Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

[almaty 19]

damn, i need to watch what i type here...

everyone you've ever called a chopfukc... can sue you now... how many million you got?

on my way to kazakhstan.////

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

everyone you've ever called a chopfukc... can sue you now... how many million you got?

Yeah, but you have to prove it's not true. LOL

Actually libel and defamation laws require the accuser to prove that what they're saying is true, not the other way around. So in order to win - you'd have to prove that so-and-so is a chopfcuk. Technically speaking.

The judge would have to be desperate for work (or busy with the ####### pump) not to throw this out.

Usually if you've been defamed/slandered/libelled you have to demonstrate that the accusations have 'damaged' you in some way (loss of job etc).

Weird.

Edited October 11, 2006 by erekose

[Heracles 417]

Another reason foreigners laugh at the US because of it's liberal legal system..

It was a trial by jury, knucklehead... (sue me)

aussies dont sue. we break bones..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Another reason foreigners laugh at the US because of it's liberal legal system..

It was a trial by jury, knucklehead... (sue me)

aussies dont sue. we break bones..

you should be more careful, then...brittle bones are not something to take lightly.

[Veiled Princess 1]

I want to publicly apologize for any negative remarks that may be derived or interpreted from any of my prior and future posts. We can settle our differences without the lawyers. So please don’t sue me! LOL!!!

I was just thinking the same thing

[Dean iWait 0]

Another reason foreigners laugh at the US because of it's liberal legal system..

Actually depends on what court district you are in. Some are quite conservative and some are quite liberal. I imagine there is a good chance this will be overturned on appeal.

[MrMrsKnight 0]

everyone you've ever called a chopfukc... can sue you now... how many million you got?

Yeah, but you have to prove it's not true. LOL

Actually libel and defamation laws require the accuser to prove that what they're saying is true, not the other way around. So in order to win - you'd have to prove that so-and-so is a chopfcuk. Technically speaking.

The judge would have to be desperate for work (or busy with the ####### pump) not to throw this out.

Usually if you've been defamed/slandered/libelled you have to demonstrate that the accusations have 'damaged' you in some way (loss of job etc).

Weird.

People still remember this?? Nice reference