Sometimes it's best to turn the other cheek. Not Jonathan Goldsmith--a 2009 University of Las Vegas Law School Grad and Nevada Lawyer, who advertised on Facebook. Apparently, publishing written comments such as "faggot" and "pedophile" constitute slander per se? Am I missing something? Dare I say, the truth is an absolute defense to allegations of slander? I am kind of scared that I typed that. Will he sue me next?
Anyways, he's not even representing himself and this complaint is wrought with errors in my opinion. However, this isn't the type of case that I would take on. The author of this article points that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is an absolute defense to Facebook. For those of you, like me, that never heard of it: Section 230 basically says that you cannot sue a site like Google for any content posted by a 3rd party. Section 230 provides protection for online service providers and users from action against them for the actions of others, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." I do feel kinda stupid not knowing about Section 230, but does anyone out there have any idea how many laws are out there? I knock Goldsmith's firm for not researching the issue before drafting the complaint. And that slander-libel subtle distinction. That's kind of Torts, 1L year to me, don't you think? Here's the complaint for your perusal if you'd like to have a good chuckle:
Goldsmith v Cooper Complaint
Ta dah! Thanks, Tipster!
Basic Reasoning and Reading - Competent and good are not synonyms. Smart and good are not synonyms. Evil and competent are not synonyms. Virtues are not all moral virtues. Bravery is a ...
5 hours ago