Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: Lift Studios on June 26, 2006, 02:01:02 PM
-
Bodybuilding Message Boards and the First Amendment: Where does Free Speech End and Criminal & Civil Liability Begin?
With Special Guest Rick Collins, IFBB Legal Counsel
As we all know some posts can get pretty personal and rumors are tossed around all the time. Can posts on a message board get someone sued, or even arrested? Does the owner of the board have legal responsibility? Can a recognized athlete sue someone for what they say about him or her online?
Tune in to www.MuscleRadio.com (http://www.MuscleRadio.com) on Wednesday, June 28th at 4:05 PM PST for an information packed show with IFBB Legal Counsel and MuscleRadio Team Member, Rick Collins, to find out the answers to these and a host of other questions! Rick is also the author of the ground-breaking book "Legal Muscle" and is recognized as bodybuilding's premiere legal authority.
-
Q: Is that the same Rick Collins whose name we heard when it was suggested that the IFBB athletes should have an attorney representing them?
-
Why can't you give us the answer right now?? >:(
-
I used to be a fan of Mr. Collins, till the mid 90's, when he started doing music for those shitty Disney movies.........
Oh, wait, Rick Collins, not Phil. My Bad.
Should be a good show.
-
The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forums are private property and the owners can censor anything they want. And the First Amendment wouldn't protect you from libel away. A more acurate title for the discussion would be Libel on Message Boards.
And the answers are yes you can be sued for libel for what you post on a message board, and the owner of the board could be held responsible if he does not remove things he knows to be libelous.
-
A more accurate title for the discussion would be Libel on Message Boards.
True, but 'First Amendment' is a far better headline-grabber. ;)
-
fuck kamali
The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forums are private property and the owners can censor anything they want. And the First Amendment wouldn't protect you from libel away. A more acurate title for the discussion would be Libel on Message Boards.
And the answers are yes you can be sued for libel for what you post on a message board, and the owner of the board could be held responsible if he does not remove things he knows to be libelous.
-
The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forums are private property and the owners can censor anything they want. And the First Amendment wouldn't protect you from libel away. A more acurate title for the discussion would be Libel on Message Boards.
And the answers are yes you can be sued for libel for what you post on a message board, and the owner of the board could be held responsible if he does not remove things he knows to be libelous.
Well all be damned, Mr. Fogarty you have all the answers. If anyone has a question just post it for Tim and don't waste your time asking any one else. ::)
No Offense Tim, but I'll tune in and listen to what Rick has to say as he seems to have a bit more credibility in the legal field then you.
BTW - you're wrong on the message board owner being held libel - listen to the show and you'll hear why you're wrong.
-
This is the Rick Collins on the broadcast!
http://www.steroidlaw.com/
-
You are all sued - just for posting here.
oh, hell no.
I know the dude that runs www.fuckedsuit.com - he used to wash my Escalade. I'm going to get him to tear you up in court.
-
BTW - you're wrong on the message board owner being held libel - listen to the show and you'll hear why you're wrong.
I think you mean that he's wrong on the message board owner being held liable (i.e. responsible) FOR libel... ;)
-
:-X
-
is bob chick gunna be on to splain the law? you no he knows the law ::)
-
muscle Radio is boring
-
Loose Keystrokes Bring Lawsuits -- On-Line Defamation
By Eric S. Freibrun, Esq.
Psychiatrists and psychologists can no doubt venture an explanation as to why people say things in e-mail messages and on-line bulletin board postings they wouldn’t dream of saying out loud, stating in a printed memo, or writing in a Letter to the Editor. Perhaps words shot into cyberspace are viewed as more ephemeral than those typed on a printed page. After all, they’re only bits, bytes and electrons, so they can’t come back to bite the writer, or can they?
While general principles of defamation law are well-settled, their application in the on-line world is just now being tested. In the past couple of years, there have been a small but increasing number of defamation lawsuits brought by on-line users alleging their reputations have been damaged by the false statements of others posted or "published" on-line. This article describes a few of those cases and highlights the principles of defamation law.
One of the more recent notable examples is William Slater v. Paolini, filed in November, 1994, and pending in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. In this case, the plaintiff and defendant were participants in a forum on CompuServe relating to technical aspects of Borland’s Paradox software product. The filed Complaint alleges that the defendant published a forum message accessible by innumerable other subscribers accusing the plaintiff of having had child molestation charges pending against him. The plaintiff vehemently denies in the Complaint that there have ever been any such charges filed or pending against him and claims that his personal and business reputation has been irrefutably damaged by the defendant’s statements. The plaintiff currently participates in discussions on CompuServe’s Legal Forum relating to on-line defamation, candidly discussing his case and the reputational damage that has been done by what he describes as the defendant’s entirely false and mean-spirited allegations.
Another case filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, is Suarez Corp. Industries v. Brock N. Meeks, 267513. In this case, the plaintiff had alleged defamation against the author of an on-line newsletter who had criticized the plaintiff’s marketing methods in an article posted on the Internet. This case has been settled out of court by sealed agreement.
