Crush...Yiff...Destroy!

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

Got a few questions and and what is hopefully an interesting comment re: the issue of libel.

It was stated that you can only libel a real person right? So you cannot libel a fictiocious character, animal or object, for libel to occur it must be a real person.

This brings up an interestiung point. An example was made using a name that is likley not a persons real name but a character they portray. Now, my understanding of that article is that if something is bad is said against the character, then is really libel? In essenence, you're libeling a character, not the actor. Since a character is not a real person, then libel against that character cannot occur. (ie, as an example, Scott Bakula could be libeled by a malicious comment but captain Archer could not because Captain Archer is not a real person. Is that true?)

This bring up aother point. On a messageboard where the true ID's of posters is not known, if a damaging comment is made against a user, is it libel? Esentually, in such a forum where everyone is annoymous and no one knows who the person behind the name is, I don't see how it can be libel as any comments directed at the names are dirrected at a nickname and not at the persons true ID.

About the only case I can think of where an attack against a name could be libel is if the name is a penname that is well known enough to be symnomonous with the persons real name. So, if for example I posted a picture or story under the name 'Billy Blue Jeans' (disclaimer: that name is not meant to represent anyone living or dead. Any simularity to an actuall named currently used or which has been used by any person is coincidental) and someone made a libelous remark against that name, would I be able to sue them for Libel? My understanding of the law is, no and thatf or libel to occur, an attack against the persons real name or a name which is well known enough as being a name used by the person to be identified as them.

Another issue is proof. If someone libels you online, you need to prove they typed it. It could be proved that the comment came from their IP and from their ISP that they 'owned' the IP at the time the comment was made -but- even if you do prove it indeed came from their computer, how do you prove they typed it? For example, say they had company over and when they took a bathroom break or took the dog for a walk, what if one of their guests did it? Can you prove otherwise? IMO, no, it would be near impossible to prove that they typed it. In a system where the burder of proof is on the accuser, they'd have to prove the defendant actually typed the comments and if they can't, I don't see how they'd have a case. Is that true?

The New Meat · Coadjutor Joined: 03 Jun 2003 Posts: 327

Got a few questions and and what is hopefully an interesting comment re: the issue of libel.

It was stated that you can only libel a real person right? So you cannot libel a fictiocious character, animal or object, for libel to occur it must be a real person.This brings up an interestiung point. An example was made using a name that is likley not a persons real name but a character they portray. Now, my understanding of that article is that if something is bad is said against the character, then is really libel? In essenence, you're libeling a character, not the actor. Since a character is not a real person, then libel against that character cannot occur. (ie, as an example, Scott Bakula could be libeled by a malicious comment but captain Archer could not because Captain Archer is not a real person. Is that true?)

That's right; you can't libel a ficticious character. I suppose saying nasty things about a character might, depending on the circumstances and the character, fall under trademark dilution or something, but that's a whole other topic in itself.

This bring up aother point. On a messageboard where the true ID's of posters is not known, if a damaging comment is made against a user, is it libel? Esentually, in such a forum where everyone is annoymous and no one knows who the person behind the name is, I don't see how it can be libel as any comments directed at the names are dirrected at a nickname and not at the persons true ID.

Hmm, I think you could conceivably libel someone without revealing their real name if it's still possible to identify them. Anything that damages a person's reputation can be considered libel, so if a person's pseudonym is sufficiently well-known so that it's acquired its own reputation or if it's widely known that a pseudonym really belongs to a particular real person it could probably be libeled. But that's only in the hoity toity abstract. In reality, most courts would probably just laugh at anyone trying to bring a case of pseudonym libel.

But I'm not an expert. That's just the impression I get.

BTW, It's also possible for a person to have such a crappy reputation to begin with that nothing you can say could possibly make it worse. I'm not sure exactly how bad it needs to be for that, but pretty bad.

About the only case I can think of where an attack against a name could be libel is if the name is a penname that is well known enough to be symnomonous with the persons real name. So, if for example I posted a picture or story under the name 'Billy Blue Jeans' (disclaimer: that name is not meant to represent anyone living or dead. Any simularity to an actuall named currently used or which has been used by any person is coincidental) and someone made a libelous remark against that name, would I be able to sue them for Libel? My understanding of the law is, no and thatf or libel to occur, an attack against the persons real name or a name which is well known enough as being a name used by the person to be identified as them.

Oh, you already thought of that.

Another issue is proof. If someone libels you online, you need to prove they typed it. It could be proved that the comment came from their IP and from their ISP that they 'owned' the IP at the time the comment was made -but- even if you do prove it indeed came from their computer, how do you prove they typed it? For example, say they had company over and when they took a bathroom break or took the dog for a walk, what if one of their guests did it? Can you prove otherwise? IMO, no, it would be near impossible to prove that they typed it. In a system where the burder of proof is on the accuser, they'd have to prove the defendant actually typed the comments and if they can't, I don't see how they'd have a case. Is that true?

Yep. Because just about everything on the web is anonymous, it would be just about impossible to prove anything, I would think. I don't know much about the technology here, so someone who knows more about tracking and cookies and ISPs and all could probably say better than I could how easy it is to trace a post to a person. The standard of proof required probably isn't so high that you have to show that it came from YOUR computer and that no one else EVER had access to it; I'm guessing if they can trace it to your private computer and show that, in general, you're the only person with reasonable access to it, they can satisfy that prong of the whole libel thing. But there's still a lot more they have to do to win a libel case (All those other listed elements).

Now I'm done<s> DESPERATELY TRYING TO LOOK SMART</s> pontificating. The short answer is yes.

Rusty · Coadjutor Joined: 01 Jun 2003 Posts: 82

The standard of proof required probably isn't so high that you have to show that it came from YOUR computer and that no one else EVER had access to it; I'm guessing if they can trace it to your private computer and show that, in general, you're the only person with reasonable access to it, they can satisfy that prong of the whole libel thing. But there's still a lot more they have to do to win a libel case (All those other listed elements).

That does makes sence, sort of a proof beyond resonable doubt I think it's called (or whatever you call it when you have a situation where you can be almost certain that person did it and any explantion of how another person could have is unlikley at best).

But yea, even then there is also the issue of proving that the comments damaged them and I think even the context they were made under can come into question.

Here's an other one.

What about impersonation?

Say someone registered an account with the username that was the same as mine except for maybe a period or asterisk at the end or perhaps they used a bug to post as my name without actually getting access to my account.

Is that true impersonation, or more so is that criminal impersonation? I have seen accusation of that on other forums as well.

My understanding for that is that, again, you can't impersonate a nickname or annoymous name. Maybe if the name is copyright or trademarked then the owner might have a case against someone using it w/o permission, but even then, proving criminal impersonation is going to be nearly impossible and really, if the person stops after being told to stop then unless the person being impersonated suffered measurable damage from it then it would be hard to build a case. Is that true?

But what about if someone posts as your real name? My understanding is maybe then you could 'get them' but again, since even real names arn't always unique (heck, there could be millions of people arround the world that share my name, tens of millions even) then what is to say a person cannot post on a forum using a fake name. I don't think there is a law that sayd you must post using your real name (otherwise, how could we post using nicknames?), so if you use a fake name that just happenes to be the real name of a guy posting on the forum, could be claim criminal impersonation?

My understanding is that, it depends, if the person doing it is knowingly posting as another persons real name then maybe they could but if it's just a nickname then probably not as unless you have a copyright or trademark on that name, then you have no more legal right to it then anyone else.

But, I'm not sure as I've heard diffrent answers to this issue.