![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 110 to 134 of 134. Go back in thread:
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:10:59
In reply to Re: Lou's request for so's reinstatement-ftrhosten, posted by partlycloudy on July 22, 2005, at 9:54:44
pc,is it true that so was blocked for a year? can you show me where this happened? i thought it was around 18 weeks or something (although I could be misremembering that figure).
co
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:16:58
In reply to length of so's block » partlycloudy, posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:10:59
I just read more of the thread and saw that you might have dreamt it. :)
Posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:29:56
In reply to the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:09:56
i obviously entered this conversation late in the game. if you need a lawyer, dr. bob, to represent you in the lawsuit, let me know. ;)
Posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 3:00:43
In reply to the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by crushedout on August 2, 2005, at 13:09:56
*in shock*
You mean, the Internet is entirely the US's domain?!
So, all of us from other countries are now covered by US law?! *L*
Somehow, it wouldn't suprise me if someone tried that!
remember, we're not all in the US, or US citizens here. *I* am not covered by US law whilst here for example.
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 9:55:43
In reply to Re: the constitution » crushedout, posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 3:00:43
nope, i didn't even *suggest* that the internet was entirely the u.s.'s domain, nikki. it was in the context of a conversation about the 14th amendment to the *u.s.* constitution, and i was just pointing out that the u.s. consitution *does* apply to the internet. i assume other countries laws also apply, but that wasn't the topic of conversation.
i'm perfectly aware that we're not all from the u.s.
Posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 10:43:54
In reply to Re: the constitution » crushedout, posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 3:00:43
Sorry, the sarcasm in my post doesn't come through..
I did look into this some what when someone here threatened to sue me for defamation.. as someone who really enjoys travelling in the US, it really quite concerned me that I would be prevented from doing so..
The whole area around law and the internet is quite grey.. you can basically say / post anything, but you cannot store certain things on your computer, or download / upload certain things from a computer..
Thats it very basically, but hopefully understandable..
Nikki
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 10:49:10
In reply to Re: the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 10:43:54
well, to be honest, my point was rather pedantic and not very interesting, but all i was saying was that the constitution technically applies. for example, the first amendment (free speech) (which protects you from a defamation suit by the way) absolutely applies to the internet. that issue isn't the slightest bit gray. now, whether or not you have a 14th amendment claim based on equal protection because someone blocks you for whatever whatever, that's another story.as i said, i was making a small and pedantic point. one really good thing about american law, though, is that the first amendment law is very good with respect to defamation. not so with british law, which is apparently terrible on this.
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 11:00:02
In reply to Re: the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 10:49:10
I should clarify: U.S. first amendment law doesn't make one completely immune to a defamation suit, but it does make it rather hard for a defamation suit to be successful.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2005, at 12:38:01
In reply to Re: the constitution » Nikkit2, posted by Nikkit2 on August 3, 2005, at 10:43:54
Friends,
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to respond to this thread.
It is written in this thread,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
I am requesting that you ask yourself the following if you are going to post to this thread:
A. Is there a post that you know of where another poster here threatens with a suit for defamation? If so, could you post the URL to such a post?
B. If you can not find such a post, could you request from the poster that writes the statement in question for the URL to be posted here?
C. Untill there is a URL of a post that is about the statement in question, could you post to this thread in accordance with that?
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 13:58:16
In reply to clarification, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 11:00:02
I did actually *pay* for legal advice.. from a US lawyer based in Washington DC (I have a friend there who set it up for me)..
the way he basically explained it to me, was that you simply cannot have legal action taken against you for posting something on the internet.
So, to take an extreme example, they couldn't take legal action for you posting an innapprpriate picture of a child on the internet. But, they could take legal action for you having it on your computer or using software to illegaly distribute it.
Is that making sense?
Nikki x
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 13:59:46
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-shothepo?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2005, at 12:38:01
Lou,
Where did I say in my post that it was in a post here? I only said it was *from* someone here.
Nikki
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.
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 14:26:15
In reply to Re: clarification » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:07:08
So, would it apply to sites not hosted in the US?
Or not apply to anyone not living in the US?
And thanks for keeping up the dialogue, its always great to learn *g*
Nikki x
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:33:06
In reply to Re: clarification » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 14:26:15
Do you mean the First Amendment? Would it apply to sites not hosted in the U.S.?It's a good question -- I'm not sure. I think it would apply to any lawsuit that was brought in a U.S. court, certainly. U.S. courts generally apply U.S. law. It's possible, though, that the court would throw the case out for lack of jurisdiction if the host was not in the U.S., in which case it would never reach the question of whether the First Amendment applies to the host.
