2 ms·

I don't understand how the website in question can avoid a direct defamation suit. While I don't really sympathize with Google in this case because they're some

by vertis 3y ago

I don't understand how the website in question can avoid a direct defamation suit. While I don't really sympathize with Google in this case because they're somewhat kingmakers as they craft their search algorithms, and therefore not impartial, surely he can find someone to target in an actual defamation case. Either the author of the article or the owner of the website. If it's not possible to determine the owner of the website then the registrar needs to be raked over the coals. We all have to keep our details up to date every year, presumably for exactly this kind of reason (and yes, I know you can lie, but at that point you lose the domain).

YawningAngel 3y ago
The website owner might not have 500k to fork over if they lose the suit.
- knallfrosch 3y ago
  You're defaming the plaintiff as greedy. It's not enough be falsely accused of being a pedo for 15 years?
  - YawningAngel 3y ago
    I didn't make any claims about the plaintiff's state of mind. For the record I think the plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith in seeking a remedy against Google based on what I know about the case.
- vertis 3y ago
  Given that this has been going on since 2007 this doesn't seem like the kind of frivilous lawsuit just going after Google's money. In fact it looks like the plaintiff made good faith attempts (and partially successful ones) with Google on a number of occasions.
  - bena 3y ago
    The man sought $6 million. It was reduced to $500,000 for "moral" damage by the court. Punitive damages were rejected because they believe Google was also acting in good faith.
    - vertis 3y ago
      If I'd been trying to get Google to do something for 15 years and they kept undoing it I'd believe Google wasn't acting in good faith either.
icegreentea2 3y ago
From the ruling. > [56] As for the possibility of suing the author of the Defamatory Post for defamation, the Plaintiff was advised by a lawyer in Town B that he was time-barred because, under [State A] law, the action must be brought within one year of its appearance, regardless of when the victim of the defamation sees the publication.[2] > [57] The content of [State A] law in this respect is uncontested by the parties. As for the owner of the website, it's a bit more unclear. It does say that the plaintiff corresponded with the website operator. > [62] The email correspondence shows that Mr. Magedson asked Mr. T. U. to provide documentation from a police authority showing that the Plaintiff was never the subject of the kind of charges alleged in the Defamatory Post, a Kafkaesque reverse-burden demand to prove one’s innocence. > [63] If that information were to be provided, Mr. Magedson stated that he would be willing to insert a statement that RipOffReport investigated and concluded that the post is not true. He said that the Defamatory Post would not be removed but certain words would be redacted. > [64] Mr. Magedson said he never takes down a report posted on his site. In his last email to Mr. T. U., he signed off ominously with the following sentence, “We will all be blogged – good or bad, right or wrong – WE WILL ALL BE BLOGGED” (reproduced as is). > [65] Mr. T. U. testified that he abandoned the correspondence with Mr. Magedson since he lost hope of obtaining satisfactory relief.[4] I think it's because the 1 year from time of appearance also holds.

by vertis 3y ago

YawningAngel 3y ago

The website owner might not have 500k to fork over if they lose the suit.

knallfrosch 3y ago
You're defaming the plaintiff as greedy. It's not enough be falsely accused of being a pedo for 15 years?
- YawningAngel 3y ago
  I didn't make any claims about the plaintiff's state of mind. For the record I think the plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith in seeking a remedy against Google based on what I know about the case.
vertis 3y ago
Given that this has been going on since 2007 this doesn't seem like the kind of frivilous lawsuit just going after Google's money. In fact it looks like the plaintiff made good faith attempts (and partially successful ones) with Google on a number of occasions.
- bena 3y ago
  The man sought $6 million. It was reduced to $500,000 for "moral" damage by the court. Punitive damages were rejected because they believe Google was also acting in good faith.
  - vertis 3y ago
    If I'd been trying to get Google to do something for 15 years and they kept undoing it I'd believe Google wasn't acting in good faith either.

icegreentea2 3y ago

From the ruling. > [56] As for the possibility of suing the author of the Defamatory Post for defamation, the Plaintiff was advised by a lawyer in Town B that he was time-barred because, under [State A] law, the action must be brought within one year of its appearance, regardless of when the victim of the defamation sees the publication.[2] > [57] The content of [State A] law in this respect is uncontested by the parties. As for the owner of the website, it's a bit more unclear. It does say that the plaintiff corresponded with the website operator. > [62] The email correspondence shows that Mr. Magedson asked Mr. T. U. to provide documentation from a police authority showing that the Plaintiff was never the subject of the kind of charges alleged in the Defamatory Post, a Kafkaesque reverse-burden demand to prove one’s innocence. > [63] If that information were to be provided, Mr. Magedson stated that he would be willing to insert a statement that RipOffReport investigated and concluded that the post is not true. He said that the Defamatory Post would not be removed but certain words would be redacted. > [64] Mr. Magedson said he never takes down a report posted on his site. In his last email to Mr. T. U., he signed off ominously with the following sentence, “We will all be blogged – good or bad, right or wrong – WE WILL ALL BE BLOGGED” (reproduced as is). > [65] Mr. T. U. testified that he abandoned the correspondence with Mr. Magedson since he lost hope of obtaining satisfactory relief.[4] I think it's because the 1 year from time of appearance also holds.