Novi Hockey Group Sues Over Internet Chat Room Posts Implying Misconduct

Submitted by KO Stradivarius on

I'm not a lawyer, but I just saw this story and immediately wondered if this case could set a precedent where MGoBoard could face litigation someday?  This board does a good job policing itself, and the mods are top notch, but do we really need to start being much more careful? 

The lawsuit alleges “John Doe” made false accusations about Berke and Petty on the Network 54 forum blog and True Michigan Hockey chatroom between March 28, 2014, and Sept. 30, 2014.
“People think just because they post something anonymously that it can’t come back to them,” said attorney David B. Trivax, who filed the complaint. “This is our first step in identifying the person or persons responsible and I’m confident we will track them down.” Trivax stressed lawsuits against unknown people, especially those involved in anonymous Internet postings, are nothing new. The filing sets the stage for subpoenaing records of the host of whatever blog or forum was used to spread untruths. Once that is accomplished, he said the names of the responsible people will be added to the lawsuit seeking retractions or financial damages.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2015/06/03/novi-hockey-group-sues-anonymous-posts/28433431/

Not sure if I need to add "META" or "OT" to the this post...but I will edit if needed.  I am relatively new here, and I only started an OP once before and it was a little messy, so please bear with me.  I wanted to get this out there for comments and awareness...our litigious society is ever-changing!

James Burrill Angell

June 4th, 2015 at 2:40 PM ^

I have news for you. This is absolutely a case of slander/libel/defamation needless to say filed by some disgruntled parent or coach. If the hockey association can prove the allegations were fase, intense to cause harm and that there was actual harm (like players quitting or not joining in the first place) they have a case. Finding out who posted it isn't that hard. All you have to do is subpoena the blog or website to get the registration info of the person who posted or dig deeper and pursue the ISP address of the poster.

joeyb

June 4th, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^

Non-lawyer: They have no case.

Lawyer: Actually, they do.

Non-lawyer: *ad hominem attack*

 

I'm really hoping that the Lawyer comes back with "I am rubber, you are glue. Bounces off me and sticks to you."

The Mad Hatter

June 4th, 2015 at 4:17 PM ^

they didn't have a case, just that the blog in question wouldn't be liable for the content posted there.  If that protection didn't exist, the owners of Reddit and every other blog would probably be in prison for illegal content posted on their sites.

Unless you took my "weak sauce" statement to mean "they have no case".  

MDave

June 4th, 2015 at 12:54 PM ^

I can tell you from firsthand experience that this board was not moderated at all, plus had a large fault of allowing people to be completely anonymous.  This led to a lot of defamation and unfounded claims that were very damaging to a lot of teams and organizations.  It got so bad that around March 2015, the board was halted by Network54.  It has since come back up and is now moderated better and there is some registration requirement now to post.

My firsthand experience is that my son was on a team that the head coach was talked about so horribly that it caused a lot of problems with the team and parents.  Most claims were unfounded or blatantly false, but it led to game cancelations, tournament drop outs, and eventually the disolvement of our team.  This was even more troubling because we were a high level team that was able to compete with AAA teams, which is likely why we were singled out so harshly.  

jmdblue

June 4th, 2015 at 1:13 PM ^

First off... thanks for the insight

Second.. Seems to me this particular instance really strikes me as a hockey thing.  I've never seen a sport where parents get so intense.  My youngest played for a couple years and was okay.  Things started getting expensive and the parents started getting weirder and weirder about their kids' abilities, their teams' mistreatment from coaches and refs, and the general need to put more and more resources into getting their kid an advantage.  I was done.

That said, I can see how it happened.  I sat with 200 other family members as 2 teams of 6 year olds went at it in overtime for a house league championship and the atmosphere was as if it were game 7 of the Stanley Cup.  Something about that game brings out the crazy both good and bad.

 

MDave

June 4th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^

Agreed, it's a crazy sport with crazy parents.  Add anonymity to that and it can be extremely cancerous.

One other thing I would like to add is that this website/board was well known by everyone involved in hockey in the Detroit area.  It got really bad for many involved and I know multiple coaches that instituted rules for their teams that if they even suspected a player or parent posting on the board, they could be kicked off.  I know a Honeybaked coach that followed through with that rule.

I wish that my son's head coach last year would have done the same.  Live and learn.

jmdblue

June 4th, 2015 at 4:01 PM ^

but I suspect I'd understand the whole thing better if I were.  Love hockey and I think its great for kids to play, but my God.  The parents are freaking nuts.  I'm as dedicated as anyone trying to help my children succeed, but part of that is trying to keep some sort of sober eye on your kids' abilities.  Seemingly every hockey  mom and dad in Royal Oak seems to think their kid is on his way to a full ride schollie at a minimum.

MDave

June 4th, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^

My grandfather was French Canadian, but born and lived in Michigan my entire life.  Never played hockey, but have always loved it.  Both of my boys play and my twin 3 year old girls are in Learn To Skate, so they may play hockey also.

 

justingoblue

June 4th, 2015 at 4:07 PM ^

Canadian, are you saying the hockey parents are worse up in Canada or that a Canadian would expect that status quo?

Full disclosure: I am curious about the answer, but replying a couple posts down and addressing you as "Canadian" was half the fun. If someone ever signs up as "American" with a Ricky Stanzi avatar you'll probably feel the same way.

