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 (5329)	11/27/2003 1:42:20 PM
From: dantecristo	Respond to of 12465

[VAR & VSEA] "Holy Libel Michelangelo Delfino and Mary Day were finally told to pay up. Indeed, a San Jose appeals court ruled on Nov. 13 that the two avid Internet message board visitors owed their former employers and co-workers $775,000 for what the court affirmed were "libelous" Internet postings. (After Delfino was fired from the Palo Alto-based Varian Associates more than four years ago, he and Day posted 25,000 disparaging and often obscene messages about the company. The two lost a contentious jury trial but were able to save face for a time when their appeal was accepted.) Of even more consequence, the appeals court decision now (unless, of course, the decision is reversed in a higher court) sets a clear precedent in California to argue that defamatory speech on the Internet should be tried as libel and not slander. Delfino and Day had argued that their case should have been tried under a slander theory, which is more difficult to prove because it requires proof of damages. Their argument hinged on the legal principle that, in California, slander is defined as communications that are "orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means"--this is also understood to include television. Instead, the court weighed the written aspect of Delfino and Day's communications more than the mechanical and transient aspects. And so, libel, defined as "fixed representation to the eye," was the verdict. Consequently, the targets of Delfino and Day's postings did not have to show that they lost money in order to claim victory. ... Meanwhile, Delfino and Day are still in relatively good spirits, primarily for two reasons: One, the appeals court effectively defanged an injunction against the two that prohibited them from further Internet speech. (Now, the two claim they can continue to post as they wish). Two, Delfino and Day have no money. This means that Varian cannot collect. (Ha!) Bottom line: Varian gets zilch from Delfino and Day. "They won nothing," scoffs Delfino, who hopes an outside organization will help him take his case to the Supremes. "They spend upwards of $7 million dollars, and they got nothing. They tried to shut us up. We wouldn't shut up. And, if our intent is to post, we're going to continue to do that." " metroactive.com