Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:07:08
In reply to Re: clarification » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 13:58:16
I don't know whether you could be sued for posting something on the internet. Child pornography is a very different case from defamation since it is a criminal issue, whereas defamation is civil (in the U.S., anyway). And I would be very surprised if it were true that you couldn't be prosecuted for posting child porn. But I honestly don't know for sure.In the defamation context, I imagine it would be the administrator rather than the poster (since the administrator is technically the "publisher" of what the poster posts) who could be held liable. But it could also be the poster. I would have to do research to be sure. And legal research is often not conclusive. (Now, the question as to whether it's the poster or the administrator who is held liable *if* defamation is proven is an entirely separate issue from how hard it would be to prove the defamation. And the publisher has a fair bit of leeway to publish negative things about the plaintiff under first amendment. Truth, for example, is an absolute defense. Opinions are also protected. And I believe the plaintiff has to actually prove harm to his reputation, but I'm not sure about that. These are just a few of the obstacles making a defamation suit hard to win under U.S. law.)
My very limited point was that the constitution *applies* to the internet. Just as it applies to everything else. *How* it is applied is completely different question.
poster:crushedout
thread:531449
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050728/msgs/537101.html