its interesting that you say beware what you write. maybe you should listen to your own information. the article you wrote about the chrysler worker drinking at work is not true! i worked with him all day. we got off work at 3:30 pm and he was pulled over at 8 pm. thats alot of time between to drink outside of work. get your facts right before you print and slander a man let alone the belvidere plant.

"Don’t be nasty: That’s easy for me to say, but it shouldn’t be that hard. The primary purpose of comments is to allow people to share their thoughts and opinions on important topics and issues. You can cover a lot of ground without dumping on someone else."
I hope you didn't write the editorial about Jennifer Keach. Because it was just plain mean and nasty.

Evansvillehousewife, I just now read all the posts on this blog since August 25th. I think the posters on here turned this into "Evansvillehousewife beware: You could be sued". What is up with that? You posters attacking this person should be ashamed of yourselves. This is not high school nor is it the locker room. Everyone, including posters you do not like, have a right to post on here. Leave this person alone! They are not harming you even if they tell a fib from time to time. We all have done it and DON'T deny it!!!! Are you so bored you need to rant and rave to one poster to make yourself look smart or are you just bored? IF you are trying to look smart, you failed miserably! Ehousewife, take all these posts with a grain of salt because that is all they are worth!

An attack can always be accurately construed with anger as a motive.

MsKari: A pill would be the worst thing an individual could take for anger. A period of reflection, with some time spent regarding the issue- would be much better. Or perhaps a conversation with a confidant who has a fresh perspective.
But hey, if your reaction to life's little bumps is to pop a pill, who am I to stop you? Just don't drive, okay?
I'm lost as to where the "anger issue" comes from. If you can't get into an anonymous, fleeting, conversation without anger, fine, but don't project it onto me, whoever "me" may be. Lawyer, ditchdigger, chicken raiser, or CPS worker (all of which I have been accused of being) whatever I post here, it's in amusement only.

If there is any emotion I feel, it's utter amazement at how anonymouses get angry, and need info on the other anonymouses to somehow validate themselves. if you notice, I don't ask occupations, I don't ask ages,sex, locations, or income, OR whether you raise chickens, because it's not something I am remotely interested in. Nor do I care about marital status... or censorship. All of which have been attributed to me here.
Honestly- assuming my marital status on my username and my assertion on the facts of what libel is? I'm just glad I didn't get my first choice username, gay_glittery_unicorn.

Jvillerdr- you lie, plain and simple.

" 1) She suggested that there would need to be a pattern of conduct to prove a libel claim. "

Lie #1. Show me where i said this. I never said establishment of a pattern was proof. You made this up. A single statement can constitute a libel claim.
"My point is that in my professional OPINION, there is not much danger for libel here unless someone launches a repeated, malicious, and false campaign against someone who would suffer damages."
This was my quote: it applies to THIS forum only; and it does not encompass any and all claims.

Also, "suggestion" is a subjective term. It has no place here. Statements and facts, please.

. (2) She suggestd that only "malicious" comments, or the like, could support a libel claim. Also false: the intent of the speaker is immaterial for cases involving private individuals against private individuals (see Wisconsin Jury Instruction 2501

"Suggestion" is a subjective term. It has no place here. Statements and facts, please.

Great, you can quote a jury instruction from a civil lawsuit. That's nice.
But again, I never said "only" malicious comments could support a libel claim; I also made the VITAL INCLUSION that FALSE statements also constitute a libel claim. ALSO, statements that cause DAMAGES. So again, either you never actually READ my posts, or you just want to exclude certain facts.

You have also ignored the fact that libel cases do not only involve individuals; they involve LLCs, Incs, the press, like oh, say, the GAZETTE. Google up some jury instructions on, oh, say, Trump vs. Chicago Tribune. You'll need access to UW's online law database for that though.

Lie #3 (you can pack them in!) The claim that convincing a jury of doubt as to the identity of a poster would assume a individual lies under oath. Huh? You've decided an imaginary case with imaginary evidence.

And about "real lawyers" eschewing legalese? Again, thanks for the 3-ply.

How's that class-action lawsuit (you know, the ones with the imaginary plaintiffs) coming along? How is your fact-finding regarding my "proof of non-contractual conduct?"

Concernedvoter,

Sometimes, monitoring comments becomes more trouble than it's worth for us. When two sides are making charges and countercharges that we can't verify, we sometimes just shut down the thread. We don't have the time or inclination to sort out who's telling the truth and who isn't. That's what happened here. We didn't do it to help one side or the other. We wouldn't do that.
As for the ad, the news folks have no control over that. It's paid space, and anyone can buy it. We don't know who's buying it, and we don't care. It does not affect our decision-making. Period.

Scott Angus

I understand the points that Scott Angus is trying to make. What I don't understand is The Gazette completely stifling the comments of its readers. A recent article about the challenger for the Coroner race was ran and now ALL the comments on that article have been eradicated and new ones are not being accepted. Now, I can see if certain comments were taken off because of some of the reasons the Editor listed above, but all of them? Seems like censorship. I would like Mr. Angus to explain that!
Also, I find it slightly suspicious that soon after that there is a flashing paid advertisement for Ms. Holder(Coroner challenger) on this website. Could it be a coincidence? Yes. Is it? I don't know?

ehousewife..You need a pill dear. Maybe an anger management class or something..

TalkingMonkey, maybe it would help you to understand that there's hostility in billnewbie's post if you take special note of his magical thinking.

TalkingMonkey, read my two posts prior to billnewbie's, then read billnewbie's. It is he who didn't read what is there. He says there is libel in my posts, there is no libel in my posts. As a matter of fact, his claim that there's libel in my posts comes close to being libel itself.

If you can't see that, plus the hostility in his post, it is you who are seeing something that isn't there while not seeing what is there. Do you really think his post is just a matter of relaying information, like mine is?

Gfan, you're seeing something that isn't there. Someone disagrees with you and suddenly they are "hostile"? C'mon dude, get over your lack of empathy, as in not being able to hear what they are really saying, not what you think you heard.

billnewbie, the nature of your hostile response to my post reflects your inability to conjure up the courage to face the real world.

You took a clear understanding of a problem and only responded with drilling holes to let the demons out.

It is you who's been outed.

"How can this conversation about her take place without mentioning her name?" For the same reason I didn't have to call you out by name as her chief libeler. I knew you would recognize yourself in my posts and respond just as I knew you and others would recognize her. I consider your responses to my posts as a "mea culpa" of your own, even if it was unwitting, especially in light of the tortured logic you use to rationalize your libel.

billnewbie, there would be nothing wrong with claiming "pariahlize" as a legitimate construction -especially if there is no other word that serves your intended meaning. Legitmate constructions are how some new words are established.

