[191075] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Zayo Extortion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Herrin)
Tue Aug 16 22:14:09 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
X-Really-To: <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <2803E274-0AFF-4AA5-B0D0-898457E34081@futuresouth.us>
From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 22:13:36 -0400
To: Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us>
Cc: Anne Mitchell <amitchell@isipp.com>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Jonathan Hall <jhall@futuresouth.us> wrote=
:
> if I=E2=80=99m not mistaken (don=E2=80=99t worry, I=E2=80=99m not) - this=
doesn=E2=80=99t count
> as =E2=80=98slander=E2=80=99 in any way, shape or form.
Jonathan,
Technically you're right, but not for the reason you think. Slander is
verbal defamation. Libel is written defamation. The original poster
has potentially exposed himself to a libel suit.
> This mail thread is not any kind of valid FCC controlled or public
> communications device, as the internet was actually excluded from
> the public communications device list under the Freedom of Speech
> Act in=E2=80=A6 Was it, 1996? Which means, =E2=80=98slander=E2=80=99 can=
=E2=80=99t be called in
> this case. You could argue that it can, but you=E2=80=99d lose in court i=
n the long run.
There is no such thing as the "Freedom of Speech Act" in 1996 or any
other year, and the FCC does not have the authority to nor has it
involved itself in the regulation of speech in any medium.
> If you=E2=80=99re aiming for the defamation card? That=E2=80=99s a very d=
ifficult one to prove.
It's actually very, very simple. Did the defendant allege one or more
facts about the plaintiff? Did the the alleged facts injure the
plaintiff's reputation? Did the defendant prove that the alleged facts
are true? Yes, Yes, No =3D liable for cash damages.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--=20
William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
