Relbeek, I need your help.

[Xican]

I recall you making a post a long time ago about libel (I think it was that EQ2 guy getting caught with his pants down thing) and how it didn't apply to the internet and online gaming. I was wondering if you could give me a little info on that sorta thing?

But why would Xican ever need something like this? Shit, you can fill in the details... Needless to say, I trolled someone (on an MMOG site no less) and he's threatening to sue with libel.

I can make him sound more than a little retarded on my own -- but to be honest, I think you're better than me at this. I would of course give you full credit for this guy's mental breakdown. It could be a tag team trolling. I think this guy really has potential aside from quoting the definition of libel and insisting I take back my comments he sent me this little love letter in PM:

"Wtf is your problem? Do you like hurting people's feelings over a fucking videogame? You say whatever the fuck you want about me anytime anyplace but Lust has never done anything to deserve your fucking crew of assclown's treatment of her.

You think because you've got miles of telephone cable between you and another person that the stupid shit you spew doesnt have an effect on someone? You think its ok to act like a shit hat because there is no immediate consequences to the shit you say?

I just want to know what kind of person you are thats all. You and vidor can kiss my fucking ass and we'll see what happens if you keep this shit up. "

It's not often I ask for help trolling people but... c'mon dude -- This has a ton of potential.

[Xican]

Ah, crap... Nevermind. It has already advanced beyond the law thing. Apparently, it didn't take much for him to rethink that strategy. Too bad, 'beek. You missed a good trolling.

Now, he's lecturing me about integrity and threatening to kill me in the same posts.

So, how's everyone at rants doing?

[SicTimMitchell]

Death threats always mean you have trolled well.

You are now at the stage where you are probably keeping this person thinking about your trolling while they are offline. Maybe even losing sleep. Mentioning that will cause angry denials, and make it even more so.

Of course, they could also just be trolling you.

One hint: throw in plenty of funny. Funny = ultimate deniability. "Any moron could tell this was a joke."

[Croinc]

LinXors please

[Xican]

I'd link it Croinc, but Ubi's boards require an account. If you all would like to see though, http://chronicle.ubi.com I -think- is the homepage link. Check the Wrath message boards and it should be under 'CMB no more'.

I didn't bait this guy until about page 35 of 46, though. The other stuff is random in game political bullshit that I was just poking around at to get a good feeling for who was an easy target. When I saw this guy call for the mods to intervene and start getting macho, I knew I had a good target.

I shall take your funny suggestion into account Bang. I'm no good with funny, though. You know a good consultant for that sort of thing?

[Bahd Zoolander]

I don't have an account and I could read it.

I could not find teh funnay though. Looks like a bunch of retards slap fighting to me.

[Xican]

It pretty much is.

It dropped significantly compared to what I expected and teetered back into more in game related stuff and an arguement about integrity. Or something.

I appologize for wasting everyone's time. It had so much potential with the legal/life threats.

[Relbeek Einre]

Sorry I missed it, Xican. I've been busy this weekend.

[Embar Angylwrath]

And the droid spits out a holo-message "Help me Obi-relbeekobi, you're our only hope."

[Aquinas]

I recall you making a post a long time ago about libel (I think it was that EQ2 guy getting caught with his pants down thing) and how it didn't apply to the internet and online gaming. I was wondering if you could give me a little info on that sorta thing?

In the last couple of years there have been a number of successful defamation cases concerning chat rooms and web boards.

[-=Xilanthanax=-]

Sweet, I'm suing Burz for defamation of toon.

[SicTimMitchell]

In the last couple of years there have been a number of successful defamation cases concerning chat rooms and web boards.

Can you post some links please, cuntface? (Seriously, I'm curious.)

[Relbeek Einre]

Ditto there, Aquinas.

[Aquinas]

Most, if not all, of the cases that I have read about have only been through the trial level so there are not many published opinions. The only reason I know this is because I helped edit an article tangentially about the subject. The article was mostly about the issuance of punitives in cases involving the internet. Here are a few excerpts of the article with accompanying footnotes:

The few cases where individuals obtained punitive damages often were in cases involving reputation or privacy injuries. [FN33] In fact, online defamation cases alone accounted for 29% of all punitive damages awarded in cyberspace cases during the ten-year period of the study. [FN34] For example, a doctor defamed by an Internet posting charging him with taking kickbacks led to a punitive damages award. [FN35] In another case, a University of North Dakota physics professor won a large punitive damages award against a former graduate student who accused him in online postings "of being a pedophile and having odd sexual habits." [FN36] In a Florida case awarding punitive damages, an Internet web page contained numerous defamatory postings pertaining to the plaintiff and his children. [FN37]

[FN33]. See infra Appendix A. See also Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, No. 780187, 2001 WL 1904203 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2001) (assessing $350,000 in punitive damages for "more than 14,000 defamatory and sometimes vulgar messages on more than 100 Internet message boards" accusing company executives of having illicit sexual relations and other bad acts).

[FN34]. See, e.g., Matos v. Am. Fed'n of State, County & Mun. Employees, No. CV980578747, 2001 WL 1044632, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 13, 2001) (reporting defamation claim by corrections department employee against union).

