

"Puerile" teen FB posts not libelous - computer not "dangerous instrument" - grellas
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463878334&Adolescents_Facebook_Posts_Found_to_Be_Puerile_but_Not_Actionable

======
Unseelie
Six million strikes me as an insanely high amount to go after. Not at all a
reasonable suit.

------
tibbon
So if I understand properly here, it isn't libel because the statements
weren't believable? If they were somewhat believable, then it would have been
libel?

~~~
Confusion
IANAL, but the wikipedia page for defamation[1] seems instructive. In short,
for something to be defamation, the defamatory statement must be "expressly
stated or implied to be factual". Another possibility would be that this was
"public disclosure of private facts"

So the first citation, this is not defamation, because it is not stated or
implied the statement was true. It would probably be comparable to a fictional
account. On the other hand, per the second citation, since it wasn't true, it
wasn't unlawful "public disclosure of private facts".

This seems to mean that in fiction, everything is fair game, as long as it is
clear it's fiction and you don't 'accidently' include facts.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation>

~~~
tibbon
Thanks for the link. So if the person being trolled DID have HIV/AIDS, and
they disclosed this fact publicly, then it might have been defamation right?

------
jacquesm
Only six million ? Sudden outbreaks of common sense like this should be more
common. Now for the judge to sanction the lawyer that brought this silly suit,
that would be justice.

------
jiganti
A very reasonable ruling, glad to a ruling that recognizes the ubiquity of
computers.

