OldSchoolLion

[Perspective]

1 hour ago, peezy28 said:

I don't believe there is grounds for there to be a lawsuit against anonymous poster "Peezy28, or Jambun, or Perspective, or FloridaHSFootball."  I think perhaps they could "try" to sue Josh but that is like me trying to sue Facebook for one of its posters making an false statement about me.

This was a scare tactic and essentially them trying to throw their weight around... IMO.

If only there were someone that knew the law who could tell me if I were right or wrong here @Perspective 

Peezy,

 

A couple of quick thoughts/observations:

 

1.  We have a common friend who undoubtedly knows this area of the law better than I do.  It might be worth reaching out to him if you happen to know any wild Turkey calls? 

 

2.  In short, I think you are correct.  But let’s break this down a little, as we have a couple of different potential issues.  The first issue is whether a defamatory statement has been made (and, just in case you wondering, libel is simply defamation in written form).   Under Florida law, defamation is basically defined as a false statement of fact communicated to a third party that is intended to harm the reputation or financial well-being of a person or business.  To repeat, for a comment to be defamatory, it would have to be a statement of fact and not an opinion.   Also remember what you no doubt have often heard:  truth is a defense.  In other words, if I say “Jim is a thief” and it turns out that Jim has been convicted of theft, my comment would not be defamatory because my statement is a truthful one, not a false one, however embarrassing it may be to Jim.    

 

3. If I were to say “Hawkwood High School fans pay money to Hawkwood High School players,” there is a question in my mind as to who, if anyone, would have the right to bring a defamation lawsuit against me.  I didn’t make reference to a particular fan/person, nor did I say that anyone at the school was a guilty party.  So, I might be able to get away with that comment, even if it were not true.  

 

4. Recall a couple of weeks ago when President Trump was refusing to sign the spending bill to keep the military funded?   One of his stated reasons for doing so was because Congress was refusing to repeal Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.  Say what?   In short, this is the law that companies like Facebook are able to use as a shield to avoid defamation claims when someone posts a false negative review or makes a statement on their Internet site that would otherwise rise to the level of defamation.  To be precise, here’s what Section 230 says:    "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).  In my humble opinion, and based on limited facts and research, Section 230 would provide immunity to Josh’s website for defamatory statements made by forum posters.  And, arguably, even if it became known that a particular comment was defamatory, the site would not be obligated to take it down.  See, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).

 

5.  With all that said, I would go through the following analysis:  Was the statement made a statement of fact or an opinion?  If an opinion, the analysis stops as the website and its owner will have no exposure to liability.  If the statement was one of fact, can the person who made the statement establish that the statement is true?  If so, it’s not defamation.  If not (i.e., the statement is a false statement), was it intended to harm the reputation or financial status of a person or legal entity?  If so, the person who made the statement – assuming that person could be identified – could be sued for defamation (and a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit might be able to use discovery/subpoena powers to uncover the true identity of a poster).  However, under Section 230, it is unlikely that the website or its owner could be held responsible for the defamatory statement.   

 

6. But, here’s the critical last step of the analysis for someone like Josh:  even if he is confident that he cannot successfully be sued for defamation, does he really want to take that chance?  More importantly, is he prepared to spend his limited time and resources defending himself/his company against people who likely have superior resources.   That’s a call only he can make.  It’s easy to say “C’mon, hold your ground; fight the fight!” when it’s not your money or business at risk. 

 

Last, but not least, to cover my own butt, this post is not intended as legal advice for Josh, this website or anyone who might read it.   While I believe it is accurate, it’s just intended to further the conversation, not to be relied upon by anyone who might face the issues addressed above. 

[DisabledAccount]

6 hours ago, Trelle said:

Exactly in order to be proven guilty of libel you have to prove without a doubt that what was written caused direct and irrefutable damages to yourself, business or organization. A message board that what maybe a couple hundred people visit that is based on opinions I doubt would hold any water in any court.