Canada loves S…

June 4th, 2015 at 4:23 PM ^

Can be pretty intense but not nearly as intense as American hockey parents. I've lived about half my 50 years north of the border and half of them below that 49th parallel.  I don't know what it is, but American hockey parents take the cake.

My theory on why this might be is that Canadian parents have a more realistic understanding of what it takes to get to Junior A and  eventually to the NHL.

 

Just a theory....

justingoblue

June 4th, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^

I'm not a lawyer (probably going to prove that in the next couple sentences) and it's possible they're quoting out of context, but if calling someone "the mafia", "evil", an "idiot" and allege harm to "dozens of kids and parents" how is there a political site that's not being shut down?

I know the law differs with a public figure, but in the realm of a site devoted to Michigan youth hockey these seem like public figures for sure.

Jack Be Nimble

June 4th, 2015 at 2:34 PM ^

Libel and defamation claims are only actionable against false statements of fact. Calling someone "evil" or an "idiot" would be viewed by the courts as a statement of opinion and is constitutionally protected.  The "mafia" claim is also clearly being used metaphorically in this context and would also not be viewed as a statement of fact.  The same is true for the vague statements of alleged harm to kids and parents.  None of these are false statements of fact.  They are all constitutionally protected.  Unless something is missing here, this lawsuit is going to get quickly tossed. 

You are also correct that people get more leeway with criticizing public figures than private ones, but the fact is that these legal claims are so weak that it really doesn't matter in this case whether the people criticized are deemed public or private figures. 

LSAClassOf2000

June 4th, 2015 at 12:55 PM ^

A vast majority of the regulars here are very well-behaved but the potential for stuff like this - chances of winning and relative worthiness of the suit aside for a moment - is one of the reasons we tend to be very cautious and clear about what you can and cannot say about players and coaches here as well as others affiliated with the University.

Even if it never came to a lawsuit, the hassle and the potential loss of access that some here have to people and facilities is just not worth the risk. 

bronxblue

June 4th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^

As I learned in law school, you can sue for basically anything if you have the money and the lawyer/legal background to give it a crack.  Now, winning is a completely different, and this feels like the height of, well, whining about the guys on the interwebs talking about you.

Bryan

June 4th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

but doesn't the federal Communciations Decency Act of 1996, per the ruling in the Jones v. TheDirty (I have no idea if that was the caption or not) from the 6th Circuit, give websites immunity from content posted by users? 

Or maybe I am completely off here. 

Geaux_Blue

June 4th, 2015 at 3:50 PM ^

This suit is for identifying information to sue the defendant. If someone came on here and made a false accusation, mgoblog/Brian would be sued for the IP address and registration info but not for damages suffered by hosting the site that contained the posting

superstringer

June 4th, 2015 at 1:05 PM ^

Courts are going to be really suspicious of this crap.  There is this thing called the First Amendment.  Public statements, even if really harmful, are completely protected, unless they amount to defamation/libel. That requires (1) proof of "malice" (intent to harm), plus (2) falsity as to a matter of fact.  Some important caveats:  (1) an opinion is NEVER a false fact; if it's your subjective opinion, it's not actionable.  (2) truth is an absolute defense, so saying something that's true, even if it's harmful, is not actionable.  AND also, (3) there MUST be damages - some legally-recognizible harm from what was said.

What are the odds that a blog posting meets all these requirements, or at least, a plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of it?  He'd have to show (1) a factual mistatement, not merely opninion (or joke, sarcasm, etc.), and (2) some reason to believe there was actual malice, and (3) some reason to believe there was harm.

AND, in federal court at least, your allegations have to be "plausible" -- the mere fact you can type words on a page does not mean the court has to accept them.  The complaint's facts cannot be so insane that no one would believe them.

I don't think a court is going to let just anyone willy-nilly file suits to get identities of blog posters.  So an athlete (or coach or recruit or referee or athletic director or team/school) complaining that some blogger got the facts wrong is probably not sufficient to get a court to allow discovery on who the blogger is; there has to be a good story why the circumstances show the blogger was trying to hurt said athlete (or whatever) by making factual statements that were intentionally or recklessly false, and how it caused actual harm to that person.

Basic lessons to MGoBlog users:*

* may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

- Any statement that is merely opinion is completely protected.  ("I think Wolverine Devotee needs a life."  Whther that might be the case, it's probably just an opinion and WD can't sue over it.  Nah nah nah nah.)

- Any factual statement that is true is completely protected.

- Any factual statement that is wrong but due to mere ignorance or negligence (e.g., didn't look it up) is protected; you have to INTEND to cause harm in making the mistatement, and you have to know it's false or be so recklessly indifference to the falsity that it's tantamount to knowing its false.

- Any statement that doesn't cause someone to suffer harm isn't actionable.  (Hurt feelings usually don't count, except in California.)

- Never talk about MGoPoints.

As always, no legal advice is intended by this posting, use these general guidelines at your own peril, you get the value of legal services equial to what you paid for them, and since you didn't pay to read this, you do the math. No warranty is offered and you are advised to consult a lawyer if you have any questions speciic to your situation.

saveferris

June 4th, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^

(2) truth is an absolute defense, so saying something that's true, even if it's harmful, is not actionable.

So if I call Mark Dantonio an "unethical douchebag", it's OK even if I don't qualify it with, "In my opinion"? Excellent.

Seth

June 6th, 2015 at 1:04 PM ^

Lawyer for plaintiff: People think they can freely express their opinions in public forums such as the internet without having it come back to them in court! 

A Judge (very soon): Yep, we think that.

/ends