[FN35]. Graham v. Oppenheimer, JVR No. 382280, 2000 WL 33232110 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2000) (awarding $350,000 in punitive damages).

[FN36]. Scott Carlson, North Dakota Professor Sues Former Student and a Web Site Over Allegations in an Article, Chron. Higher Educ., Jan. 19, 2001, at A33.

[FN37]. Bagwell v. Phillips, No. 97-13631, 1998 WL 1656174 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 23, 1998) (awarding $15,000 in punitive damages).

In one highly publicized case, two former research scientists employed by a high tech company published over 14,000 defamatory and vulgar messages on their web site and on over 100 Internet message boards. [FN57] The postings targeted two current corporate executives, *52 accusing them of "having extramarital affairs, videotaping office bathrooms, chronically lying and hallucinating." [FN58] In another case, a urologist obtained punitive damages against a defendant pathologist and his affiliated medical corporation for anonymous postings on the Internet. [FN59] Punitive damages were based upon the false accusation that the plaintiff was accepting kickbacks from a bidding company. [FN60]

[FN57]. Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Delfino, No. 780187, 2001 WL 1904203 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2001) (noting that plaintiffs alleged libel, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, and unfair business practices, and sought compensatory and punitive damages).

[FN58]. Id. "A Santa Clara County jury awarded $775,000 in compensatory and punitive damages to a business and two of its employees after finding two former employees had libeled the plaintiffs with defamatory and vulgar statements posted on the Internet." Id.

[FN59]. Graham v. Oppenheimer, No. 00-CV-57, 2000 WL 33381418, at *1 (E.D. Va. Dec. 15, 2000).

[FN60]. Id. See also Graham v. Oppenheimer, JVR No. 382280, 2000 WL 33232110 (E.D. Va. Oct. 2000).

Consumers are harmed every day in Internet chat rooms, news groups, and computer bulletin boards by conduct that calls for the deterrent hammer of punitive damages. Online chats may seem informal and relaxed, but an online posting in a chat room or on a web site may become the basis of a defamation lawsuit. [FN230] Few consumers have the resources to vindicate their rights in the online world.

[FN232]. Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330-31 (4th Cir. 1997) (stating that one of Congress's purposes was to insulate providers from potentially staggering tort liability).

[FN233]. Id. at 331.

3. Punishing Incendiary Flame Wars in Cyberspace

In Mathis v. Cannon, [FN350] the plaintiff filed a defamation claim against an Internet poster who accused him of being a thief and a crook in an online forum addressing concerns about a solid waste recovery facility. [FN351] The Internet-related postings were the result of impassioned debates over the expenditure of the county's resources for the ill-fated facility. [FN352] However, the plaintiff was barred from seeking punitive damages because he did not seek a retraction, which was a prerequisite to filing his defamation complaint. [FN353]

[FN350]. 573 S.E.2d 376 (Ga. 2002).

[FN351]. Id. at 377, 379.

[FN352]. Id. at 378-79.

[FN353]. Id. at 386.

Damages awarded in online defamation cases frequently involve head-on collisions with the First Amendment. The facts of Griffis v. Luban [FN357] exemplify the typical online defamation case, arising out of an incendiary exchange of e-mails and postings to a web site. In Griffis, a Minnesota resident was assessed damages in an Alabama court default judgment after being sued for posting Internet messages challenging the credentials of an Egyptologist. [FN358] The Minnesota resident posted on a web forum that the Alabama scholar had "obtain[ed] her degree from a 'box of Cracker Jacks."' [FN359] The Alabama court entered a default judgment for $25,000 in money damages and an injunction to prevent future defamatory postings. [FN360]

[FN357]. 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 906 (2003).

[FN358]. Id. at 530.

[FN359]. Id.

[FN360]. Id.

You can probably find a decent article on the subject if you just google a couple of those cases.

[Relbeek Einre]

You coulda linked the page from which you pulled those quotes.

[Riggen]

Lawyers get paid every day in Internet chat rooms, news groups, and computer bulletin boards by conduct that creates an opportunity to be a parasite. Online chats may seem informal and relaxed, but an online posting in a chat room or on a web site may become the basis of a vacation to the Bahamas.

Fixed one of em at least.

This is one of the reasons that chat handles are useful, is it not? If everyone has that little buffer of anonymity, there can't be as much concern about defamation because there are no real people being defamed. Thus I can freely refer to everyone here as a chachi without fear of bullying from the thugs of the judicial cartel.

[Aquinas]

You coulda linked the page from which you pulled those quotes.

Not unless you have Lexis, Hein online, or Westlaw.

Here is the cite: 7 Chap. L. Rev. 39

[Relbeek Einre]

As a matter of fact I do have Westlaw.

[SicTimMitchell]

These all seem to be cases where a deliberate, malicious attempt at actually harming a business or a person's livelihood were the grounds.

Protected speech includes satire and parody, opinion, and (this is the important one for trolling, folks,) statements which a reasonable person would not take to be true.

Note, though, that private figures are far more protected from satire and parody than public ones are.