It may not hold up in court but it still violates one of the rules on the forum and by a moderator no less

 

Many people on here wanted me removed as a mod for a lot less so regardless if there could have been any grounds for legal action, joshua removing OSL as a mod is 100% justified as doing so was a clear violation of the rules and moderators are expected to enforce the rules, not break them!

[VeniceIndianFan]

2 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

It may not hold up in court but it still violates one of the rules on the forum and by a moderator no less

 

Many people on here wanted me removed as a mod for a lot less so regardless if there could have been any grounds for legal action, joshua removing OSL as a mod is 100% justified as doing so was a clear violation of the rules and moderators are expected to enforce the rules, not break them!

Anyone that sues someone over High School football game tickets needs to have their head checked. 

[Jambun82]

On 1/6/2021 at 2:32 PM, Perspective said:

Peezy,

 

 

 

A couple of quick thoughts/observations:

 

 

 

1.  We have a common friend who undoubtedly knows this area of the law better than I do.  It might be worth reaching out to him if you happen to know any wild Turkey calls? 

    

 

 

2.  In short, I think you are correct.  But let’s break this down a little, as we have a couple of different potential issues.  The first issue is whether a defamatory statement has been made (and, just in case you wondering, libel is simply defamation in written form).   Under Florida law, defamation is basically defined as a false statement of fact communicated to a third party that is intended to harm the reputation or financial well-being of a person or business.  To repeat, for a comment to be defamatory, it would have to be a statement of fact and not an opinion.   Also remember what you no doubt have often heard:  truth is a defense.  In other words, if I say “Jim is a thief” and it turns out that Jim has been convicted of theft, my comment would not be defamatory because my statement is a truthful one, not a false one, however embarrassing it may be to Jim.    

    

 

 

3. If I were to say “Hawkwood High School fans pay money to Hawkwood High School players,” there is a question in my mind as to who, if anyone, would have the right to bring a defamation lawsuit against me.  I didn’t make reference to a particular fan/person, nor did I say that anyone at the school was a guilty party.  So, I might be able to get away with that comment, even if it were not true.  

    

 

 

4. Recall a couple of weeks ago when President Trump was refusing to sign the spending bill to keep the military funded?   One of his stated reasons for doing so was because Congress was refusing to repeal Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.  Say what?   In short, this is the law that companies like Facebook are able to use as a shield to avoid defamation claims when someone posts a false negative review or makes a statement on their Internet site that would otherwise rise to the level of defamation.  To be precise, here’s what Section 230 says:    "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).  In my humble opinion, and based on limited facts and research, Section 230 would provide immunity to Josh’s website for defamatory statements made by forum posters.  And, arguably, even if it became known that a particular comment was defamatory, the site would not be obligated to take it down.  See, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).

    

 

 

5.  With all that said, I would go through the following analysis:  Was the statement made a statement of fact or an opinion?  If an opinion, the analysis stops as the website and its owner will have no exposure to liability.  If the statement was one of fact, can the person who made the statement establish that the statement is true?  If so, it’s not defamation.  If not (i.e., the statement is a false statement), was it intended to harm the reputation or financial status of a person or legal entity?  If so, the person who made the statement – assuming that person could be identified – could be sued for defamation (and a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit might be able to use discovery/subpoena powers to uncover the true identity of a poster).  However, under Section 230, it is unlikely that the website or its owner could be held responsible for the defamatory statement.   

    

 

 

6. But, here’s the critical last step of the analysis for someone like Josh:  even if he is confident that he cannot successfully be sued for defamation, does he really want to take that chance?  More importantly, is he prepared to spend his limited time and resources defending himself/his company against people who likely have superior resources.   That’s a call only he can make.  It’s easy to say “C’mon, hold your ground; fight the fight!” when it’s not your money or business at risk. 

    

 

 

Last, but not least, to cover my own butt, this post is not intended as legal advice for Josh, this website or anyone who might read it.   While I believe it is accurate, it’s just intended to further the conversation, not to be relied upon by anyone who might face the issues addressed above. 

 

Perspective, since you are evidently a lawyer, what would be the legal ramifications of a statement such as "Jambun82 is the smartest man alive?"  