On another issue, I detest corruption and bad behavior in government. If her claims about the city, county, and federal governments were true, I'd be on her side. Her problem is that her claims are not true -horribly not true. If you don't accept the feedback about her that comes by way of comments here, then, judge her by the fact that she fails to garner anywhere near a competitive vote tally during her numerous runs for council. Factor in that now more than ever people are disgruntled about incumbents, good or bad. Yet she does not benefit from that disgruntlement. There's your gauge. Comments about her here are indicators as to why she can't get elected.

She did make the statements I said she made in my previous posts. Find out what she says and does and judge her by that.

And all the negative commentary about her on this site does not come from your adversaries on another issue.

And ask yourself these questions: How can this conversation about her take place without mentioning her name? What has made her that well known by description alone? Is it for something good or for something bad? If it's for something good, why hasn't she been voted into office so she can replace an incumbent?

maxdetai, I like aggressive women. It saves me a lot of time. It's true she has a glib presentation. But she's not being judged on her presentation. She's being judged on her wild claims about people in government. She is also being judged on her behavior, including her behavior that has cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Judge her by her behavior and her statements about others, including people in our local governments.

I to can point out a few "mea culpa's" of my own. We all get irritated, and we all respond in ways we shouldn't, myself included. one of the points I was trying to make is that there are some who purposefully set out to do these things. Another is that responding in kind is not justifiable.

Maxdetail, the reason I put "paraihize" in quotes is because it's not really a word. I did come up with it on my own but as with almost all of my inventions, someone else beat me to it. It doesn't pronounce well, I'll grant you that.

I've never met the lady in question myself. For a time, I allowed the opinions of others to shape an image of her in my mind. I reject that image now. Not because I have any new information, but because many of those who condemn her have proven themselves to have serious character flaws of their own. I am mindful of whose council I take.

And before everyone rushes to correct me, yes, I know that libel involves written statements and slander involves oral statements; they are both covered in the jury instruction for defamation by a private individual against another; it refers to the intent of the "speaker (author)."

She DOES play a mighty direct devil's advocate, which could be easily misconstrued.

BillN, I will allow that maybe I should have used a different tack in responding to evil housewife. What "irritated" me in this thread was that she was giving false information about the law that could have gotten other people in trouble if they relied on it, and then bashing other people when they disagreed with her with the insinuation that she actually knew more than they did. Here are the specific concerns I had: (1) She suggested that there would need to be a pattern of conduct to prove a libel claim. That is false; a "pattern" is not an element of a libel claim, though if proven, it could be relevant to whether punitive damages were warranted. (2) She suggestd that only "malicious" comments, or the like, could support a libel claim. Also false: the intent of the speaker is immaterial for cases involving private individuals against private individuals (see Wisconsin Jury Instruction 2501). (3) She suggested that people could evade responsibility by the simple artifice of claiming they weren't using the computer at the time. There are at least two problems with this: First, the burden of proof is not 100 percent certainty, but a civil standard of proof sufficient to convince the jury of that fact; and second, it assumes that the defendant would lie under oath at a deposition or in court when asked, as s/he inevitably would be, whether s/he typed the statement in question. Evil housewife was berating other people for disagreeing with her, and that, together with this false information, may be what, more than anything, makes her a "pariah," if indeed that is the case. I don't think it's okay for her to attempt to censor other posters, especially when it's to disseminate false and potentially harmful information that attempts to undermine Mr. Angus' entire point. If I went about it the wrong way, mea culpa.

Bill, can you actually SAY the word 'pariahize' or only spell it. I tried to say and darn near swallowed my tongue (so be careful.)
.
When I met the 'lady in question' I was totally shocked. The way she had been demonized in print and picture I fully expected a loud mouthed she-man who was self-absorbed and too radical to have any practical purpose.
.
Instead, she was soft-spoken, exuberant, generous and possesses an amazing conviction to help people that all the 'right kind of people' would never raise a finger to help. She's no saint but she certainly isn't the devil some make her out to be. She's not shy and her enthusiasm might get the best of her at times but she's not the one-dimensional whack job that the Gazette has pictured her as. I suppose there are still some folks who are not comfortable with an aggressive woman.
.
Bill is correct, Frogger, you're buying gossip and hearsay and re-selling it as fact and news. Be careful.

billnewbie, in what way was she libeled?

And, she claimed that the guy who tried to hire a hitman to murder a Janesville councilman was framed for the purpose of taking attention away from that councilman's behavior.

And, she claims that the reason the government is against lead paint is because they can't see through lead when they attempt to survail your home.

Statements like these are important when it comes to evaluating her horrible claims about hard working city employees and other people. I won't repeat her horrible claims are here.

Again, how would you know she was libeled? Are you aware of what she says?

"She is an insufferable and unabashed know-it-all who obviously doesn't know a lot of what she purports to". So then, Jvillerdr, since you are sufficiently irritated by her opinions, it's OK to make a pariah of her? She deserves it? Even if "She goes out of her way to be nasty, personal, and to make low blows that have nothing to do with the issues she's discussing", does that justify responding in kind? And when you do, do you get the results you seek? She seems unfazed to me. So not only are the efforts to "pariahize" Evansvillehousewife unjustified, they don't even work. In the end, all those who slam her have accomplished is to assuage their own egos a little. Unfortunately, not all posters are as thick skinned as Evansvillehousewife.

"Somebody who cannot follow rules should not have a chance to run for council AT ALL!!" I can't agree with that statement. None of the examples you listed, Frogger, are felonies. Most can be construed as misguided attempts to protect her own interests. Certainly you can say she's not qualified to hold office. You can actively campaign against her using the examples you posted as evidence of your opinion that she's unfit for office, but she has every right to run, and she and her supporters have every right to try to make a case that she is fit for the office she has every right to run for. Just as you have a right to oppose her.

When you make a statement like this, "I know people who have dealt with her in the Realtor business. They too have stories of her LIES!" That's not posting something you know to be true. What someone else tells you about her may well be false. That source may be slandering her and by you posting what you've heard here it then becomes your libel. Just because she's been thoroughly "pariahized" in your opinion is not justification to post such a comment. You really should be more careful. Don't let your hatred of her cloud your judgment. As Mr. Angus said, the Gazette will not protect you.

Billn, I have no opinion about the city council figure but to describe evil housewife as a victim is silly. She goes out of her way to be nasty, personal, and to make low blows that have nothing to do with the issues she's discussing. She is an insufferable and unabashed know-it-all who obviously doesn't know a lot of what she purports to, and while I agree with max and others that this point has been made sufficiently, I don't think anyone needs to repent for responding strongly to posts by people who deliberately provoke confrontation.

"billnebie, given your subject's well deserved reputation for having a credibility problem, GazetteXtra has managed comments about her very well." Oh, I see. As long as a person had been sufficiently (and deservedly, in the opinion of some) derogated, either in the newspaper or elsewhere, then that person may be libeled. What nonsense. That's like saying that those who post "unprovoked digs" may be freely targeted for in-kind "digs", that 2 wrongs make a right.

