Landmark Case (when it goes to trial (degenerate content too

[Juskimo]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/12/27/sexbl ... index.html

Basically no one has decided what exactly blog and other online content is.

There is a legal difference between public and private speech. This will determine whether things said in forums (such as this) constitute public or private speech. Super cliffs notes: You can get away with more in private than you can in public (like saying the capital hill lawyer you are banging likes to be spanked).

Indirectly, this will also have some impact on jurisdictional rules, but that will probably go unnoticed at first.

Ill try to dig up a copy of her blog in the next couple days.

Post any questions and Ill try to answer them.

-Jus

[MecosKing]

[emmasdad]

[Calaziar]

Here's a photo link

[NorthView]

[tommyhawk]

[excession]

like saying the capital hill lawyer you are banging likes to be spanked

but if it's true why is there a limit on what you can say - whether in private or public?

aren't you guys supposed to be pretty big on freedom of speech over there?

even in the UK (with some of the strictest libel laws in the western world) in the absence of a breach of confidentiality (by which I mean a legal duty of confidence such as you might find in an employment relationship or from a signatory of an NDA) if it's true you can publish it.

And those duties have never been held to attach to sexual relationships (I mean maybe if prostitution were legal and you were a high-class call girl or something I suppose, but not to sexual flings with work collegaues)

There was a recent case last month where a cuckholded husband was looking to proclaim his wife's infidelities and was stopped by an interim injunction but that was only interim, from a very dodgy judge at first instance and made on the grounds of protecting the children (the wife's affair was with a premieship footballer so would be splashed all over the press).

In the UK he would could run up against issues even if the allegation was untrue - if he has been using public funds to employ a junior assistant who he then 'takes advantage' of there might be a public interest defence available requiring proof of malice for the case to be made out. Also it's not clear that the allegation itself is libellous - it's a bit like saying a man likes blowjobs - hardy 'stop the press' stuff..although I suppose it does have the effect of exposing him to ridicule so he might be able to show actual damage of sorts

[Juskimo]

[Beavis68]

I dont see how there is any question that a blog is public. Although, like excession i dont see what the issue is if it is true.

[Calaziar]