[badbird]

11 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Perspective, since you are evidently a lawyer, what would be the legal ramifications of a statement such as "Jambun82 is the smartest man alive?"  

If I said Jambun82 was the worst ref in Central Florida that would be my opinion and you couldn't sue me for libel.  It also might be a fact.  

[Perspective]

14 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Perspective, since you are evidently a lawyer, what would be the legal ramifications of a statement such as "Jambun82 is the smartest man alive?"  

Hmmm, let's see . . .

"Smartest man alive" - likely a 'false statement of fact.'    Check. 

By posting the comment on this Board we can assume that at least one other person (likely DarterBlue) will read it, so it probably constitutes a 'communication to a third party.'  Check. 

There was a time when being a smart person was a good thing, but I'm not so sure about that any more.  Now, being smart just opens you up to ridicule and the stigma of being a nerd.  So, I think I could convince a jury that a comment to the effect that you're the smartest man in the world could 'harm your reputation or financial well-being.'  So, Check. 

In conclusion, I'm pretty sure you just defamed yourself. 

Today only, I'll offer to represent you -- both as the plaintiff and the defendant , although I'll need both of you to sign a conflict waiver.  I also will need substantial fee retainers from 'both' of you.  But don't worry about my astronomically high hourly rates; once you prevail against yourself, we can go after the losing party to recover those fees. 

Perspective

For the People (as long as I'm one of the people). 

 

 

 

[DarterBlue2]

6 hours ago, Perspective said:

Hmmm, let's see . . .

"Smartest man alive" - likely a 'false statement of fact.'    Check. 

By posting the comment on this Board we can assume that at least one other person (likely DarterBlue) will read it, so it probably constitutes a 'communication to a third party.'  Check. 

There was a time when being a smart person was a good thing, but I'm not so sure about that any more.  Now, being smart just opens you up to ridicule and the stigma of being a nerd.  So, I think I could convince a jury that a comment to the effect that you're the smartest man in the world could 'harm your reputation or financial well-being.'  So, Check. 

In conclusion, I'm pretty sure you just defamed yourself. 

Today only, I'll offer to represent you -- both as the plaintiff and the defendant , although I'll need both of you to sign a conflict waiver.  I also will need substantial fee retainers from 'both' of you.  But don't worry about my astronomically high hourly rates; once you prevail against yourself, we can go after the losing party to recover those fees. 

Perspective

For the People (as long as I'm one of the people). 

 

 

 

This has got to be the funniest post I have ever read on any message board!!

[Jambun82]

10 hours ago, badbird said:

If I said Jambun82 was the worst ref in Central Florida that would be my opinion and you couldn't sue me for libel.  It also might be a fact.  

That statement might be correct Badbird. Of course, first it would have to be established that "Jambun82" is a "ref" which may or may not be true.  Since we know that the "ref' wears a white hat. not a black hat with white piping, it stands to reason that this reportedly insanely good-looking man owns a white hat, which he may or may not. So your statement might not be true at all because "Jambun82" may not be a "ref" at all. 

[Jambun82]

10 hours ago, Perspective said:

Hmmm, let's see . . .

"Smartest man alive" - likely a 'false statement of fact.'    Check. 

By posting the comment on this Board we can assume that at least one other person (likely DarterBlue) will read it, so it probably constitutes a 'communication to a third party.'  Check. 

There was a time when being a smart person was a good thing, but I'm not so sure about that any more.  Now, being smart just opens you up to ridicule and the stigma of being a nerd.  So, I think I could convince a jury that a comment to the effect that you're the smartest man in the world could 'harm your reputation or financial well-being.'  So, Check. 

In conclusion, I'm pretty sure you just defamed yourself. 

Today only, I'll offer to represent you -- both as the plaintiff and the defendant , although I'll need both of you to sign a conflict waiver.  I also will need substantial fee retainers from 'both' of you.  But don't worry about my astronomically high hourly rates; once you prevail against yourself, we can go after the losing party to recover those fees. 

Perspective

For the People (as long as I'm one of the people). 

