TuckerMax.Com website here.
U.S. District Court Stewart Dalzell dismissed the claim by local publicist and event planner Anthony DiMeo III that comments left on a website comments section are illegal by the Communications Decency Act of 1934 and subject to libel laws.
Another judge shuts down someone trying to stymie free speech; maybe, just maybe, all is not lost in this country in regards to free speech?
Tucker Max may be a lout, but he's no libeler, says a federal court in Philadelphia.
A federal judge has tossed the case against Max, whose popular Web site celebrates his boozy carousing. On Friday, U.S. District Court Stewart Dalzell dismissed the claim by local publicist and event planner Anthony DiMeo III, who had contended his reputation suffered from comments made on TuckerMax.com after his New Year Eve party went awry. (For more background, see The Blueberry Heir v The Web's Bad Boy.)
DiMeo said Monday he is likely to appeal and pursue those who commented on Max's site.
The judge's decision reaffirms that a Web site proprietor is protected from libel actions based on comments visitors make, either by name or anonymously. And it provides for more lively reading than one will encounter in a year of reading such things.
Tags: [Bloggers and Webs Score Another "Free Spech" Victory], [free speech], [Tucker Max], [http://tuckermax.com/], [A federal judge has tossed the case against Max, whose popular Web site celebrates his boozy carousing], [judge's decision reaffirms that a Web site proprietor is protected from libel actions based on comments visitors make], [Renamity], [Anthony DiMeo III]
No comments:
Post a Comment