SHOULD WEBSITE BE SUED FOR COMMENTS THAT VISITORS MAKE?

SHOULD WEBSITE BE SUED FOR COMMENTS THAT VISITORS MAKE?

[+] ballot by LCD
ACTIVE Wed Oct 29, 08 - Thu Oct 29, 09

yes
no

Ballot #131245 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
56678. President Bush's website now blocks non-US visitors
13328. Why are their so many racist comments on this website?
70785. Why do some people make a bunch of ballots but hardly ever make any comments?
129950. What would make you promote a website?
74199. Is it against B&W rules to make ballots and comments while naked, and slathered in cocoa butter lotion?
73776. Do you see this website as an online community or as nothing more than an opinion website?
111578. A visitors trip to America to see "American Culture"
115429. Netherlands sued over Srebrenica
133039. March Traffic Quiz : What keyword brought the most visitors?
115602. For how much money has Judge Roy Pearson sued over a lost pair of pants?

COMMENTS:
Voted : no
The comment maker should be. JK rws. I think it weird someone sues a website for such things, your lawsuit is kinda like Oprah's when she was sued for the beef comment.
She won though so you have a precedent

by larrynelmira on Wed Oct 29, 08 1:21pm [+]

^ The comment makers are responsible for their own comments on any user site.

by britvic55 on Wed Oct 29, 08 1:31pm [+]

thats the way it should be if someone has to be sued

by larrynelmira on Wed Oct 29, 08 1:33pm [+]

Voted : no
If your server is in a country where freedom of speech is the order of the day, no. If it comes to that, the webmaster should hand over any and all pertinent information about the person who made the abusive comments, to direct the lawsuit where it should go.

by Truthseeker013 on Wed Oct 29, 08 2:05pm [+]

Not that I want you to be sued RWS, I'm just saying if

by larrynelmira on Wed Oct 29, 08 3:16pm [+]

Voted : no
There should be a disclaimer just in case someone wishes to blame/sue the medium, not the comment author...

by thesoothsayer on Wed Oct 29, 08 3:49pm [+]

Voted : no
RWS

...left a spot open to add a choice, if you did not agree with the ones that were there.

And there was one choice that said ''ummm it taste good. wtf?''

So there he doesn't have a leg to stand on. (but then again, I'm not a Legal Eagle).

by UncleRandy on Wed Oct 29, 08 4:12pm [+]

Voted : no
Absolutely not. If this is allowed, no more First Amendment, and no more web.

by skylab on Wed Oct 29, 08 5:07pm [+]

The comment maker shouldn't be sued either.

by skylab on Wed Oct 29, 08 5:08pm [+]

Voted : no
Not if they have a clear and strong disclaimer stating that comments are owned by their author and that material posted doesn't reflect the opinions of the site.

The 'freedom of speech' excuse is null and void when it comes to libel and slander and posting misinformation. True, websites do it all the time and hardly get sued because most people/organizations take such comments with a grain of salt. But obviously the margarine people are wanting a little money. Desperate times call for desperate measures...

by Grumpy_Person on Wed Oct 29, 08 5:55pm [+]

Voted : no
They're opinions of the visitor and do not reflect the opinion of the site own/sponsors.

Maybe if you run a margerine add on the site they will pay you. Or hell just send em a bill.

by passiveson on Wed Oct 29, 08 9:47pm [+]

I think what grumpy said is true, if someone purposely post something THEY KNOW IS NOT TRUE and if it CAN BE PROVEN lost revenue or reputation because of it, I think they should be able to sue.

Not saying you did that rws, I'm just making a general statement.

by larrynelmira on Thu Oct 30, 08 6:08am [+]