Quote:

What makes you people it's okay to slander someone just because it's on the internet?

I'd have to see the video to be sure, but by in large it'd have to be pretty extreme for me to think a lawsuit is justified. You'd have to establish an intent to emotionally wound this woman or hurt her social/business life, or of obvious negligence... as opposed to just a non-chalant stating of their opinion that said woman is being a whore/bitch whatever they said.

Intent isn't required, unless it's a celebrity. The defamatory speech simply needs to be public, published, and damaging to her reputation (calling someone a whore is considered defaming someone). It's up to a jury or judge to decide the facts of the case, but a lawsuit can be justified.
---

Just to be clear if someone was doing an informative piece on someone in a news article, let's say, and it shows them to be a complete idiot slut etc.. Let's say they don't even use those words in the article. They just explain factually what's happening on a given issue. And it hurts a person's reputation, they can then sue them?

Second Scenario: a person publishes something in a magazine, such as "I personally think said person is a douche bag", and they have complete disregard for everyone else's thoughts or reactions they're they're just expressing their opinion, or perhaps are searching for other people's opinion on them.

I understand why they could have grounds to sue, but i don't like it if it's demonstrated the person was just expressing their opinion with no intent of emotional damage, or otherwise messing up said person's life. (it's almost as if the intent is implicit, or can be assumed if its' published in a magazine or something to that effect.. but in this case i don't think the intent can be assumed, though the damage could be real.)

My ruling on the issue would be if you're being factual, or expressing your opinion for the sake of expressing your thoughts you should be fine. If you present something in a misleading way then you'd be in trouble, or if you intentionally are trying to traumatize someone emotionally or socially that'd be another case. That's my thoughts i don't know how the law plays out. Seems kind of lame from what you're saying.

Quote:

My point, though, was the general attitude of "Oh, who cares, it's just the internet?" is a dangerous one to have. We really need to get away from this idea of "The internet isn't real, so we can do whatever we want". I understand the appeal of trolling, particularly people who deserve it, but really, people are being driven to suicide over online bullying. It's time to take the medium seriously. I'm not saying that this particular lawsuit is worth it, but "it's internet lulz!" shouldn't be a defense

I totally agree, and thanks for following the advice in your lovely comments to me, I re-read them daily : ). But seriously, I do agree the internet is a medium of communication and it's possible to harass people on it, just like you can harass someone at school. I will say the harassment is to less of a degree, but not necessarily should be punished to a less a degree to other forms of bullying, i'll cal it. Why i would say that is because the medium is indirect, and so hinders the full expression of information, and ideas has less impact in that regard, and it is easier to ignore. For those two reason I Think there should be lesser punishment for cyber bully, than real life bullying, and real life bullying also poses more risks. But i agree that it's still serious and that it shouldn't be rubbed off/ignored just because the words are written and not spoken allowed.