 

 

 

Thank you Perspective, but since you ended with "For the People" it makes me wonder if your work for THAT! law firm? lol 

[Perspective]

16 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

Thank you Perspective, but since you ended with "For the People" it makes me wonder if your work for THAT! law firm? lol 

No, I don't.   In fact, I added the parenthetical in hopes of avoiding any speculation along those lines.   But, I can see how a reader could think otherwise.   I don't even do THAT area of the law . . .  if I did, you would have all known it by my third post on this site.    

[Jambun82]

7 hours ago, Perspective said:

No, I don't.   In fact, I added the parenthetical in hopes of avoiding any speculation along those lines.   But, I can see how a reader could think otherwise.   I don't even do THAT area of the law . . .  if I did, you would have all known it by my third post on this site.    

I always have found Constitutional Law interesting. I wish that I would have studied that more in college. 

[Perspective]

On 1/9/2021 at 9:28 PM, Jambun82 said:

I always have found Constitutional Law interesting. I wish that I would have studied that more in college. 

No need to study that now, Jambun.  Just go on Facebook and you'll learn all you need to know.  Everyone posting there now is a constitutional law scholar. 

[DisabledAccount]

2 hours ago, Perspective said:

No need to study that now, Jambun.  Just go on Facebook and you'll learn all you need to know.  Everyone posting there now is a constitutional law scholar. 

Yeah you mean like the people falsely claiming it is against the first amendment for a private company (I'll say Twitter) to shut down accounts for someone inciting a riot 

 

2 major problems that show it has nothing to do with the first amendment

 

1) the first amendment only applies to the GOVERNMENT restricting free speech, a private company is not under the same umbrella, it would be the same as someone telling their boss they smell like raw onions, you ain't gonna be able to use the first amendment to keep him from firing you because a private company isn't bound by those first amendment restrictions/protections (however someone chooses to view it)

 

2) the first amendment also has a clause that doing so wouldn't interfere with someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Therefore if you yell fire in a crowded theatre it would not be protected as doing so would put other's lives at risk and therefore not be protected so inciting a riot would interfere with that principle

 

 

 

Also the laughable comments that I saw with people claiming it was unconstitutional for a private business to require masks for entry, it would be as stupid as someone saying I don't want to wear clothes so therefore I should be allowed to go shopping naked and it's unconstitutional for the store to stop me

 

Some people clearly never read a single line of the constitution in their entire lives but would argue until I'm blue in the face about how right they are, honestly it's kinda pathetic

[peezy28]

On 1/6/2021 at 2:32 PM, Perspective said:

 We have a common friend who undoubtedly knows this area of the law better than I do.  It might be worth reaching out to him if you happen to know any wild Turkey calls? 

Yes I will make the Turkey call next time I speak to him which would probably be about exposing frauds in our HSFB network (more details later).

 

I like how Perspective deflects to someone else while then putting on a dissertation that makes him seem like a tenured professor in the subject LOL.  That is why he is my "go to" guy for just about everything LOL.

[peezy28]

On 1/7/2021 at 11:01 PM, Jambun82 said:

Perspective, since you are evidently a lawyer, what would be the legal ramifications of a statement such as "Jambun82 is the smartest man alive?"  

Well its clearly a false statement so lets start there 

[peezy28]

On 1/8/2021 at 10:04 AM, Perspective said:

Hmmm, let's see . . .

"Smartest man alive" - likely a 'false statement of fact.'    Check. 

By posting the comment on this Board we can assume that at least one other person (likely DarterBlue) will read it, so it probably constitutes a 'communication to a third party.'  Check. 

There was a time when being a smart person was a good thing, but I'm not so sure about that any more.  Now, being smart just opens you up to ridicule and the stigma of being a nerd.  So, I think I could convince a jury that a comment to the effect that you're the smartest man in the world could 'harm your reputation or financial well-being.'  So, Check. 

In conclusion, I'm pretty sure you just defamed yourself. 

Today only, I'll offer to represent you -- both as the plaintiff and the defendant , although I'll need both of you to sign a conflict waiver.  I also will need substantial fee retainers from 'both' of you.  But don't worry about my astronomically high hourly rates; once you prevail against yourself, we can go after the losing party to recover those fees. 

