MR

conversationpc wrote:I've supported Scholz in the past but he is just going too far with all the lawsuit BS. Give it up, Tom!

finalfight wrote:From Blabbermouth.net

"According to The Boston Globe, BOSTON mastermind Tom Scholz and his wife Kim have enlisted Burns & Levinson attorney Lawrence Green to send a cease-and-desist letter to the creator of a BOSTON fan board called "CoolTheEngines" where registered users were allegedly badmouthing Scholz for his treatment of late singer Brad Delp and other former band members. "You have caused a multitude of defamatory statements to be published about the Scholzes on your website. . . . These statements have all been made falsely and maliciously and otherwise with reckless disregard to the truth," wrote Green, who added that he'd seek "substantial monetary damages" unless all references to Scholz and his wife were removed from Gouldsmith's site. "I haven't shut it down yet, but I'm going to this week," Gouldsmith told The Boston Globe. "It's become very stressful." Scholz's spokesperson, Gail Parenteau, told The Boston Globe: "Over time, 'Cool the Engines', via its moderator, has said things and allowed things to be said that were hurtful and untrue. The moderator has been asked to stop, but instead has taken apparent delight in circulating the postings, and has tried to pique interest in the falsehoods."

bluejeangirl76 wrote:
This reminds me of Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, where they try to go stop a movie from being made just because people are talking bad about them on the internet.

T-Bone wrote:Mastermind?

finalfight wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

conversationpc wrote:

finalfight wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

I've heard him called that before and, at least through "Third Stage", I think it was appropriate.

finalfight wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

finalfight wrote:

T-Bone wrote:Mastermind?

I know, I laughed - the heading is cribbed from Blabbermouth!

I've heard him called that before and, at least through "Third Stage", I think it was appropriate.

Makes him sound like he is planning an invasion or some such.

amaron wrote:There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Arianddu wrote:

amaron wrote:There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

Arianddu wrote:

amaron wrote:There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

Andrew wrote:Ok, closing MR Journey forum today and deleting ALL posts.

Goodbye.

Ehwmatt wrote:

Arianddu wrote:

amaron wrote:There's this freedom of speech thing... someone should clue ol' Tommy in on it.

Freedom of speech does not over-ride libel law. And reading between the lines, it's not so much the website that is the issue, but the moderator taking the libelous stuff said there and spreading it elsewhere to pimp the board.

Libel is EXTREMELY hard to prove in court when it involves a public figure.

expertlaw.com Defamation, Libel and Slander Law wrote:Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

finalfight wrote:
Let's hope Journey don't follow suit!

Voyager wrote:Check this out:

expertlaw.com Defamation, Libel and Slander Law wrote:Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.

The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.

Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.

Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.

In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

Link: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html