Forum Flamers protected by the First Amendment

[trekgeezer]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080207-appeals-court-first-amendment-protects-forum-trolls-too.html

[Newt]

Hang on: so as long as what is said is "not assertion of actual fact " it is open season to flame away?

What a wonderful world.

(Even more disturbing is that I do understand the 'legal logic': but of course it defies common sense.)

[Jack]

So you can libel somone, just so long as you don't really mean it.  Apparently.

[Newt]

One needs prove intent?  Or does the thing said merely have to be believable? (To whom?)  Within the realm of possibility?

Yeesh.  The lawyers are going to get rich on this one.

[Andrew]

Actually, I think that the ruling should drive the lawyers away from flame wars and such.  Reading about the decision, it appears that a common sense approach is being taken.  In other words, if two men got into a shouting match in the street, you wouldn't expect one to sue for slander if the other guy said, "You are the dumbest $@*%! who ever came out of the %$@*^ of your mother, who was a %*&@ anyway!"

[CheezeFlixz]

California is insane ...

The 1st Amendment says
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That say CONGRESS shall make on law, doesn't mean a forum owner can't make a law, any time I here the "CALIFORNIA APPEALS COURT" I pretty much disregard it as they are overturned more often than not.

States, localities, business owners, and even individuals can make laws/rules in that order that expand on federal law but not reduce it.