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 : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2759)	4/18/2002 3:23:11 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

Jeff: It's called "LITIGATION PRIVILEGE - A type of immunity given for certain acts and statements taken in connection with the pursuit of litigation. It generally covers such things as liable and defamation. Depending on the particular jurisdiction, as well as on the specific circumstances, the privilege may be qualified or absolute. The litigation privilege (Civ. Code, section 47, subd. (b)) might bar tort actions based on disclosure of information obtained in discovery. However, the applicability of the litigation privilege would have to be determined from the particular facts of each case. (See Ribas v. Clark (1985) 38 Cal.3d 355, 365 [tort claim for invasion of privacy barred by litigation privilege]; ITT Telecom Products Corp v. Dooley (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 307, 317, 323 [tort claim for disclosure of trade secrets barred by litigation privilege]. " lectlaw.com

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (2759)	4/18/2002 3:26:31 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

I don't know which posts were done pre- or post-lawsuit, but I don't that excuses the kind of posts I read about, or the kind of behaviors I read about. Even when you're sued, you have an obligation to stick to the truth. There is a vast difference between yelling the truth loudly and yelling lies loudly. I have no problem with the former. I have a major problem with the latter. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. If they had stuck to the truth, no matter how loudly and frequently they had said it, they would not be in trouble. What I've really tried to do here is purposefully stay away from the specifics of the Varian suit and look at the broader issues. At some point, I think you have to look at the specifics. Unless you want to say that ANY posting on a message board should be protected, even if it is an outright lie and intentionally intended for the sole purpose of hurting somebody falsely, which I don't think you want to do, at some point you have to look at the actual postings made. To use an extreme example, I'm sure I'd be appalled at some of the people let off because they weren't given their Miranda rights, but I'd still be forced to defend the legal tenet. I agree with you. But what legal tenet do you think is involved here? Worse, as the jury was not allowed to read various message boards, let alone the one in question, we can't even attach context to our discussion. I've never heard of context used as a defense to defamation. So I wasn't surprised at the ruling. Defamation law, at least in my state, doesn't take context into account except in the sense of how to interpret the words. For example, does the phrase "you're a bastard" mean you're saying the person was literally born out of wedlock, or does it mean you think he's a wrong 'un? If it's in a medical record as oppose to a slanging match in a bar, I suppose the context would inform the meaning. But if the meaning is clear, I don't believe defamation law cares whether you say it in a bar or in a New Yorker article.