That is an example of one of the problem with these kind of anonymous blogs. Some posters seem intent on making pariahs out of other posters. Once one is sufficiently "pariahized", some feel justified in posting any kind of comment aimed at such a person that comes to their minds. The candidate I refereed to is one such example. Evansvillehousewife is another. The difference is that the candidate is a real person so that the libel posted against her has the potential to do real, measurable damage. Posters such as Evansvillehousewife and that candidate are targets of such attempts to "paraihize" not for any noble purposes, these are simply attempts to silence them and many others as well on the grounds that they find their opinions objectionable. That's not the purpose the Gazette had in mind when they established these comment boards. Yet many of these "trolls" who "pariahize" have been effective in driving away folks who've done nothing more that post what they think and have been excoriated for it.

maxdetail"I'll never forget the picture of her being HANDCUFFED that the Gazette ran."

Again she brings it on herself. If you follow the rules and STAY behind the line you will NOT get arrested. SIMPLE!

The Gazette follows the news and she likes to make scenes.

billnewbie" personal attacks that the Gazette editors have not removed that occurred while she was not a candidate."

ALL FACTS about here were stated.

I love the one how she says city is out to get her. If you review facts of her stupid barn she was told to fix it. SHE DID NOT FIX IT UNTIL they said it is coming down. Then and ONLY THEN did she fix it WITH OUT proper permits. I would say this is good reason it was taken down. If it wasn't done to code it would be taken down.

She brings this one herself is the FACTS!!!!

If you read the papers you can find all this info.

She also said she would list the case building for around $85k- Assessed value is around there. READ THIS FOR YOURSELF in one of the first articles about the Case building for sale. SO, why list for $250k and ask city to buy it. LIES. Trying to pass junk off to the city????
Kid stop giving this lady stuff to smoke.

I know people who have dealt with her in the Realtor business. They too have stories of her LIES!


The coop on the empty lot is also NOT CODE. It had to come down.
If somebody complains they check it out. FOLLOW the rules. You are not special. NO more special than the rest of us who live in this town and FOLLOW the laws.


Somebody who cannot follow rules should not have a chance to run for council AT ALL!!

I agree.

Oh, I've CERTAINLY been on the receiving end of e-ville-h-wifes blistering rhetoric. I just thought the criticism of her was sufficiently made and that we don't need to turn this into a pile on. She doesn't need me to defend her, she has thick skin and can dish it out with a shovel.

Ewife, I would love to meet for coffee sometime. I bet we would both be suprised on well we would get along. You are obviously very intelligent and I could learn something from you.

maxdetail, Sadly, Evillehw leaves the impression that she is a very angry person. It has been my experience that in order to maintain that level of anger, one must nurture it, deliberately feed the anger to keep it going. Stoke those fires on purpose. I tend to avoid people who spend their lives dwelling on the negative all the time. They suck the joy out of every moment. Not my cup o' tea.

-
Everyday, no matter what the circumstance of one's life we CHOOSE how to face them. I'd rather find the things I'm thankful for, and "count my blessings" than replay old hurts and slights that may or may not have been real to keep the fires of negativity going. In my opinion there few things sadder than someone who refuses to find anything good about their lives or those around them, but it is a choice.

Max, I usually agree with you but I have to draw the line at making flat-out false representations about the law to the general public and purporting to give "professional opinions" based on complete hogwash. That said, I agree with TJ that this has indeed gotten old. I think at this point there is no danger anyone will take those "professional opinions" seriously and so my work here is done.

billnebie, given your subject's well deserved reputation for having a credibility problem, GazetteXtra has managed comments about her very well.

And the Gazette print edition has been more than generous in giving her coverage for her "view points."

Leave evansvillehousewife alone, she's a lady of great eclectic interests with strong opinions and she's not afraid to speak up. At least you can't accuse her of being middle of the road. So she has strong convictions, no need to gang up on her. She is always interesting and gets the juices flowing.

WELCOME TO THE EVANSVILLE HOUSEWIFE BLOG FEATURING HER MANY CRITICS. PLEASE DON'T CONTRIBUTE, IT'S GOTTEN REAL OLD.....

You make a great point Bill, I always been a bit shocked at the seeming free-for-all that goes on regarding that colorful lady. I'll never forget the picture of her being HANDCUFFED that the Gazette ran. The paper doesn't like her.

(The following is meant to be voiced in a caring, understanding tone)
The proof of concept is in your response, Ewife. I think you are just ticked off because of your poor marital choice and you are taking it out on us poor commenters. For instance, I never said smoking was harmless, only that "white" sugars increase any cancerous factors. More proof that you only see what you want to see because you are so angry.

The irony from some of the posts below is only exceeded by the hypocrisy of a few. "If unprovoked digs are not handled correctly, then, that's all you'll get from certain people." Sheesh!

I've noticed that in some stories, blatant libel seems to be allowed. I'm referring to a particular member of this community who has made many enemies, especially among Gazette comment posters. It's true that while she was a candidate more than once for city council libel laws concerning such public figures are considerably less restraining, but she has been the target of some rather nasty personal attacks that the Gazette editors have not removed that occurred while she was not a candidate. When you let libelous statements stand against unpopular people for no apparent reason other that they are unpopular, you encourage the libel you are now warning against, Mr. Angus.

"And I sure wouldn't take advice from someone who thinks he could file a class action suit based on non-contractually based conduct."

I think this may the most legally ignorant statement ever made. You make retired air force look like a legal genious!

Thanks for the laughs, evil. Don't fret all night; it's unlikely anyone will bother suing you for any actual damages, as anyone would realize based on your posts that you are almost certainly judgment proof. Your biggest risk is probably an action against you to abate a public nuisance.

rr loses his temper and spouts:You've already made it clear that you are the world's most foremost legal expert, on whose advice everyone should rely exclusively.
****
Nope never said that- but hey, thank you for thinking so. If it were true I'd still be in NYC.
And I sure wouldn't take advice from someone who thinks he could file a class action suit based on non-contractually based conduct.
Did the OLR office annex need toilet paper? Thanks for switching us to three-ply.

BTW, real lawyers try to eschew legalese. Only wannabes brag about trying to use it. I think we know which you are.

evil housewife, so you think a contract can't be made by conduct -- great! Keep sharing these insightful legal tidbits, please! And oh, it really hurts so much that you don't think I know anything about the law. Who cares? You've already made it clear that you are the world's most foremost legal expert, on whose advice everyone should rely exclusively. But just to save time for the court reporter, put "Exhibit No. 9,432" in the lower right-hand corner of your next post.