In what is remarkably the only published court opinion in an on-line defamation case, the plaintiff in Cubby v. CompuServe, 776 F.Supp. 135 (SDNY 1991), had attempted to hold CompuServe liable for disseminating or republishing the defamatory statements of a subscriber. The plaintiff believed he had been defamed by a periodical publication that the subscriber had uploaded onto CompuServe’s system. The material was widely accessible by other subscribers and CompuServe had no opportunity to review it prior to its dissemination. The court held that CompuServe was not liable for republishing the defamatory material because its role was analogous to a bookseller with no editorial control over the periodical’s content, and it did not know or have any reason to know that the material was defamatory. This case is significant in that it appears to establish a clear rule for determining service provider liability for republishing defamatory statements, holding further that once a service provider becomes aware, or has reason to be aware, of illegal activity being conducted on its system, it must take steps to stop it.
Defamation is a matter of tort law, which deals with injuries to persons or property and varies from state to state. Defamatory statements can be written (libel) or oral (slander) and may be treated differently depending on state law. In all states, however, both individuals and business entities can be defamed and sue for monetary damages. Generally, a statement is defamatory, and thus actionable (i.e., someone can be sued for it), if it is (i) false; (ii) made or "published" to a third party; and (ii) tends to injure the reputation of the person about whom it is made by lowering the respect, esteem or goodwill in which they are regarded in their community, exciting adverse or derogatory feelings against them, or by dissuading others from dealing or associating with them. A defamatory statement need not be direct. Defamation can result from the overall context in which a statement was made or from inference, insinuation or innuendo. Even a joke can be defamatory if it is not obviously meant or understood as such.
Determining whether a statement is defamatory requires analysis of all the surrounding circumstances by a judge or jury. For example, a statement that is merely unflattering, annoying or embarrassing is generally not considered defamatory. Additionally, a statement of opinion which is incapable of being proven true of false, such as one containing hyperbole, will not generally give rise to an action for defamation. The issue of whether an allegedly defamatory statement is one of opinion or fact is one of the more difficult and common questions in a defamation suit. Courts have held that merely prefacing an otherwise defamatory statement with the words "I believe..." is not enough to eliminate the implication that the statement was intended to communicate facts.
Some states’ laws consider certain types of statements to be defamatory per se, i.e., so presumptively damaging that the plaintiff need not prove that he or she was actually injured by them. Examples include accusing someone of having committed a crime, being unfit or incompetent in their profession, having a communicable disease, or being unchaste or having committed sexual misconduct. Truth, however, is generally a complete defense in a defamation action. In fact, it is the plaintiff’s burden to prove the falsity of the defendant’s statement.
A plaintiff in a defamation action may need to prove the "fault" of the person publishing the defamatory statement. The level of fault which must be proved varies depending on whether the plaintiff is a "private person" or a "public figure." Generally, a private person plaintiff need not prove any fault on the defendant’s part if the defamatory statement concerns a private matter. If the defamatory statement against a private person concerns a matter of public concern, the plaintiff must usually prove that the defendant’s statement were made at least negligently.
Plaintiffs who are public figures or officials have a much higher burden of proof in establishing defamation. They must show that the defendant’s statements were not only false, but were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for whether they were true or false. The rationale for the higher standards required to prove fault in defamation actions involving matters of public concern or statements against public figures is two-fold: first, the public has a First Amendment interest in receiving information about public issues; and second, public figures such as celebrities, government officials and other high-profile personalities have usually thrust themselves into the limelight and are thus deemed to have assumed a greater risk of adverse comment or publicity than private individuals.
While the law of on-line defamation continues to evolve, it is clear is that the same degree of caution must be exercised with respect to statements about others published or disseminated on-line as in any other context. Authors and other individuals should consult an attorney knowledgeable in this area if there are any doubts as to whether their on-line communications could result in liability.
-
This radio show is run by Larry Pepe - who now is a public figure, or is he? It is called muscleradio.com. Bob Cicherillo and Dan Solomon run Pro Bodybuilding Radio, different internet radio show, and one of the first.
I will be on, going over some questions that I have regarding the message boards, and try to get the answers that a lot of us want to know from some experts.
And of course this is relevant, considering that while we all think we know the answers, this way we can get some definitive answers, or will we...
-
The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. Forums are private property and the owners can censor anything they want. And the First Amendment wouldn't protect you from libel away. A more acurate title for the discussion would be Libel on Message Boards.
The First Ammendment does not prevent message board owners from censoring or doing whatever they want to on their own boards. It does, however, along with the case law that flows from it, severly limit the scope of what is and is not considered libel, and protects a great deal of speech from "libel" charges.
