Does Second Skin & DIYMA deserve to get sued for libel?

[sundownz Pro Seller]

I had no idea that all of that happened regarding that thread... wow...

 

[ebrunn 10+ year member]

Only libel if its not true. Would be pretty easy to prove that he's untrustworthy from all that I have read so far.

 

[FoxPro5 5,000+ posts]

I don't even understand why this is posted on this forum. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/confused.gif.e820e0216602db4765798ac39d28caa9.gif What did I miss?

 

[crunktimes.com 5,000+ posts]

Yeah just bring your laptop and have him do a google on robot underground and the judge will see it's not libel //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[WhoSayWho? 5,000+ posts]

there are multiple aspects of defamation you may have forgot about don. one is malice, one can easily connect peoples actions towards patrick after the ******* of a well liked member. people went off the edge and began calling him out on his nonprofit status as well as "maliciously" flagging his posts on CL.
that added to the posting/questioning of his nonprofit status dives into a portion of defamation called "false light" which means the information posted may not be false, but is definitely misleading and causes harm to the sellers reputation. that is a component of defamation. there is an emotional aspect to this which is weighed on also. he may or may not have mental health issues, but if he does and has had more visits to the doc over the last few weeks due to this it also casts a shadow onto your ridicule of his business...whether you are telling a lie or not.

it is a tricky subject and i have become involved highly with defamation because of a suit i have against a neighbor who defamed my name when i began working for city council almost 2 years ago. my neighbor lost to my boss and the issues began from there. i am looking at 1.5 years of this issue and still no end in sight.

Glad to see you acknowledge that you are struggling with understanding these concepts.

 

[Johnny Drama 5,000+ posts]

"The United States Communications Decency Act protects forum owners from procecution stemming from user posts. Specifically, Section 230 states in part:

* Quote:

 

© Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

 

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

 

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

 

(2) Civil liability

 

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

 

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

 

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

 

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1149152717145

 

[Johnny Drama 5,000+ posts]

Ive had that in my favs for a while now.

 

[delvryboy 5,000+ posts]

lol: The text term to express laughing out loud. Show this to your attorney and that is precisely what you will receive.