Designing For Retiring Baby Boomers Becoming Big Business

Judge Won't Blame Google For Usenet Postings

from the makes-sense dept

Fri, Mar 17th 2006 1:09am — Mike Masnick

While some courts are still a bit confused concerning the liability of service providers online, it appears that one court had no problem at all dismissing a lawsuit against Google, concerning whether the company was liable for defamatory Usenet postings. As the judge quickly noted in dismissing the case, the Communications Decency Act pretty clearly carves out protection for service providers -- as it should. Google is simply providing a platform. If this guy is upset about the comments made about him, he should be going after those who made the comments -- not Google. You don't get to just sue the biggest or easiest company. You have a much better chance of winning if you actually sue those who did you wrong. Of course, the guy is vowing to appeal, so we probably haven't seen the last of this case.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Bob3000, 17 Mar 2006 @ 4:16am

Sigh ... haven't been here for a while. I think I like the old format better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spawn, 17 Mar 2006 @ 4:19am

Idiot
Some people are such idiots and always trying to make a quick buck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dark, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:03am

get rich quick
guess some people think that if they sue the 'big dog' they will have a bank account equal to 'the mcdonalds coffe spill'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 5:55am

He's needs to go sue each and every person that has any of his "property" in their internet cache too..

You know - they need a new law alright - how about one that says the ENITRE INTERNET is free-flow public domain information - any data posted in a public "forum" on the Web *is* public domain, period.

That would end all this BS.

If a site has a login or other access control - then it's not public and the information can be considered "property".

Right now, it's like leaving a copy of your book at the park and then bitching at the city because someone tore it up. Look, if you leave something open to the public - don't expect it to remain "safe".

Idiot - if he didn't want it copied, why did he post it on usenet? LOL, what a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Smacky Mouse, 17 Mar 2006 @ 6:52am

This jerk
The guy who sued Google is a brain-dead, scum sucking degenerate with the intellectual capacity of a four-year old goat.

Now, if that guy reads this, he'll sue TechDirt, not Smacky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:12am

Know what you are talking about...
These days most people just spout off about the gossip they hear or the news they read and assume it's all 100% true. In this day and age, a quick google search is all you need to give you the facts. The Mcdonalds coffee case was in fact NOT a frivolous suit. Just google it and you will find this and many others.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eric, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:22am
  
  Re: Know what you are talking about...
  The McDonalds suit was frivolous. Accidents happen. It doesn't mean you get rich from it.
  And the guy and the internet. He's an idiot looking for a quick buck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:31am
  
  Re: Know what you are talking about...
  shyster> The Mcdonalds coffee case was in fact NOT a frivolous suit.
  
  Well, whaddaya know, a shyster reads TechDirt.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pimptology Professor, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:23am

U guys are morons, Usenet is full of dung. besides people are trying to bring google down, that wont work though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:40am

Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
And I rest my case... about people who believe everything they read and don't investigate for themselves. Or, perhaps I should have included a category for people who do finally see the facts and judge them from their myopic point of view. It takes all kinds...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eric, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:02am
  
  Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Eric
  Common sense. You don't put a styrofoam cup between your knees and expect it to stay there. Law in this country is being based on the dumbest people in the country. Of course, the lawyers will always benefit from the stupid people. We have to protect the dumb ones from themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:43am

Pimptology Professor
Look at your moniker again fella, and you're calling us morons!? What a maroon!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:27am

Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking about...
And you are absolutely correct Eric... however, knowing that their coffee was not just hot, but hot enough to cause such serious burns and not rectifing the situation is what got Mcdonalds into hot water (pun intended). Many, many people had already had their "lack of common sense" accident with their too hot coffee and that should have served as a warning to tone it down. Instead, they left the temperature the same and yet another was grievously injured, albeit, because of her own lack of "common sense".
Mcdonalds had the responsibility, after so many incidents, to realize that human nature and coffee this hot was not a good combination, and to lower the heat to a less injurious, though no less enjoyable to drink, level. I myself have temporarily put a cup (not Mcdonalds) of coffee between my legs while juggling between drive up window and my car, and have been burned quite badly when, while lifting the cup, the top came off in my hand. It was a lessoned learned, but because the company had the coffee at a less than scalding temperature, that lesson did not include 8 days in the hospital undergoing skin grafts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eric, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:40am
  
  Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking about...
  Mike, if I remember correctly the reason McDonalds kept the coffee so hot was because the customers wanted it that way. The coffee stayed hot longer after they bought it.
  It just seems that lawyers have trained the public that any accident can be someone else's fault even though the victim did something stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:39am

Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anonymou
I am in fact not a "shyster" as you say, but a union pipe-fitter, and not one of spurious repute. I am merely a purveyer of truth, sadly lacking at times in this world of ours. Misinformation is my foe and I merely strive to illuminate it, wherever I find it. And you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:52am
  
  Re: Re: Know what you are talking about... by Anon
  shyster> Misinformation is my foe
  
  Well, if you want to maintain that illusion, don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 9:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking abou
Yes, sadly, you are correct about what you say about how it "seems". The first words out of peoples mouths today are "I'll sue", whether they are at fault or not. The system seems crazy. People now ripp off their insurance companies with false claims, justifying their actions with statements like "after all the money I've paid them" and "everyone else does it, so...". They steal what they can from their employers, be it pencils and other office supplies, or any number of big ticket items. And, when a situation arises, they'll take full advantage of it, lying down in the road claiming all sorts of injuries, just to pad their pockets. In my line of work, construction, there are the low-lifes who think workmans compensation is a retirement ticket and look for any opportunity to fake an injury. But don't get me started, lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eric, 17 Mar 2006 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Know what you are talking
  I work WC claims for one of the top 50 companies in the United States and alot of people are looking for a "free ride". Back in the late '70's lawyers were allowed to start advertising and it's been downhill ever since. Sue, sue, sue. Lawyers love it but it will kill this country someday.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 17 Mar 2006 @ 10:12am

Re: don't give a link to a story that refutes it.
I'll bite coward. How does the story at the link I posted "refute" any of what I've said? My whole point was that that particular story has gained an urban legend type status regarding frivolous lawsuits. The article that I linked to is the epitome of support for my contention that that particular legendary example is not in actuality... frivolous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul, 17 Mar 2006 @ 1:51pm

I heard bill gates is going to sue techdirt because of defamatory comments posted by anonymous users following a post about microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wendy, 17 Mar 2006 @ 8:07pm

MIKE
I just wanted you to know that after what you said on the McDonalds case, I do plan to google the case. And if what you said about the 8 day stay is true, then I completely agree with you. Thanks for pointing out something I did not know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andy, 20 Mar 2006 @ 8:37am

Gordon Ray Parker "Ray Gordon"
Holly crap... this lawsuit (suing google groups) was brought on by Gordon Ray Parker, aka "Ray Gordon", that's absolutely amazing. Ten years ago, when I was single, there used to be and still is a usenet group where guys go for tips to pick up girls and this guy used to be a poster there (more of troll). His stuff was *so* bad, that's there wasn't a person that could possibly take his stuff seriously. Advice like "When you go to bar, sit alone, and speak with no-one, do not make eye contact with women, or speak with them. Girls will eventually come to you because you're mysterious." We would let him know how bad his advice was and he would scream that we were actually authors trying assault his writings, so we could sell our own "seduction" books and put him out of business. The guy lived with his Mom at 30, it's so crazy. He was just crazy and also trolled in the teen gymnastics groups, spewing comments towards them to the effect that they were all sluts and teen whores. I remember like 6 years ago he sued some University for reverse descrimination, about getting a job as a receptionist there. He also sued Apple telling them that by listening to his iPod all the time, it hurt his hearing permantly. Wow it's really amazing that he's making tremendous strides forward to letting the whole country know what an incredible nutball he is. He's probably going to sue me now :-).

-Andy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]