According to the article, a woman posted negative blogs of another woman. The woman who was critisized filed a lawsuit and won, was awarded 11.3 million dollars. The reason she won was because the other woman did not have the means to hire an attourney or pay for anything for that matter. The case was about the negative internet blogs. So what's the moral of the story, that we can't critisize anyone anymore. Why is our country growing to a Nation of Pus.sies?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
2006-10-12 01:08:19 · 14 answers · asked by Enterrador 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lawsuits over a blog? I have to agree with you on this one.
2006-10-12 01:20:36 · answer #1 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
God bless america....The United States is not united anymore, we grow further and further about and fractured as ever. Democrats and republicans dont care about the people, they care about the power and wealth. Their is no in the middle anymore, the word compromise is in the trash. until we have a government that can work together we are going to get worse. The best thing for this country is to have the check and balance, a democratic house or senate and a republican president. One group cannot have full power. Just wait it's going to get more interesting. Thanks to the foley situation, they are going to do a wide ranged investigation into capital hill, watch all the corruption pour out on both sides .....
2006-10-12 08:14:44 · answer #2 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the women being filed against didn't have enough money to hire attorney then she won't have the 11.3 million dollars to pay the law suit. So it's a push, and I agree with you about how this nation has become soft in the head.
2006-10-12 08:11:53 · answer #3 · answered by Texan 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Ok..
If i am reading this right, Bock (the slanderer) went to Scheff (the prosecuter) for assistance on getting her boys from Costa-Rica. Scheff referrs her to someone who can help, she gets her son's home and THEN proceeded to slander Scheff. WTF?
I know I do not know the whole story, but when your buisness relies on reputation then you defend it the best way you can.
Bock set out to destroy Scheff. Maybe she deserved it, but both are suffering now. Scheff will most likely lose a lot of buisness since they won't want to deal with someone why sues at neme calling, and Bock can't afford 11 Mil...they desreve each other..
2006-10-12 08:51:47 · answer #4 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think its okay to critisize someone but not try to be them,in other words steal their identity..Slander can be damaging as well,& can infringe on ones privacy & damage a reputation,no one wants that to happen to them..By the way,her suit seems in vain since the sued woman doesnt have 11.3 million on hand ey?
2006-10-12 08:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by *toona* 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No the moral of the story is that the justice system is in part driven by money. Nothing new there. Slander and libel are something much different.
2006-10-12 08:36:51 · answer #6 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you say something about another person that is untrue and cause harm to the livelihood of that person, that person has the right to sue you. Free speech doesn't give you the right to unjustly harm another person's life. It's not the same as not agreeing with a politician.
2006-10-12 08:24:51 · answer #7 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, the moral is, before you trash someone in a public forum you have an obligation to check your facts. There has never been any legal constuction of "Free Speech" that protects slander and libel.
2006-10-12 08:11:20 · answer #8 · answered by Jack 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Slander. This woman bit off more than she could chew and got burned for it. There is a difference between criticism and slander.
2006-10-12 08:12:26 · answer #9 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
some people will see that with the right lawyer you can win any frivolous law suite as the moral of this story
2006-10-12 08:12:39 · answer #10 · answered by chris r 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