Anybody know the history of Usenet-based slander suits, IOW slander suits
based entirely on a statement made on a Usenet newsgroup?

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:3RSdnQ1-CvsTgc6iXTWJkw@comcast.com... Anybody know the history of Usenet-based slander suits, IOW slander suits based entirely on a statement made on a Usenet newsgroup?
Those would come under the heading of "libel" and not"slander". Libel is
written defamation. To find out the history, just go to the Perkins Coie
website and check out their Internet Law digest.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 06:16:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com>
wrote:
Anybody know the history of Usenet-based slander suits, IOW slander suitsbased entirely on a statement made on a Usenet newsgroup?

The history and culture of usenet is such that it has to be regarded
as the Wild West -- the "open range" of ideas. You don't need any
particular status or authority -- no press credentials, no network
sponsorship, no corporate publisher, no captive convention audience.
Everybody understands that any nut case can say whatever he wants
about you. That SHOULD make it very difficult to show that your
reputation has been seriously damaged in the same way that it would be
if Walter Kronkite said it about you on the evening news. But
"otherwise," the rules are the same as they are for print or broadcast
media.

If you read this newsgroup, you will see that I have personally been
slandered in the most classic sense -- except that nobody will take it
seriously unless I do. So a "slander suit" is pretty self-defeating,
don't you think?

Usenet presents almost no opportunity for an argument to erupt into
physical violence. The only times I get critical is when someone
violates another's right to anonymity.

- Jon Beaver

Arny Krueger wrote:>>
Anybody know the history of Usenet-based slander suits, IOW slander suits based entirely on a statement made on a Usenet newsgroup?

Usenet is like the beauty parlor, gossip gossip gossip.
If you get badmouthed on usenet, tough. You're gonna have a hell of a time
proving who said what.
Ok. So you get the IP traced back to a certain house, but there's 20 people
in that house.
Can you prove by any means which of the 20 sent the message?
Or maybe the messages come from an "internet cafe" where it would be next to
impossible to know for a fact who sent the messages.
In order to prove libel, you'd practically have to have other contact with
that person that would prove beyond any reasonable doubt who you are talking
to.

Then we have the other side of the coin, how do we know that the libel was
personally directed at you?
Plug your screen name into the google groups search bar. Are you the
exclusive user of that screen name?
Are those remarks "with malice"? Do the remarks cause you to become so
angered you wish to physically fight that person? "Them's whats we calls
fightin words stranger. Y'all better be a bit more careful on what words you
use around these parts".
Because you're called a "drunken bastard" isn't libel per se.

However, if the person goes putting those same statements on a web site, and
clearly makes it understood to the readers that he is speaking of "john
smith of smallvile, Ok. who lives on blueberry hill street", then we have
provable libel. As well as knowing who said it.

Usenet is very difficult to prove libel.
Be careful with your desires for court, it could backfire on you.