get away with something like this.

phuzz01

Instead of asking everyone here to believe what you are saying on blind faith, why don't you post some corroborating sources/information.

law420

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.

nacrypt

If the allegations are true, then posting them to the internet is perfectly legal. If exposing police corruption "damages the reputation of" the corrupt people then justice will have been served.

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.

Buzzby

I believe that has stated that he's a law student. I, for one, welcome anyone with special expertise who can contribute to our understanding of complex legal issues.

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.

__________________

law420

You are correct. If the poster can prove that the statements are true, then there is no case for libel. But as Phuzz stated the poster did not present any evidence to corroborate her story. You have to be careful when making remarks like that when you can't substantiate them. This sort of publication could screw up that cops career. If he really did do those things, then he deserves to be exposed. But if you don't have any real proof that the cop did it, then you should refrain from publishing the story. By the way, I'm not a cop but I did graduate law school and I like reading about the legal problems on this site, because they are real and involve issues that I need to know for the bar. I think that if the poster can't substantiate her claims, she probably did a smart thing by deleting her post.

Buzzby

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?

law420

There was a recent 2005 NJ case Donato v. Moldow just like our hypothetical situation. A public official sued a website for anonymous defamatory posts made on the website where the administrator selectively edited and deleted obscenity. The court held that internet sites have immunity from this sort of litigation because they are not considered publishers for defamation purposes under a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230. The court said that public policy favored immunity because it "encouraged the unfettered and unregulated development of free speech on the Internet." Immunity would help "prevent lawsuits from shutting down websites and other services on the Internet." Public policy sought "to encourage interactive computer services and users of such services to self-police the Internet for obscenity and other offensive material." The court pointed to a string of cases involving AOL as precedent where they escaped liability for their posts. In the Donato lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that the anonymous format encourages defamatory and otherwise objectionable messages. The court pointed countered this point with a case called Dendrite and stated that "the anonymous posters are not immune from liability, and procedures are available, upon a proper showing, to ascertain their identities."