Perspective

For the People (as long as I'm one of the people). 

 

 

 

This was like a Neutral observer story only shorter and much more hilarious LMAO

[peezy28]

On 1/8/2021 at 8:49 PM, Jambun82 said:

Thank you Perspective, but since you ended with "For the People" it makes me wonder if your work for THAT! law firm? lol 

Now this really might be defamation insinuating he works for Morgan and Morgan which could certainly damage his image/reputation.  Perspective do I need to call the Turk to represent you?

[DarterBlue2]

4 hours ago, peezy28 said:

Now this really might be defamation insinuating he works for Morgan and Morgan which could certainly damage his image/reputation.  Perspective do I need to call the Turk to represent you?

Troubling times do call for humor. Thanks!

[Jambun82]

11 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Yeah you mean like the people falsely claiming it is against the first amendment for a private company (I'll say Twitter) to shut down accounts for someone inciting a riot 

 

2 major problems that show it has nothing to do with the first amendment

 

1) the first amendment only applies to the GOVERNMENT restricting free speech, a private company is not under the same umbrella, it would be the same as someone telling their boss they smell like raw onions, you ain't gonna be able to use the first amendment to keep him from firing you because a private company isn't bound by those first amendment restrictions/protections (however someone chooses to view it)

 

2) the first amendment also has a clause that doing so wouldn't interfere with someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Therefore if you yell fire in a crowded theatre it would not be protected as doing so would put other's lives at risk and therefore not be protected so inciting a riot would interfere with that principle

 

 

 

Also the laughable comments that I saw with people claiming it was unconstitutional for a private business to require masks for entry, it would be as stupid as someone saying I don't want to wear clothes so therefore I should be allowed to go shopping naked and it's unconstitutional for the store to stop me

 

Some people clearly never read a single line of the constitution in their entire lives but would argue until I'm blue in the face about how right they are, honestly it's kinda pathetic

I thought that politics were banned from being talked about on this message board? 

[Jambun82]

14 hours ago, Perspective said:

No need to study that now, Jambun.  Just go on Facebook and you'll learn all you need to know.  Everyone posting there now is a constitutional law scholar. 

I think that I will pass Perspective. lol 

[Jambun82]

10 hours ago, peezy28 said:

Well its clearly a false statement so lets start there 

Yes, sorry about that, what I meant was "Jambun82 is the second smartest man alive after Peezy28." Thank you for helping me correct that. If there were more people like you, this world would be a much better place! 

[Jambun82]

10 hours ago, peezy28 said:

Now this really might be defamation insinuating he works for Morgan and Morgan which could certainly damage his image/reputation.  Perspective do I need to call the Turk to represent you?

Yes, I believe that I owe Perspective an apology. 

[DisabledAccount]

2 minutes ago, Jambun82 said:

I thought that politics were banned from being talked about on this message board? 

Then take it up with the person who first brought up the topic about the constitution

Oh wait that was you

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:28 PM, Jambun82 said:

I always have found Constitutional Law interesting. I wish that I would have studied that more in college. 

 

Your the one who started the conversation about the constitution in which I replied to presepective about an observation I made while seeing what he is describing but it's this two faced crap that is slowly making this board more a chore than a joy to post on

[Jambun82]

1 minute ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

Then take it up with the person who first brought up the topic about the constitution

Oh wait that was you

 

 

Your the one who started the conversation about the constitution in which I replied to presepective about an observation I made while seeing what he is describing but it's this two faced crap that is slowly making this board more a chore than a joy to post on

I made an innocent comment about an area of law that I was interested in. 

[badbird]

10 hours ago, Jambun82 said:

I made an innocent comment about an area of law that I was interested in. 

Someone had to take it to the next level.

 

Columbiafan stop riding the presidents D***.  Don't be that guy that brings up politics every time.  You're like the race card guy.   

You're just being a divider.  We have enough dividers in this world.  Time for most people with a brain to come together.