Evil housewife seems fitting.
*************************
You are making a huge fool of yourself by trying to prove your intelligence.
*******************
Yay for anonymity

Aw GEEZ, Mr. Angus! Disabling comments on the Walzcak story fresh out of the gate? REALLY?

It's a good interview, to be sure. But was this libel article paving the way for it, and you decided not to allow comments anyway? Bummer.

Oh, and rdr- your disclaimer? Not worth the 2 calories it took to type it. Utterly meaningless. But revealing in your lack of legalese.
*************
Talking Monkey, my friend! The oppressed groundbreaking scientist who believes that Hydrocarbons and Carbohydrates are one and the same! Have you done any reading on Oncogenes lately? Here's a starter: look into the REST gene recently discovered at the UW. Exciting news, that.
I know you believe that it's white sugar (those darn white Hydrocarbons, hee hee) and lack of pure water that causes cancer, and that cigarette smoke is truly harmless, but really. It's worth checking out.

Produce my state bar number? Why? Why not just ask my name? Are you trying to show you have some legal experience by "placing a call to the OLR"? (To check if they need more toilet paper when you make your custodial delivery, no doubt)
Another person trying for personal info. Who needs a conspiracy theory when I have two people on one thread desperate to find me?
************************************
But I am convinced you're not the persona that makes up
evillproud/rodgersfan/muppet.
Regarding your statement about suing me for legal malpractice- in a class action no less- Just stating that shows you have not the slightest clue what you're talking about. Here's a hint: lack of contracts.
**************
Nice try though. It's refreshing to see someone write a compound sentence with predicates and modifiers. REALLY refreshing.

gazettefan~ start getting used to life in striped pajamas and stainless steel toilets my friend! :)

She loves to argue. Almost as if she has nothing better to do to make herself feel better about herself. Sue me.

Boo, That wouldn't surprise me, but she doesn't have this screen name. She does have a wealth of conspiracy theories about everyone else though. I doubt the practice of multiple screen names is as widespread as she supposes.

evil housewife, I don't claim to be a doctor. "rdr" is short for reader -- not that it matters, except that you are so quick to attack everyone for the most specious of reasons. And you're wrong; lawyers frequently talk informally about suing people. But nice try baiting my on my occupation. It won't work. I am, however, confident that you are no lawyer. If you are, produce your state bar number -- I have a call to make to OLR. (As you would say: "Quick: google that to find out what it stands for . . . .") Malpractice, by the way, is a claim that's based on giving bad legal advice. And yes, nonlawyers can get sued for that, too.

Im beginning to wonder if evansvillehousewife is logging in as all the other posters in order to argue with herself.

Uh, you are no Dr unless you are the "PhD from an online University" principal that just got fired. Nor are you a lawyer- a lawyer does not sue someone, he counsels and represents the party that is suing.

So, since you don;t have evansville in your name.... why are you thinking that anyone would associate you with my username? Did you get confused and forget you ere not logged in as evilleproud? Hmm...deciding I'm guilty of malpractice.... showing anger...and siding with evansvilleproud. It WOULD make sense if you were all the same person.

And how, exactly, do you plan on rounding up my clients? Do tell. And perhaps you could expound on the malpractice allegation, since you know so much about libel. I'm sure you'll do a fine job of explaining your case.

I can't wait to sue evil housewife for malpractice when someone relies on her "professional" legal opinions to their damage. Class action, here we come! And please, everyone else, do not associate everyone from/in Evansville with the housewife or anyone else with that name in the screen post; I for one disclaim any association.

BTW- she would be offended to know somebody has taken her name in vane!!!!

envansivilleproud- "Why have you not posted as Hannah lately?

Are these example questions?

I have found out who hannah is and will not tell you who she is but she IS watching. This IS the truth.

Muppets/proudevil/rodgersfan :why do you think Mr.Agnus is going to bail you out? He can see you are just as guilty. He can read your comments like everyone else.

Um, no, he can test out his theory about libel suits. There is no bailing out here. Just his part in submitting information referred to in the subpeona. You're certainly not very smart about legal process for someone who "works in a law firm", are you?

Quick! Log out and get a different username now!

Sarah B1: 1) No, there is no insanity plea in a civil lawsuit, and even in most criminal cases. Also, in a civil case where someone who is legally insane that is liable for damages usually has a guardian or power of attorney. They might be held as a defendant as an executor of the defendant's estate.
2) What gathering are you referring to? And why would this cancel it?

why do you think Mr.Agnus is going to bail you out? He can see you are just as guilty. He can read your comments like everyone else.

You seem to be your own worst enemy.

Like a kid on the playground who throws sand and then cries when another child throws some back and you get it your eyes and cry about the other child throwing sand.

evansvillehousewife, Any point you tried to make has been lost by the hysterical tone you've taken in the last hour or so. At this point, you're being baited into responding. Let it go. You're not accomplishing anything by continuing this argument. The people who disagree with you, will continue to disagree. And frankly, the rest of us are tired of it.

Mr. Angus, Thanks for the reminder. We should all think before we speak. That's just common courtesy. Advice every parent has offered our children at one time or another. Something else I told mine: is what you say next going to make the situation better? Or worse?

evansvillehousewife, you were the one making those same threats. You are the one who admits to multiple handles.

A judge would laugh you out of court. Because supporting evidence could and I sure would be given that you did the same thing.

No one tried to extract personal info from you. That require them demanding to know how and where you live or other personal info.

That has happened.

You keep spouting the same thing but you are the instigator.

Well to get even a temp restraining order it would have to be some think like bullying which is a crime.

So far you are the biggest bully on this forum/topic.
Yes someone could get a restraining order against you. That is not false.

However it would be temporary, you or anyone else would never get a regular one based on these comments.

Temp yes, but a regular restraining order is harder to get. It is meant for those truly in danger like abused woman!!!!

You have created your own mess.

Um, no muppets/evillproud/rodgersfan. (Your writing and phrases are so repeateable... "bulletproof""dish it out"... give it up, everyone can tell you're the same desperate person.)

Perhaps you have realized that legal fact has nothing to do me personally, yet on a public board you have tried to extract personal identifying information.
Then, you've made claims that I could be charged with a crime (false) and that a restraining order could be put against me by someone. (also false)

Talk about libel... you've just committed a perfect example.
*Cracks knuckles*
Way to go. I may just go and file something, you know , on principle.
Mr Angus? Care to try out your article's premise?

another thing you may not realize it but your lies and different scenarios you have used in your different posts.

Not just this one. But in just the couple dozen I read through, you change your occupation, you admit to lying, to posting under different handles.

Your different scenarios are all in black and white.

You are just as guilty as those you accuse, yet you seem to think you are so picked on.

Damages your credibility. You would have a very hard time in court as all one would have to do is pull out the records from your posts. It would not leave you in a good light.

psychotic neighbor?? From your postings here I would wonder if that is not you. You are the one who can not let it go.

