SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
janrinok
on Tuesday September 08 2015, @11:20AM
from the its-always-someone-else's-fault dept.
from the its-always-someone-else's-fault dept.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/07/ashley_madison_amazon_godaddy/
Three John Doe plaintiffs have filed a complaint (PDF) against Amazon Web Services, GoDaddy, and 20 John Roes (anonymous defendants), in the Arizona District Court, for "intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Ashley Madison users."
The plaintiffs want not less than $3m in damages or losses, and a jury trial to boot, and complain that the hack has resulted in them becoming victims to threats and extortion.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Amazon and GoDaddy Sued for Hosting Leaked Ashley Madison Data
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 39 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Confess your sins to the Lord and you will be forgiven;
confess them to man and you will be laughed at.
-- Josh Billings
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:07PM
That the truth trumps all possible plaintiff arguments in defamation compkaints was established in the New World colonies well before 1776.
To the extent the plaintiffs really are injured parties it would be the result of untrue allegations posted on amazon's or godaddy's servers. However, defamation ALSO requires the respondent's conscious knowledge that they are spreading lies. Whoever posted the stuff might well sincerely believe it was true.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:31PM
Not always: It can be defamation to truthfully report that a private individual (i.e. somebody who is not a celebrity or public official) is gay, for example.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday September 08 2015, @01:48PM
Given that SCOTUS legalized same-sex marriage, that it's been legal in Canada since 2003 or so - I don't clearly recall - I'm not so sure it would be defamation anymore.
Yeah I can see how it could end someone's marriage - but so would pointing out that someone's husband just knocked over a liquor store.
It happens that a close friend of mine is a happily married father of a whole bunch of chilluns, a deacon of his church and as gay as Old Pah-ree. His wife and children have no clue, he leads a secret life.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @02:01PM
Do you guys meet up at truck stops to fuck?
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @03:52PM
You want to barge in, and eat all the party favors?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @04:46PM
Nah, I want to ram my cock up their asses.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 08 2015, @03:51PM
What a silly idea. "We're here, and we're queer". "Gay pride". Gay RIGHTS. In-your-face-demanding-service. You mean that I could be prosecuted for observing that Joe put a liplock on Gary? I mean, swapping bodily fluids is a pretty good indicator, unless a doctor is overseeing the swap.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 08 2015, @04:19PM
The example is a bit out of date, as you note. However, not very long ago, somebody who was outed as gay could very well lose their career, their apartment (if they were renting), membership in organizations, and in some cases their life (if living near violent bigots like Matthew Shepard). Because of those very real costs to being out of the closet, many gay people went to great lengths to hide their orientation from the general public. If you observed Joe and Gary, chances are you were looking in the windows of their house, and truthfully announcing to the press what you saw could indeed be seen as defamation.
None of this is about criminal prosecution - we're talking about civil law here.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Nollij on Wednesday September 09 2015, @12:53AM
This is still true today in many areas. LGBT is not covered federally by things like the Civil Rights Act, etc. While many cities (and I believe some states) have their own anti-discrimination laws, many more do not. Also, private organizations are still free to discriminate nationwide. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Bill Evans on Tuesday September 08 2015, @04:20PM
Let's leave The Donald out of this, shall we?
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday September 08 2015, @07:10PM
It is, however given the number of names that were released, I'm guessing there's at least a half dozen of the people there whose name matches somebody on the site, but who didn't have an account and who is now in a lot of trouble over it.
So, yes, in most cases the truth would be a defense against defamation, it's not going to get them off the hook for people mistakenly accused on the basis of the leaks. And it might not get them off the hook on any conspiracy charges that may result. They are, after all, profiting off of illegally obtained names and contact details that are being used to blackmail people. Whether or not they're liable for that is likely to hinge on how they enforce their policies with regards to their equipment being used for criminal enterprises.