[Vision2020] Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts.

[Michael]

A friend who is an attorney alerted me to the following comment; it
predicted precisely the kind of  <http://poohsthink.com/?p=869> comment just
made by Dale Courtney:

 

October 11th, 2006 at 10:39 am -John

 

Brian of the Sheep: "BTW, is everyone aware of the jury award to the lady in
Florida of $11.3 million for internet post defamation?"

 

John: The dollar figure made for a great headline, but the facts of the case
are much more mundane. The person who was criticized on the Internet was not
a public figure, unlike, e.g, Tim Dick, so it would have been much easier
for the plaintiff to prove defamation. Not only that, but the person who
posted the critical remarks on the internet represented herself before the
court and offered no defense of herself at trial. No attorney and no defense
at all. Without a response to the charges, the decision of the judge in
favor of the plaintiffs was all but automatic, and, given the guilty verdict
and the plaintiff's desire to send a message, the jury was happy to
accommodate.

 

The jury felt especially free to award a large sum because it knew that,
whatever the amount, the defendant was unable to pay. So the large dollar
figure was purely a symbolic gesture that cost no one anything.

 

Of course, the story will still be useful for ministry businesses who try to
antimidate whistleblowers by threatening SLAPP suits, so I expect the
context-free headline to be repeated far and wide.

 

 <http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=24#comments>
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=24#comments

 

 <http://poohsthink.com/?p=871> Dale Courtney's Comment Predicted

 

 <http://poohsthink.com/?cat=36> Ligonier's Suit

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061012/8fb9d546/attachment.htm