Your posts show that you don't like being told you are wrong.

Take your chances . But your inconsistency or lies in some of those posts do not benefit you any way.

Stick with what you know to be true. Do get so upset when some one disagrees with you.

Keep it fun.

evilleproud claims:"Based on the comments I saved from that article someone could easily have her charged and get a restraining order as well."

Please, do get that RO on the comments you have "saved". Those, along with the multiple usernames, would prove a libel case against you quite nicely.
And pray tell, who is the imaginary "someone?" Remember dearie, you need a FACT and not an opinion.

Just keep talking evansvillehousewife that is all evansvilleproud or anyone else needs is for you to keep talking.

You are proving their point for them.

Let it go everyone else did.

gazettefan, That's a great general intro on the GENERAL difference between libel and slander.

My point is that in my professional OPINION, there is not much danger for libel here unless someone launches a repeated, malicious, and false campaign against someone who would suffer damages.

This is because of the legal FACTS that would have to be proven.

Could someone sue me? Sure.I'm just not scared to death of frivolous lawsuits. I'm much more concerned about a person who has been tagged as me by a psychotic neighbor.

Nah, let me correct that. I'm really not all that concerned.

I still wonder why this was even brought up-the only thing i can think of is that Mr. Angus wanted someone to tidy up their postings.

Wow, what's in the water in Evansville?

Generally, here's the difference between slander and libel. Slander is mere speech that isn't transmitted over an additional medium such as print, airwaves, or the internet. It is speech only. For example, someone says something bad about you that isn't true, and no other medium is involved (e.g. your neighbor says something bad about you to another neighbor). Remember "s" in "slander" as a clue for "speech" only.

Libel is when a lie is transmitted over one or more of the above mentioned media. Libel not only includes transmitted speech but also includes a lie that originated only in printed form.

For "hurt feelings" to be a justifiable cause of action, psych-biz has to be involved. Professionals have to document that the plaintiff sustained clinical psychological damage.

Loss from a damaged reputation is a separate cause of action, but can be in conjunction with psychological damage.

Scott you strike no fear into me. There are ways to mask ones identity (if your savoy enough) where even some of the best web hunters/security pros/hackers can't track a person down. Stick to editing this only source of news in this town. Stay out of thing you have no clue about.

evileproud scribbles...You seem to want to be able to spew your opinions and not have anyone disagree with you...
You are on the wrong for that....
That is what this site is for opinions."

Care to tell me how, exactly, the need to prove identity, damages, intent, publications, etc in a libel suit are OPINIONS? NO. They are STATUTES. LEGAL FACTS. And they have NOTHING to do with chickens and whether or not I own them.
Your OPINION is since I am right in what constitutes a libel case, and you are wrong, I am targeting you. That is false, you are stupid enough all on your own to make yourself a target.

evilleproud contradicts herself yet again:
"That is what this site is for opinions."

No, it is for FACT. This is an article about legal basis for libel suits in a newspaper message forum. You can't base a legal case on OPINION.

"If you want to take the chance of being sued."

Incomplete sentence- but yet a bit ironic given that you are the individual who has multiple usernames and no legal facts to go on.

"Go ahead spew your rants."

And the post below, by you, which has nothing to do with the FACTS at hand, is just what exactly? Just someone, please, get a restraining order against me with no legal basis, because, you know, i "pretend" to be a lawyer and I hurt evilproud's feelings and she really doesn't think I have chickens!
Yeeah. Just go to court with that info and ask for an RO. Really.

"Most people can post opinions with out lying or distorting the facts.
In the end its all opinion."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion- but no one is entitled to their own facts. You should learn that.

*********
Which brings me back to my original point to Mr. Angus- it is much more likely that a person will be wrongly targeted and harassed than a civil lawsuit brought. In this case, (which would be criminal rather than civil) it would take roughly 2.5 seconds for a WARRANT to reveal IP and login times. (LEOS get PDQ.)

In which case, evilleproud, you would be totally, utterly screwed.

doseman- Again, you are fearing the legal system because you are uninformed. it is a common misconception among those unfamiliar with civil court that you can sue people for hurting your feelings. It's not true. There are certain FACTS you must prove and I have said it over and over again here what constitutes a libel case.

Mr. Angus, thank you for your article. Hopefully, people will begin to post comments that relate directly to the content of an article. Hopefully, the comments will become more intelligent. It would be nice to see more of these types of postings versus the ones that only indicate the poster is using the forum to simply vent about whatever is on their mind or to profess his/her knowledge with egotistical and demeaning undertones . Many postings have nothing to do with what the article was/is about. Many use this forum to lash out at each other and the commentary takes off on a path completely unrelated to the article's content.

It is interesting to see that after you tried to warn poeple of the consequences to their postings that some people are defensive and angry. You are simply trying to make them aware that total anonymity does not exist and legal recourse can occur.

But there are postings with comments truly worth reading. Those postings generate good, healthy discussion. A good debate can be enlightening. Everyone has an opinion and it can, and should, be shared in a respecful manner.

The Gazette has provided people with an opportunity to have a voice through posting comments. Unfortunately, some people often portray a different agenda in comments being made. And, unforetunately some people cannot use good discretion in what he/she says. A screening process would be good, however, people have a responsibility to use common sense and to think about the consequences of the words being posted.

I posted warnings about this very topic earlier this week in a few blogs. Lawsuits can and will happen. You are not protected by your screen name in court. Be very careful. All it takes is a perception that a comment is libel or slander and off to court you go!!!

If you are not slandering someone or lying why would you need a block?

no one in they right Mind posts Without using an IP blocks do they.

fool_on_the_hill- I am a little maybe. Some what disturbing.

But this is what happens when comments are just posted without any reviewing them.

I hope with their new system some of this changes.

Is anyone else appreciating the ensuing irony here?

Now evansvillehousewife the comment about the amish was funny. Sick that it happened but funny that you mention it.

but evansvillehousewife you are not innocent, and have targeted many as shown by your posts on this topic. If you can not take it, do not dish it out. You seem to want to be able to spew your opinions and not have anyone disagree with you.

You are on the wrong forum for that.

That is what this site is for opinions.

If you want to take the chance of being sued. Go ahead spew your rants.

Most people can post opinions with out lying or distorting the facts.

In the end its all opinion.

ozzman- I'm still waiting for the Fennimore Amish Bestiality story to surface! Hot!

I do agree with you tjrockcounty it should be fun. I enjoy many of the comments on here and have found I have learned a lot from certain people on certain topics.

evillproud:
WOW. Really.
You are obsessed with me.
That whole incomprehensible rant was nothing but random soap opera opinions- about me. Awwww.

Raoul_duke: Not at all. Critiques are vital to developing style. Shoot away, you had a valid point that I had to address and I appreciate it.

