Or how about the fact that it was the editor and the guy who is very visible and responsible for the site making the comments? If these were just random anonymous posters, obviously different. Own the website and put your Stamp (or name) on it, you're responsible.Or should be.

Or how about the fact that it was the editor and the guy who is very visible and responsible for the site making the comments? If these were just random anonymous posters, obviously different. Own the website and put your Stamp (or name) on it, you're responsible.Or should be.

 

I agree overall but it seems to me it's similar to the libel/slander debate. There are times when you can say/print something that is damaging but not be guilty. I'd assume that's the legal debate here as well.

I agree overall but it seems to me it's similar to the libel/slander debate. There are times when you can say/print something that is damaging but not be guilty. I'd assume that's the legal debate here as well.

 

Everyone is responsible for their own posts online, the legal issue is, is someone like me (theguru) responsible for everyone else's posts on BGP or is Faceboook responsible for every post everyone posts on Facebook. According to the law the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. However, this ruling by Judge Bertelsman says that if a unique combination of facts exist the answer to the question may be yes. The problem is that makes the law/issue incredibly ambiguous so we need to hear from the court of appeals on this matter of law and potentially the Supreme Court.

Everyone is responsible for their own posts online, the legal issue is, is someone like me (theguru) responsible for everyone else's posts on BGP or is Faceboook responsible for every post everyone posts on Facebook. According to the law the answer is clearly and unequivocally no. However, this ruling by Judge Bertelsman says that if a unique combination of facts exist the answer to the question may be yes. The problem is that makes the law/issue incredibly ambiguous so we need to hear from the court of appeals on this matter of law and potentially the Supreme Court.

 

The difference between thedirty.com & BGP is that a user's post is uploaded directly to BGP. BGP's moderators are constantly reviewing the content, and there is a reporting system in place to report abusive posts which can be removed from the site.

 

It is my understanding that you SUBMIT a post to thedirty.com, it is reviewed, and it may either be posted or ignored. You cannot register for thedirty.com and begin posting pictures directly to the website under a pseudonym. This makes the website owner/creator responsible for the remarks since he picks & chooses which posts are made.

The difference between thedirty.com & BGP is that a user's post is uploaded directly to BGP. BGP's moderators are constantly reviewing the content, and there is a reporting system in place to report abusive posts which can be removed from the site.

 

It is my understanding that you SUBMIT a post to thedirty.com, it is reviewed, and it may either be posted or ignored. You cannot register for thedirty.com and begin posting pictures directly to the website under a pseudonym. This makes the website owner/creator responsible for the remarks since he picks & chooses which posts are made.

 

I understand completely. I am trying to make it easy for everyone to understand. All the different legal experts make it extremely difficult to sort through for the lay person.

 

In short, thedirty.com has been living on the edge of the law and when challenged about their stance/practices thedirty.com cranked up the heat (oversimplification on my part but it makes the point) and Judge Bertelsman ruled with this given set of unique circumstances the law (Communications Decency Act) does not shield thedirty from liability. In 5th grade terms, the Judge ruled thedirty was not being decent and therefore doesn't get protection under the Decency Act.

 

What ColonelCrazy is pointing out about BGP (and let's throw Facebook in for good measure) is we are decent and follow the law and therefore we are immune from the liability of third party content.

This case just oozes sleaze. Plaintiff, her representation, and defendant are all notoriously low character people. A convicted felon is suing a man who runs a sleazy gossip web site while represented by a lawyer who is on yet another suspension, but allowed to practice while he appeals.

 

What did Graham have to add. 'I did not have sex with that woman.......Jones'. That dude spent all of his free time trolling when he was in the 'Nati

 

She's not a convicted felon....

 

Some how she won, which is wrong. She doesn't get much money. When are the book/movie coming out so she can make more money for her misdeeds. Most people in her situation would rather fade away and hope everything dies down, but apparently she is hooked on the attention.

 

1) I don't believe there will be a book or movie unless written by someone else. 2) This lawsuit was started before her "situation" even came about so your argument is pointless. She even stated on social media the other day something along the lines of "can't wait until this is over so my face can stay off the news." So it sounds like she wants to be out of the spotlight (which by the way she never asked to be the center of attention).

If he's 1 million in debt and going through bankruptcy this case was clearly only for Deters to make news and for Jones to keep her name in the spotlight. Any other excuse seems fishy to me. Also Richey made a great point. Less than 10% of people that know about the comments now knew before she sued so its always been about attention.

To add to this if her ex husband didn't physically abuse her like she stated under oath he should sue her immediately.

I bet she is calling playboy this weekend looking to make more money off of this. Granted I think her face is busted and would never make it. I heard a a first hand story about Deters last night and wow he could be in a world of trouble over something completely different.

She's not a convicted felon....

 

 

 

.

 

You sure about that? She pled guilty to a felony in October 2012 that would make her a convicted felon wouldn't it?

Ms. Jones found a way to become to rich in the land of opportunity.

Ms. Jones found a way to become to rich in the land of opportunity.

 

Lets see if she actually gets paid.

You sure about that? She pled guilty to a felony in October 2012 that would make her a convicted felon wouldn't it?

 

"Sarah Jones, 26, admitted in court Monday to having sex with a 17-year-old student. She pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct, a misdemeanor, and custodial interference, a Class D felony. However, she received felony diversion, meaning that in five years, it will not be on her record."

 

I knew the sexual misconduct was a misdemeanor but I forgot about the custodial interference charge being a felony. That will be off her record though in five years.

Lets see if she actually gets paid.

 

She will not get paid. She will probably however have to defend herself in a lawsuit brought on by her ex husband for claiming he beat her.

She will not get paid. She will probably however have to defend herself in a lawsuit brought on by her ex husband for claiming he beat her.

 

I thought there was a protection order against the ex-husband? If so, protection orders are normally only issued after a Judge determined there was prior physical abuse.