See the Supreme Court precedent-setting case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988) for details. If Jerry Fallwell can't sue Hustler Magazine for printing an ad parody saying he lost his virginity to his drunk mother in an outhouse while he was a teenager, do you really think Kamali can sue 240 for the much milder things he's done? Libel only applies when you say something that you know to be untrue as fact (not parody or obvious satire, i.e. you're presenting it in a way that it is meant to be taken seriously as fact), that causes an actual economic loss to someone else. You can't collect from someone merely because they said mean things about you or your loved ones. If you could, the court system would cease to function because of all the "so-and-so was mean to me" suits.
Rick Collins is known as a IFBB/BB industry mouthpiece, and unless he can reference specific contemporary case law that explains how Hustler v. Falwell wouldn't apply here, I'll have to assume he's just spinning the situation for King.
-
well we'll be listening for the legal laughs
-
The First Ammendment does not prevent message board owners from censoring or doing whatever they want to on their own boards. It does, however, along with the case law that flows from it, severly limit the scope of what is and is not considered libel, and protects a great deal of speech from "libel" charges.
Correct.
Libel only applies when you say something that you know to be untrue as fact (not parody or obvious satire, i.e. you're presenting it in a way that it is meant to be taken seriously as fact), that causes an actual economic loss to someone else. You can't collect from someone merely because they said mean things about you or your loved ones. If you could, the court system would cease to function because of all the "so-and-so was mean to me" suits.
Correct.
Rick Collins is known as a IFBB/BB industry mouthpiece...
So, in other words, you're saying this Rick Collins is not the same 'Rick Collins' who was being touted as a potential IFBB athletes' representative?
-
So, in other words, you're saying this Rick Collins is not the same 'Rick Collins' who was being touted as a potential IFBB athletes' representative?
being a socket in the IFBB Toolbox is a requirement of the athletes' rep position.
-
So, in other words, you're saying this Rick Collins is not the same 'Rick Collins' who was being touted as a potential IFBB athletes' representative?
Who was touting him as such?
-
Who was touting him as such?
Before BBing.com bought the place you started posting regularly, Rick was long mentioned as a guy who would be able to form a legitimate union, instead of the current hodgepodge of guys led by someone they compete against, with monster conflict of interest issues.
-
Before BBing.com bought the place you started posting regularly, Rick was long mentioned as a guy who would be able to form a legitimate union, instead of the current hodgepodge of guys led by someone they compete against, with monster conflict of interest issues.
Thanks monkeywrench but that doesn't answer my question. I asked WHO touted him as such. We all know you had your run in with Rick in regards to posting false statements about his clients, so I'm guessing it wasn't you. Unless of course you were on a mission to remove Chic from office.
-
Thanks monkeywrench but that doesn't answer my question. I asked WHO touted him as such. We all know you had your run in with Rick in regards to posting false statements about his clients, so I'm guessing it wasn't you. Unless of course you were on a mission to remove Chic from office.
it was actually back in the shawn ray era, it was brought up that perhaps a non-competing lawyer would better serve the athletes, as there was no conflict, and he would know the law. I spose you could scour the last 18 months of getbig if ya want. I said it, as he's the only BBing lawyer I've heard of. Others mentioned it too.
I've never had a run in with Rick. He seems like a brilliant guy from his column. I corresponded with him about 6 months back on a Q and he came off like a class act.
-
Correct.
Correct.
So, in other words, you're saying this Rick Collins is not the same 'Rick Collins' who was being touted as a potential IFBB athletes' representative?
Isn't a lawyer named "Rick Collins" listed as IFBB's legal counsel on their website? I assume it's the same guy. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
-
Isn't a lawyer named "Rick Collins" listed as IFBB's legal counsel on their website? I assume it's the same guy. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Don't quit your day job Columbo. Guess you couldn't read the second line in the opening post...
"With Special Guest Rick Collins, IFBB Legal Counsel"
-
Don't quit your day job Columbo. Guess you couldn't read the second line in the opening post...
"With Special Guest Rick Collins, IFBB Legal Counsel"
The opening post in this thread was made by you, Lift.
Therefore, as is my policy, I didn't read past the first line. ;D
-
The opening post in this thread was made by you, Lift.
Therefore, as is my policy, I didn't read past the first line. ;D
Dear God, I never thought we would have anything in common. ;D
-
Show starts now on muscleradio.com (http://muscleradio.com)
-
Who was touting him as such?
Can't recall all the screen names, but it was all over GetBig back when Shawn stepped down from his post as IFBB rep.
-
The only people who have to worry about lawsuits are those dumb enough to carry assets in their own name. ;)
I invested all my money into Bob Chic's new PR firm. He's going to beat down the competition.
-
What will be the firm's first capital expense... tuition to send Bob to school to learn actual professional PR skills? ::)
is that college talk for 'bail money'?
-
Larry and Rick covered the liability of message board owners, defamation of both private individuals and public figures, threats that could lead to criminal charges and civil lawsuits and the legal implications of steroid related discussions on the boards.
If you missed the live show listen to the replays at muscleradio.com (http://muscleradio.com/past/index.html)
-
Interesting episode.