As to whether the poster is outside of the jurisdiction, that I don't think would matter. The poster could still be tried under U.S. law (assuming the poster published something in a U.S. publication, whether it be online or on paper). The issue then is whether the court can get *personal* jurisdiction over the poster. That may require the poster to come onto U.S. territory. Or sometimes trials have been held in absentia, but I think that's very rare and maybe only for criminal cases.
We're getting into pretty hairy procedural issues here, that are difficult to explain and probably a bit out of my area of expertise. I'm happy to share my thoughts but please don't sue me for malpractice!
Oh, man, what have I gotten myself into? ;-)
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 14:43:57
In reply to Re: clarification » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:33:06
(I'd just like to point out that I am seriously finding this really interesting.. I've been using the internet for a long time, and its such a part of my life that learning this kind of thing fascinates me!)
(and I promise, no law suits *L*)
I wonder how other countries deal with this..
I get that a site hosted in, say the UK, could be subject to UK law.. but its an interesting concept that it could also be subject to US law, and Canadian law etc.. If the site has a considerable impact in x country, could that country take action against the site?
And what if I defamed a UK company, but on a US site?
*laughing*
hey, it could be worse, just wait till you get me onto the subject of infinity..
*LOL*
Nikki x
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2005, at 14:46:01
In reply to Lou's request for so's reinstatement-14th amndmnt, posted by Lou Pilder on July 22, 2005, at 7:53:07
Friends,
It is written here,[...Where did I say in my post that it was in a post here?...]
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to respond to this aspect of this thread.
If you think that the statement in question above has the potential of meaning that I wrote that there is a URL here for a post that writes that the poster in some way writes [...a threat to sue for defamation...],then the following is what I wrote.
A.[...is there a post...?]
This question from me is asking if there is post because I do not know if the poster was referring to a post from someone here that [...threatened to sue for defamation...] and that is why I asked for those that are consideing responding to this thread to take that into consideration in their response.
B. [...if you can not find such a post...] I requested for one to see before they responded to this thread if there was a post,[...threatened to sue for defamation...]so that it could be determined if there was a post or not.
I also requested for others to request from the poster of the statement in question to post a URL and if there was not a URL, then to consider that in accordance with responding to this thread.
Now the poster that wrote,[...someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...] has clarified that the poster was from here.
I am requesting that if you are going to respond to this thread that you ask yourself:
A. How did the poster from here deliver the message to the recipiant of,[...threatened to sue for defamtion...]? If it was not by posting here the threat, then could it have been delivered by any of the following?
A. A letter
B. an email?
C. babblemail?
D. a phone call?
E. a fax?
F a post on another site?
G.none of the above
H. all of the above
K. a combination of the abovee
L. something else
I am requesting that you consider the following if you are going to post to this thread.
A. does the way in which the recipiant recieved the threat to sue, since the poster has been identified as a poster from here that made the threat, make a difference?
B. If so, could you request for the recipiant of the threat to identify the poster that was from here that made the threat?
Lou
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:56:47
In reply to Re: clarification » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 14:43:57
i'm glad you're finding it interesting. I am, too, surprisingly.I do think that it's possible for anything on the internet to be the subject of a lawsuit under virtually any country's laws, because the internet is everywhere. The problem is often one of jurisdiction. So, for example, now that there's internet gambling, and gambling is illegal in most u.s. states, sites that offer gambling to people in the U.S. are violating U.S. law. However, because these sites are operating in Gibraltar or Bermuda or wherever, the U.S. government can't actually prosecute them because it doesn't have jurisdiction.
My point is just that you can violate U.S. law and U.S. law can technically apply to you, but the U.S. just may not be able to come after you for it because of international law that doesn't allow it to go to certain places like Gibraltar and throw people in jail. There are all kinds of exceptions to this though. And I think if an online gambling site operates in London, for example, the U.S. could come after them. But not Gibraltar. I honestly am not sure why. Some quirk of international law?
So if you defame someone in London on a U.S. site, can that person sue you in a U.S. court? Maybe. Can they force you to show up? Probably not. If you don't show up and you lose through a default judgement, will you owe them money? Yes. Can they make you pay it? I imagine it would be hard since O.J. Simpson didn't have to pay his California wrongful death judgement just by moving to Florida (where they have some jurisdictional loophole.)
As for your other question ... good god, i have no idea what your other question was. will somebody please make me shut up?
