Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (61191)	10/27/1999 1:33:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

If we can separate the legal discussion from the history of the event, and hoping that CB won't get angry at me again for thinking I am attacking her when she isn't here to respond (which I'm not doing, but just responding to your warning to me) let's assume for the sake of discussion that CB was sober, both as to alcohol and as to strong emotion, all during the period of the postings in question. I don't know what law SI applies to determine whether defamation has taken place, but in Washington, "it is generally recognized that not every misstatement of fact is defamatory and therefore actionable." Washington Practice, Vol. 16, Sec. 12.3. For one thing, it would have to "harm the reputation of another to the extent of lowering him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him." Id. Somewhat hard to prove in this context, I would think. Indeed, still speaking theoretically, I there is a good argument to make that the accusation of drunkenness, even if false, would enhance rather than diminish her reputation. We all know that drunk people say things they don't really mean. But if she were stone cold sober when she posted that stuff and knew what she was saying and made a conscious decision to say it, that has to hurt her reputation pretty seriously. There is the question of burden of proof -- if CB is a public person within the context of SI, and I would argue that she is, she has to prove actual malice. And even if she is a private person, she has to show negligence. Defamation is not based on strict liability, but negligence. Which is where my being told by a reliable source that she was in that condition comes into play. I would also argue for a qualified privilege on SI, that it is intended by all who participate to be open and free wheeling and informal, and that there is a qualified privilege for some misstatements of fact which are believed to be true. Then on top of all the above there have to be monetary damages; a false statement without damages is not defamation. Since CB had been suspended before I posted, it is hard to show what damages she suffered even if the statement was inaccurate. All in all, again as a purely hypothetical legal discussion between lawyers, I don't think I have a great deal to worry about. Love and warm fuzzy feelings.

To: epicure who wrote (61191)	10/27/1999 3:52:00 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Demonstrating (doubtless to his chagrin) that CH and I DO have something in common, I too, am compelled to straighten the record. My admission to being "drunker'n a skunk" was meant in the same vein as your "apologies." To "help" challenged readers understand, this was coupled with a ref. to Foster Brooks. While intending no argument, and without speculating on CB's condition, Ms You-May-Be-Guilty-Of-Slander may want to note that the other party called me: a mean drunk, too drunk to participate in an intellectual discussion and drunk in one or two other ways (you can look it up). She might have even slandered my weenie! If these kind of remarks are as serious as you say, X, then perhaps Bob should rethink CB's release. Hmmmmmmm.....