RSS
Twitter
Judge Won't Blame Google For Usenet Postings
from the makes-sense dept
While some courts are still a bit confused concerning the liability of service providers online, it appears that one court had no problem at all dismissing a lawsuit against Google, concerning whether the company was liable for defamatory Usenet postings. As the judge quickly noted in dismissing the case, the Communications Decency Act pretty clearly carves out protection for service providers -- as it should. Google is simply providing a platform. If this guy is upset about the comments made about him, he should be going after those who made the comments -- not Google. You don't get to just sue the biggest or easiest company. You have a much better chance of winning if you actually sue those who did you wrong. Of course, the guy is vowing to appeal, so we probably haven't seen the last of this case.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Sigh ... haven't been here for a while. I think I like the old format better.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Idiot
Some people are such idiots and always trying to make a quick buck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
get rich quick
guess some people think that if they sue the 'big dog' they will have a bank account equal to 'the mcdonalds coffe spill'
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
He's needs to go sue each and every person that has any of his "property" in their internet cache too..
You know - they need a new law alright - how about one that says the ENITRE INTERNET is free-flow public domain information - any data posted in a public "forum" on the Web *is* public domain, period.
That would end all this BS.
If a site has a login or other access control - then it's not public and the information can be considered "property".
Right now, it's like leaving a copy of your book at the park and then bitching at the city because someone tore it up. Look, if you leave something open to the public - don't expect it to remain "safe".
Idiot - if he didn't want it copied, why did he post it on usenet? LOL, what a fool.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This jerk
The guy who sued Google is a brain-dead, scum sucking degenerate with the intellectual capacity of a four-year old goat.
Now, if that guy reads this, he'll sue TechDirt, not Smacky.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Know what you are talking about...
These days most people just spout off about the gossip they hear or the news they read and assume it's all 100% true. In this day and age, a quick google search is all you need to give you the facts. The Mcdonalds coffee case was in fact NOT a frivolous suit. Just google it and you will find this and many others.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Know what you are talking about...
The McDonalds suit was frivolous. Accidents happen. It doesn't mean you get rich from it.
And the guy and the internet. He's an idiot looking for a quick buck.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Know what you are talking about...
shyster> The Mcdonalds coffee case was in fact NOT a frivolous suit.
Well, whaddaya know, a shyster reads TechDirt.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
U guys are morons, Usenet is full of dung. besides people are trying to bring google down, that wont work though.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
And I rest my case... about people who believe everything they read and don't investigate for themselves. Or, perhaps I should have included a category for people who do finally see the facts and judge them from their myopic point of view. It takes all kinds...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
Common sense. You don't put a styrofoam cup between your knees and expect it to stay there. Law in this country is being based on the dumbest people in the country. Of course, the lawyers will always benefit from the stupid people. We have to protect the dumb ones from themselves.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Pimptology Professor
Look at your moniker again fella, and you're calling us morons!? What a maroon!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking about...
And you are absolutely correct Eric... however, knowing that their coffee was not just hot, but hot enough to cause such serious burns and not rectifing the situation is what got Mcdonalds into hot water (pun intended). Many, many people had already had their "lack of common sense" accident with their too hot coffee and that should have served as a warning to tone it down. Instead, they left the temperature the same and yet another was grievously injured, albeit, because of her own lack of "common sense".
Mcdonalds had the responsibility, after so many incidents, to realize that human nature and coffee this hot was not a good combination, and to lower the heat to a less injurious, though no less enjoyable to drink, level. I myself have temporarily put a cup (not Mcdonalds) of coffee between my legs while juggling between drive up window and my car, and have been burned quite badly when, while lifting the cup, the top came off in my hand. It was a lessoned learned, but because the company had the coffee at a less than scalding temperature, that lesson did not include 8 days in the hospital undergoing skin grafts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking about...
Mike, if I remember correctly the reason McDonalds kept the coffee so hot was because the customers wanted it that way. The coffee stayed hot longer after they bought it.
It just seems that lawyers have trained the public that any accident can be someone else's fault even though the victim did something stupid.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anonymou
I am in fact not a "shyster" as you say, but a union pipe-fitter, and not one of spurious repute. I am merely a purveyer of truth, sadly lacking at times in this world of ours. Misinformation is my foe and I merely strive to illuminate it, wherever I find it. And you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anon
shyster> Misinformation is my foe
Well, if you want to maintain that illusion, don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking abou
Yes, sadly, you are correct about what you say about how it "seems". The first words out of peoples mouths today are "I'll sue", whether they are at fault or not. The system seems crazy. People now ripp off their insurance companies with false claims, justifying their actions with statements like "after all the money I've paid them" and "everyone else does it, so...". They steal what they can from their employers, be it pencils and other office supplies, or any number of big ticket items. And, when a situation arises, they'll take full advantage of it, lying down in the road claiming all sorts of injuries, just to pad their pockets. In my line of work, construction, there are the low-lifes who think workmans compensation is a retirement ticket and look for any opportunity to fake an injury. But don't get me started, lol.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking
I work WC claims for one of the top 50 companies in the United States and alot of people are looking for a "free ride". Back in the late '70's lawyers were allowed to start advertising and it's been downhill ever since. Sue, sue, sue. Lawyers love it but it will kill this country someday.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
I'll bite coward. How does the story at the link I posted "refute" any of what I've said? My whole point was that that particular story has gained an urban legend type status regarding frivolous lawsuits. The article that I linked to is the epitome of support for my contention that that particular legendary example is not in actuality... frivolous.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I heard bill gates is going to sue techdirt because of defamatory comments posted by anonymous users following a post about microsoft.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
MIKE
I just wanted you to know that after what you said on the McDonalds case, I do plan to google the case. And if what you said about the 8 day stay is true, then I completely agree with you. Thanks for pointing out something I did not know.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Gordon Ray Parker "Ray Gordon"
Holly crap... this lawsuit (suing google groups) was brought on by Gordon Ray Parker, aka "Ray Gordon", that's absolutely amazing. Ten years ago, when I was single, there used to be and still is a usenet group where guys go for tips to pick up girls and this guy used to be a poster there (more of troll). His stuff was *so* bad, that's there wasn't a person that could possibly take his stuff seriously. Advice like "When you go to bar, sit alone, and speak with no-one, do not make eye contact with women, or speak with them. Girls will eventually come to you because you're mysterious." We would let him know how bad his advice was and he would scream that we were actually authors trying assault his writings, so we could sell our own "seduction" books and put him out of business. The guy lived with his Mom at 30, it's so crazy. He was just crazy and also trolled in the teen gymnastics groups, spewing comments towards them to the effect that they were all sluts and teen whores. I remember like 6 years ago he sued some University for reverse descrimination, about getting a job as a receptionist there. He also sued Apple telling them that by listening to his iPod all the time, it hurt his hearing permantly. Wow it's really amazing that he's making tremendous strides forward to letting the whole country know what an incredible nutball he is. He's probably going to sue me now :-).
-Andy
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment