Ohioans Can Sue Over Online Comments

This is on the front page of the Plain Dealer today. The state supreme court ruled Thursday that an out-of-state person or business can be sued in Ohio for posting derogatory Internet comments about someone who lives in Ohio.

Attorney Brett Jaffe says "I think it sends a very clear message to people both in this state and throughout the United States that the Internet is not to be used for means to destroy people whether intentionally or unintentionally."

The case stems from a 2006 business deal that soured.

___________

I think that a lot of online bashing in the past met up with out-of-state practices that made it nearly impossible to sue someone for harrassment. If other states implenent this ruling I'm betting we're going to see a big increase in law suits. I can't see people not venting about bad service, etc though, whether it's just a passing comment or a full fledge attack scenario, people will bitch about stuff.

This is a sad attack on the first amendment.
As long as something said is true, including your personal opinion, you should be able to say it freely without fear of being punished.

What's next? Reading our emails and listening to our phone calls,,,,oh wait they allready do.

Free country my ass.

A, O, OH WAY TO GO OHIO. I hope Chrissie Hynde doesn't get sued too.

This is not about First Amendment, this is about being able to bring the case in the jurisdiction of the plaintiff.

The First Amendment still applies so Truth is a complete defense. The issue here is libelous postings -- false statements made with the intention of harm. That is not protected by the First Amendment. This is a libel case pure and simple.

While people shouldn't be allowed to commit libel, it seems unfair to be forced to travel to another state to defend yourself, just because someone ACCUSES you of it.

I thought that the rules regarding where you have to file a lawsuit, were designed to protect individuals (businesses are different), who might be unfairly accused, putting the burden of proof squarely on the plaintiff. Perhaps, it also depends upon the laws of the state in which the accused individual resides? I thought California's laws protect it citizens from this sort of thing.

Previous joking aside, this is really good to know. Thanks for the post!

Is it fair to the person who is potentially libeled to be forced to travel to the state of the speaker to file suit??

The most harm will occur where the person allegedly libeled lives -- so the state where he lives is probably the best location for a suit. If I live in Detroit and some knob in Alabama says I am a white supremacist, the damages to me are in Detroit, where I lose business, not Alabama where the accuser lives. Detroit is the best location for the suit.

Libel is a very high bar to clear -- so actual filed libel suits are rare birds indeed. Nationwide, they might hit the hundreds each year. That's with 300,000,000 people.

Good point. Thanks Chad!