Ok, stop the Evansville-Poster bashing. We all have to stop taking things so personally (including me). We all have good and bad arguments on things it all depends on our perspective and who's reading. At the end of the day this is all entertainment, nothing more.

Gazette Staff: Do yourself a favor and automatically disable comments for any subject that has sex as a topic since those boards are shut down almost immediatly anyways.

There was a rather 'hot' article in the Gazette several months ago. Evansvillehousewife was posting comments and was making some good arguements for her point.

Then someone pointed out that she had contradicted her self at some point in these very same posts.

She started spewing the most bunch of junk.

She admitted she is some times less than honest in her posts.

She said she had kids and then a few posts later said she did not.

Admitted as posting as Hannah, who was just as angry often.

She made comments about her neighbors.

I COPIED AND PASTED, these comments at the time and emailed them to someone so they could see what she was saying.

I am now glad I did because the Gazette ended up deleting the comments.

How can anyone give detailed info about your house if it's not you?

Most of the time she has some good arguments on things.

But try to tell he she is wrong and she lies and spews crap.

Based on the comments I saved from that article someone could easily have her charged and get a restraining order as well.

It's all in black and white as they say.

Thanks for the update. Stone throwing practice for those of us living in glass houses will commence at noon sharp!
To be more literal - I was not as perfect with my facts as my own snarky comments warranted.
But, just trying to get the comments coming; looks like it helped!

raoul_duke: "Comprehensiveom·pre·hen·sive (kmpr-hnsv)
adj.
1. So large in scope or content as to include much: a comprehensive history of the revolution.
2. Marked by or showing extensive understanding: comprehensive knowledge.

I was referring to eprouds failure to show understanding of the topic at hand. Comprehensive and comprehendible are not interchangable, nor is "comprehensive" and "complete" redundant in the least.

It sounds like evansvillehousewife you are guilty of the same.

I was just reading some of your older posts.

Seems like you like to dish it out but can not take it?

The feeling I have from reading these is certain people could have you charged with the same things.

If you can not take it , don't dish it out.

Also try not lying that might help.

evansvilleproud gets nosy and obsessed about an anonymous poster's personal life and scribbles:"
"Now please clarify for all of us, do you have kids or not? Do you attend meetings or not? You have chickens? Yeah right."

Seriously? We're debating the presence of libel on this newspaper's open forum and the merit of possible imaginary lawsuits.... and you're worried about....chickens?
Uh yeah. Chickens.

*************

SO, Mr. Angus; I have been identified more than once on here. I've had people identify themselves to me in private messages. I've had people point out "my" house on here... quite exact in their believed location, actually; with personal identifying details, along with some juicy neighborhood gossip thrown in about personal finances.

Only problem? They were wrong, so way off wrong, and someone is being targeted.

Now, if THAT person suffered harassment, damage, or job loss directly due to these statements posted here, THAT could result in a criminal charge and restraining order. (And a great news story!) I think that is more of a possibility here: that anger stirs a person like rodgersfan/evansvilleproud to try to lash out at an individual, and when they can't find them, their next best guess will do.

Regarding the software of the commenting program, yes, I agree it's not the finest. There's no edit, delete, or ignore options. It's nice to see that you are looking at other options.

I work in a law firm. I think the point Evansvillehousewife is missing she or anyone can be sued for libel or slander.

Reading some of her posts I have come to think she thinks she could get away with slander or libel. That she is not worried?

Please do remember the thing about posting comments even when you think your are anon. you do not know who is on the other end reading. One does not know how much money some might have that you are lying about.

You may very get sued just to give a person validation that you lied about them. There are people who sue for libel and slander and do not care if they ever collect a dime. It's about proving a point that you can not lie about some one and get away with it.

There is a large case going on in the Green County courts right now and part of the case, a very small part is slander related.

Our firm does not represent anyone involved but we have been following it.

I doubt either side will really see anyone real money but it's about principal.

By the way, I have a question about this comment:
"When you two reach the level of mastering the English language, and can form a complete and comprehensive sentence, get back to me."

Can anyone tell me what making a sentence, "comprehensive" has to do with mastering the English language? Could someone have possibly meant, "comprehensible" in their ironically poorly-written remarks about others? Are not "comprehensive" and "complete" redundant in the context?
Just sayin' ............

I think I'm going to start following postings by evansvillehousewife and evansvilleproud with rants from evansvillesucks about how much evansville sucks and see if they can find me and sue me for libel. Or is it slander? Commence fighting!

evansville house wife is a sad angry person. Just read her other posts. It's clear she thinks she is always right.

These posts she has made on this subject prove her wrong.

She is angry and bitter and not worth the time.

I will agree with evansvillehousewife on the fact that it would take a lot of money to sue some one for slander or libel for anything, not just things that are posted here but other papers, internet blogs.

But evansvillehousewife you are still wrong on slander and libel. You are not a lawyer. You are not paralegal not that you would know where to start.

Slander or libel can get you sued every time. It would be a matter of the subject and who you basically lied about.

Now please clarify for all of us, do you have kids or not? Do you attend meetings or not? You have chickens? Yeah right.

Why have you not posted as Hannah lately? You did admit to formerly posting as Hannah in previous posts.

You lie on here and so not credible.
You as well could stand to use spell check and run it through a grammar check. Have you actually read some of your posts come on.

In an effort to simplify, I probably didn't explain the technical aspects of IP addresses, etc., as well as I could have. The important point, though, is that someone with enough motivation could probably track you down. It's already happened in other cities. No such issues here - yet.
As for more aggressively managing or restricting comments - or systematically banning comments on certain types of stories - we are limited by our content management system. We are looking at new systems now and hope to have one in place in the next few months. When that happens, we will revisit our rules and restrictions and probably make changes. We also plan to empower users to give them more control over what comments - if any - they see.

Scott Angus

evansvilleproud and brady bunch jerkily typed out on their keypads: "evansvillehousewife, evidently you have been." and"I think the Gazette could save it self a lot of trouble by not allowing comments on legal issues because you have people come out of the wood work and try to play lawyer like Evanvillehousewife has done in more than one post on here."
************
When you two reach the level of mastering the English language, and can form a complete and comprehensive sentence, get back to me.

The very premise of "not allowing comments on legal issues " is preposterous. It just proves the subject angers and rattles you.
***************

Meanwhile, you've never addressed the points I have made re: the difference between libel and slander, the night and day difference between copyright law and libel statutes. And no, eproud, no matter how many times you stamp your foot, "guess=rumor=slander" is not true, as you so stated on another post. Maybe in your little world, but not in a courtroom.

Re: anger problems: Your personal problems are not germane. Projection is blinding to reason.

