does this judge ever read the comments on youtube??
those people are downright racist, sexist, xenophobic and very direct. to say the least about simply googling hate sites.
give me a break. no matter how specific we all try to make this (e.g. libel/slander of a specific person/people), this is one gigantic slippery slope, and while yes, as with radio/telecommunications, the "public" owns the airwaves, and thus the "public" has a right to enforce appropriate conduct on the "airwaves," who exactly owns the internet?
hmm. i'd love to read his legal opinion for why this is ok. libel/slander is one thing legally, and harrassment - sexual or otherwise - is another. i wasnt aware you could "defame" a private citizen. From my recollection, the
libel/slander accusation is more appropriately applicable to organizations of great power (e.g. newspapers/TV stations), and suggest really that they are generating, repeating and/or disseminating a foul,
unproven rumour (to be very general) about a public figure. the Leshers ARE public figures because of the accusations, but frankly, people ARE allowed to have an opinion about them. that opinion may amount to harrasment. the point about libel/slander here is that organizations like these are considered to have an ethical responsibility to share only....well.....
truth. go ahead. laugh. its ok. crazy - i know. however, with regard to
libel and
slander,
truth has always been a perfect defense. in this case, I assume that the judge felt that since the trial exonerated the Leshers, statements to the contrary are therefore untrue? a very convoluted defense, imho.
the more alarming point in all of this for me is not with the internet expression: it is the sense that this ruling is a statement by Texas that common people are no longer going allowed to disagree with the decision of courts, and by extension, the legal system.
this is ridiculous:
More specifically, Plaintiffs are private figures, the allegations concern private matters, Plaintiffs incurred actual damages, and the Defendant acted with malice as it is defined under Texas law.
Alternatively, in the event that the Court determines that the issues are public, Defendants acted
with negligence, Plaintiffs incurred actual damages, and the Defendants acted with the requisite
actual malice (under federal law) and malice (under Texas law) necessary to support a finding of
exemplary damages. Alternatively, if the court finds that the Plaintiffs are public figures and the issues themselves are public, the Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages because the Defendants
acted with the requisite actual malice (under federal law) and malice (under Texas law)
necessary to support a finding of exemplary damages.
i also find it humorous that the petition had misspellings in it.