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 16:29:29
In reply to Re: clarification » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:56:47
Actually, one of the largest online casino's does operate out of London!! Its all legal here, and HUGE business at the moment!
A friend of ours actually registerered some popular online gambling website names way back (probably 7 or 8 years ago, before it all took off), and then sold them for a packet!!Thats going off on a tangent (again!) though!
Its all just so confusing, but so interesting. I wish I were really rich and could try some of this out, just as an experiment!
I shall leave you to your peace now :) Its sortly time for my bed anyway.. Have a good week, its been great chatting with you as I don't think we've really "spoken" much before!
Nikki x
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 16:32:47
In reply to Re: clarification » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 16:29:29
yes it's nice getting to know you. sleep tight.
Posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 16:34:47
In reply to Re: clarification » crushedout, posted by NikkiT2 on August 3, 2005, at 16:29:29
p.s. re the london gambling site: if it's actually *operated* in london, i think they can't let americans use it. or maybe it's just that they operate from gibraltar so they don't have to pay taxes on it. now i'm not so sure. but they sure as heck can't operate one here or the feds'd be on their *sses in about two seconds.
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 6:36:00
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-shothepo?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 3, 2005, at 12:38:01
Friends,
It is written in this thread,[....someone here threatened to sue me for defamation...].
I am requesting that if you are considering responding to this aspect of this thread that you consider whether or not that there could be the potential for the statement in question to have the potential to arrouse ill-will toward an unknown member of this forum.
Since the person that has made the threat to sue for defamation is not identified in this thread as of yet, then do you think that there is the potential for some others to feel accused even if the name is not mentioned? I am requesting that you read the following link if you are going to respond to this aspect of this thread. The link writes,[...lead others to feel accused,{even if the names arn't mentioned}...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040422/msgs/340736
Posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 6:39:38
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-whoacu?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 6:36:00
This is the correction to the link.Lou. http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040422/msgs/340736.html
Posted by Nikkit2 on August 4, 2005, at 6:51:42
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread-whoacu?, posted by Lou Pilder on August 4, 2005, at 6:36:00
Lou,
The only person who could possibly be feeling "put down" or anything similar is someone who felt that they may have made such a statement to me.
I will not be discussing this with you any further Lou as I do not feel comfortable doing so.
Nikki
Posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:43:51
In reply to Re: clarification » NikkiT2, posted by crushedout on August 3, 2005, at 14:33:06
>
> Do you mean the First Amendment? Would it apply to sites not hosted in the U.S.?
>
> It's a good question -- I'm not sure. I think it would apply to any lawsuit that was brought in a U.S. court, certainly. U.S. courts generally apply U.S. law. It's possible, though, that the court would throw the case out for lack of jurisdiction if the host was not in the U.S., in which case it would never reach the question of whether the First Amendment applies to the host.
>
> As to whether the poster is outside of the jurisdiction, that I don't think would matter. The poster could still be tried under U.S. law (assuming the poster published something in a U.S. publication, whether it be online or on paper). The issue then is whether the court can get *personal* jurisdiction over the poster. That may require the poster to come onto U.S. territory. Or sometimes trials have been held in absentia, but I think that's very rare and maybe only for criminal cases.
>
> We're getting into pretty hairy procedural issues here, that are difficult to explain and probably a bit out of my area of expertise. I'm happy to share my thoughts but please don't sue me for malpractice!
>
> Oh, man, what have I gotten myself into? ;-)For what it's worth, as far as US laws and who they apply to, furriners can be subject to certain US laws under certain circumstances:
If you get a traffic ticket in the US, or even a parking ticket, and you ignore it and it turns into a warrant? You'll have a hard time coming back to the US. (Don't ask.)
Also, when I was young and not like I am now, I know that Stiff Little Fingers couldn't get into the country for a tour because of having been convincted overseas of things that were against US law. As I recall, The Damned had a hard time making it to their tour, too... (That might have been because a certain Captain liked to get naked on stage, but I'm probably wrong about that... Besides, silly guitar kept getting in the way of the Naughty Bits...)
Hope that's clear as mud for you both...
Posted by NikkiT2 on August 5, 2005, at 1:47:24
In reply to For what it's worth -- Nikki » crushedout, posted by Racer on August 5, 2005, at 0:43:51
I know certain conviction soutside of US stop entry (drug convictions for example)
As an aside.. My old economics teacher at school used to be a backing singer with the Damned, and then was Captain Sensibles manager *LOL*
Nikki x
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.