Back on topic: I have yet to read anything particularly damaging or worthy of a libel suit as of yet.JG has removed (are they archived, Mr. Angus?) several commentaries. Milwaukee JS does the same, only they remove only the offending posts.

So COULD you be sued for a post here? Yes. Will it actually prove profitable to the plaintiff? Probably not.

fool on the hill, you are so right. Some people think they are anony, but if with the tech. their is today eventually they will find you.

People should keep their comments to what they know about a subject.

Scott Angus may be motivated to get the comments here toned down but it's still good friendly advice. Good advice for conduct on social networking sites, too. Earlier this week, the LA Times ran an article on the subject.

There are ways to remain truly anonymous but if you have to ask how then you probably shouldn't be trying it. Better to assume that anyone with enough motivation and resources can and will find you.

Evansvillehousewife is wrong and thank you to those that pointed it out. She maybe should start watching Judge Judy, Judge Judy would put her in her place very quickly.

Does anyone else on here get the feeling Evansvilleh.w. thinks she is 'bulletproof'? Her comment about any lawyer with their salt, concerns me.

As if she thinks she can say what ever she wants and a good lawyer would bail her out of trouble.

Like laws do not apply to her.

I know the meaning of slander and libel but evidently Evansvilleh.w. does not.

Read some of her other posts. She changes her story and contradicts her self often.

The truth just plain seems to elude her.

rodgersfan , it was terminated by the provider,

Not a bad article at all. Good advice. Many people however, have issues that burn in their minds. It is difficult to shut up about them! I for one am dealing with something which causes me to rant, and I agree it could backfire. However, I believe I stick to the general information more than liable information. Opinion can also be liable too I think. I guess common sense should prevail.

Our business has a website and we have blocked users before not everyone has the best intentions.

I think the Gazette could save it self a lot of trouble by not allowing comments on legal issues because you have people come out of the wood work and try to play lawyer like Evanvillehousewife has done in more than one post on here. She is usually wrong and I agree sounds like she has anger issues.

I also do not find any good coming out of allowing comments on deaths. Regardless of how someone dies they are gone. There family has enough grief with out inconsiderate fools posting nasty comments.

Once comments are posted when the Gazette finally decides to close down the comments the damage is done.

etown, did your brother have his internet terminated or was he just blocked from a particular website? Because any owner of a website can track ISP's and block them very easily.

I can not imagine someone like Att or Charter terminating a account based on a comment made on a website.

evansvillehousewife, evidently you have been. You are always so angry, and seem to think you know it all.

Slander or libel is a slippery issue, and can cross many times over.

By reading some of your posts you seem like you think you are one of those people who will never get caught lying on these posts because you think your are exempt from having to tell the truth.

You are the one who one day said you had kids, and then several posts later said you did not.

So evidently you do not worry to much about the truth.

Not very truthful and usually very angry in your posts.

TroubleMaker,
When you registered you were required to provide an email address, correct? If the address you provided was the one they tried to contact you at it does not surprise me. As far as them emailing to seek further info about a post? Well, it is their site and they can use the info we type as they see fit. I trust in their integrity to maintain my anonimity (rrrr!,sp?) however the info I type is theirs to use. I have been surprised to open the paper and see one of my posts! I guess my point is that if I reveal some info they don't have yet, I would expect they are going to try to follow up at the email I provided at registration. Whether I would respond or not is a whole other question. Frankly if I ever had info that is really "juicy" (which I never do) I personally would not reveal it in this format.

At the library you still have to log in using your library card if I'm not mistaking. Maybe it changed but it was that way last time I was there.

whoops -- mr angus i mean (my bad)

there is a way to be totally anonymous -- i'm frankly surprised mr peck didn't know this.
go to the library.
create your account there.
then slander away on the library's computers.
100% anonymous.

In reality, I've found that gazettextra.com is not all that protective of our anonymity. I received an inquiry from a staff reporter in my personal e-mail asking for more information regarding an "anonymous" post I'd made.
-
I'll bet the staff is actively looking up the identity of anyone who makes a comment that is threatening or that contains information that would only be provided under the belief that there would be confidentiality. Whistleblowers, this is definitely not a safe place to toot -- Mr. Angus just advised you of that.

Hey sangus is actually a nice guy but in his banner above he looks ticked. Also I know several young women who think he's cute. Can I name names? I'm just kidding, if I did that the last thing I would worry about is being sued!

Also, who is John Smith?

If I wrote that I heard that John Smith stole money from the city, would that be considered libelous? I would be telling the truth and would be required to provide that information if I were under oath. Also, I wonder if John Smith was planning on building an ice rink.

TJ- He does indeed have a strong jawline and piercing blue eyes. But I think he should smile.

etown- Yep, the internet provider has the right to do that. . But that has nothing to do with libel and lawsuits.
This article, no offense intended Mr. Angus, seems more of a threat to get people to tone it down. I don't know if there have been complaints, etc. but the reality is this area is a small town, and there will be individuals involved in the story commenting. Feelings will be hurt, but actual damages? If that were true, Craigslist would be a pit of lawsuits with lawyers slavering over possible cases.
************
Not to mention, individuals that claim to have knowledge regarding a case are free to express it unless there is a gag order. Having differing testimony is not libel.
*************
And evansvilleproud- you're the Einstein that doesn't know slander from libel- you made that clear on the open records case regarding the principal. Have you fallen behind on your Judge Judy watching? Playing lawyer indeed, you can't even play a semicompetent paralegal. So sue me.

Someone here on my end of the computer commented that "Scott Angus is cute!" I told them they would probably be sued now.

evansvilleproud, quit trying to play lawyer. The number of defendants named (ie, the number of any persons who had access to said computer) is irrelevant to the issue of identity. If you think that simply by casting a broad net over defendants will prove a libel case, you're a worse lawyer than I am.

For libel to be proven, the plaintiff must prove identity of plaintiff and defendant, the negligence or intent of defendant, proof of publication, proof of actual or punitive damages, and here's the killer- that the damaging statement is false. It sounds simple, but proving a statement false is difficult, particularly if it regards to a person's character or personal life.

As far as comparing it to copyright infringement= wrong, wrong. Libel and copyright laws are eons apart. Copyright law as applied to internet law, is a tangled, everchanging mess, especially considering the international aspects. But in short, it's comparing apples to oranges. The laws are different, case closed.

my brother had his internet terminated because of a comment made on a website, the comment wasnt even that bad. but they contacted the internet provider and they shut off all their access. cant be that hard to trace.

I consulted with my attorney and he said that in any cause of action for liability, a poster has a secondary or tertiary cause of action against the paper. He also asked me I could send him a carton of Pall Malls and a pound of beef jerky before he said that he had to go because it was bed-check time at the jail.

I comment sometimes on this and other web sites. The Gazette is by far the most restrictively moderated site I've ever come across. That's just my opinion.

Scotty boy, my ip address is a public address that is assigned by my router and is the same address that is used by millions of people. My router has an address that is distributed from a DHCP server randomly from a block assigned from a server at my provider. Not to say it isnt possible to figure out who posts something, it is not with an IP address from your e-mail account.

Facts are wrong, go figure.

PS, Here is a hint: big MAC

I agree, nom......; but I don't necessarily agree with the claim that you shouldn't come back with a dig if someone gives you an unprovoked dig. The unprovoked dig is for the purpose of wrecking a debate, and if you can respond in a way that tells the provocateur to knock it off, then, things can get back on track.

If unprovoked digs are not handled correctly, then, that's all you'll get from certain people.

Rather than attempting to defend one's "opportunity" to slander another without being caught, wouldn't it make more sense not to write something you can't defend in the first place? I think the old axiom "just because you can do something it doesn't necessarily mean you should" applies to this conversation.

I thought blogging is whining.

But seriously, here's an example that may or may not apply:

A sheriff told me that if a complaint is made about the behavior of a boater and a boat number is provided, the owner of the boat doesn't haven't to say who had control of the boat at the relevant time.

Could we make a Bloggers Law against whining? These sensitive people have to go.

ehousewife,quit trying to play lawyer. In many libel cases, you will see multiple defendants. In internet involvement, the isp owner, who ever the account is reg too, the paper, actual users, and the list can go on and on. As the trial starts,before and during it's common for the case againest some of the defendants is dismissed. It can be very hairy, and expensive for all parties.

gazettefan: Prosecutors have had no problem in suing illegal downloaders of copyrighted material. Fair or not, adults who use the IP address take the heat even for minors who download. Can't imagine why the same wouldn't be applied here.

Politicians do it daily without recourse.

rodgersfan, I think sangus is more right on the law here than you. The Gazette does moderate and does remove potentially slanderous speech. "Hurtful comments", though, are in the eye of the beholder. I would prefer that fewer of those get through (and I'm talking about comments about news subjects, not comments directed at other commenters), but the Gazette largely accomplishes that by frequently closing comment threads.
.
The warning here for commenters is real. The Gazette will do what it can and will to a large extent be absolved by a reasonable man defense (that is, they don't have to be experts in the law to determine what postings to permit or disallow), but commenters will remain on their own pin.

My opinion is that EWife is wrong. How do you explain all the suits of record companies going after people for illegal downloads? Or who was driving a car that was ticketed by a red-light camera?
=
In these types of cases the burden of proof is lesser than in a criminal trial. The registered owner will be the one found in trouble.
=
In cases where a public computer is involved there are usually so many cameras present and other forms of ID/log-in records that proof of who was on the computer is pretty easy to obtain.

By posting anonymously, people believe that they are not responsible for their actions; their words, their accusations. I find it deplorable that people will use this platform to attack families who have just lost a loved one to a death; or by using a family tragedy to advance a political agenda. Yes, I agree that we should be able to state our opinions on here but I ask.....at what cost?

e-wife is correct. How is it determined that someone wrote a particular post? Does the liability automatically go to who registered the username no matter who posts while using that name? Is the one who registered the name required to reveal the identity of another user?

The same problem goes for the idea of people being required to use their real names as usernames. Would the Gazette take measures to ascertain that the name went with the person? And even if the Gazette did ascertain that fact, if someone else leaves a libelous post under that name does the liability go to the person who registered it etc.?

Scott, have there been any inquires or actions re: libel problems with this site?

For pete's sake, Angus, are you really going to let that guy get away with calling you a "bitty"? When you know darned well it should be "biddy"?

That said, on this article, Hear, hear.

I have to admit, I like to occasionally say something naughty on these blogs, like call someone a name (Sorry Superdave) when they take a personal shot at me. I know Scott will take it down eventually but for that one brief moment, I feel falsely superior. Having to watch everything I say on here defeats the purpose - my joy of freedom of speech and to share oppinions, viewpoints, facts, hearsay, and rumors. I guess I'll try to be more careful...sigh....it won't be the same though.

My opinion Scott. If I read the law correctly, as long as the Gazzette moderates, there is a liability for the paper. But IANAL. And I know how to easily post anonymously, but that's part of my computer/internet expertise, and I don't want to make it easier for some idiots who post here. I'd rather the idiots get in trouble :)

I just read a good article about Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act. I hope the link to pbs.org won't ruffle any feathers. Mr. Angus is right, web providers can't be held liable for 3rd party user comments. Good law, I think. Users of the website, or other "interactive service providers" can be held liable for their comments, but the plaintiff needs to show special reason to the courts, and it would be expensive to sue someone who probably doesn't have much money to begin with.
.
http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/05/cd...

THe plaintiff would need to prove to the jury that you that they knew 100% who the identity of the person behind the keyboard was. Aside from having a witness present when they were writing said comment- pray tell, how do you do that?

All you can really do is prove that the statement came from a computer at said IP at said time. You cannot prove the presence of the defendant.

Any attorney worth their salt should be able to defend against a comment on an IP address. Hacking, log in left open on a public or shared computer, etc.

I've read that copyright laws and violations are being more strongly enforced. Many websites consider posting their link a violation without prior approval. The only thing saving most people is the vastness of the Internet.

Yes Georgie has a gift for the spoken language. I have always wondered if his speech writers drank to excess after his press conferences.

strategery

I got the idea from George W.

Hybrid cliches. Thank you very much. ;-)

If you can't stand the heat... read 'em and weep.

Your idea of moderation is allowing people to comment and then remove awful comments. You will end up in court some time over your business practices. Many, many 'blog' postings do not appear until approved by mgmt. You allow comments on deaths, where people leave truly ignorant hurtful comments. There is no reason you can not step up your ' moderation' start taking some responsibility before it comes back to bite you.

rodgersfan,
No moderation at all? You should talk to the commenters who complain regularly about so many comments being removed and threads disabled. We're reasonably aggressive, and - as I've said many times - we do the best we can. Also, as I've noted, websites that host comments have not been held liable, at least so far.
Scott Angus

Good points, I've read several "horror stories" about this subject.
I'm getting better though, my doctor said so. He said tomorrow I could try commenting on larger websites if I behave on here tonight.
I have one user name that people could guess my name from if they knew me.
I have exactly four posts using that name.
sannio has 1547 comments since 2008. He's the one my doctor is concerned about. He says sannio is superfluous, and should go away.
I've been thinking the same thing.

The gazette may end up in court with them, as you are the one that allows comments with out any moderation at all.

Gee, don't read this then. Go to another paper.

KingRizzo:
Touche'. Your comment is all opinion, and it's protected speech. It might be a touch nasty, but I can handle that.
Scott Angus

*Disclaimer: The following comment represents only the opinion of the poster:

This article sucks! Scott Angus is a boring old bitty!