Mitchell Reinstated, an example...

JonDMiller

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
of why I delete damning rumors from this forum. The stuff that some people came and shared as straight up hearsay, those things were clearly BS and they were also slanderous. THAT's why I delete these types of things before facts come out, why I always have and always will. Please don't post such garbage here.
 
DJL said:
wow that's great news. I hope he sees the field on Saturday if he is healthy.
Click to expand...

Derrick Mitchell was most impressive at the Iowa SPring game.

Awesome news and it sure could have been a Troll, or worse yet a
Cornholer, with HAWKEYE ENVY that posted the garbage.
They're out there
 
I think rumors like this one that can be proved beyond a doubt as false aren't so bad. The really messed up ones are the ones that can't be proved false. Example "I saw Mitchell leaving the bar with 2 chicks on his arm and neither of them were his girlfriend". Now his gf is mad at him and it's not something that can easily be cleared up later like this one could.
 
I wonder why they had to drive him back to Iowa City from Ames so quickly for something that seemed to be resolved fairly fast. An article stated Iowa learned of a letter received when in Ames and someone drove him back.

Yes, why people start rumors is beyond me. People should really try to look at the effects of being wrong before stating anything.
 
If the BYU play who threw a right hook at that player's nads doesn't get any sort of suspension, I'm not judging on this one at all.
 
JonDMiller said:
of why I delete damning rumors from this forum. The stuff that some people came and shared as straight up hearsay, those things were clearly BS and they were also slanderous. THAT's why I delete these types of things before facts come out, why I always have and always will. Please don't post such garbage here.
Click to expand...


no doubt about it - in today's age this stuff gets around fast - truth be damned.

good thing JD employs some heavies to patrol the boards...... :)
 
I know it's here to stay....but I just don't understand the need to spread crap like that. It's one thing to say that Drew Tate broke his leg. It's another to say that a guy committed sexual assault. Kudos Jon for not allowing that crap on here until something's been confirmed.
 
PCHawk said:
I think rumors like this one that can be proved beyond a doubt as false aren't so bad. .
Click to expand...

Not following that thinking...a rumor that defames someone's character needs never be posted until there are facts. Frankly if I were a parent of a player, and a website allowed libelous rumors to stand on a forum, that were entirely false? I'd be contacting an attorney to investigate whether or not it was actionable.

I was interviewed by a sports business magazine a decade ago, as message boards were exploding, and they had a legal expert on with them whose opinion was there WAS liability for a publisher if he chose to moderate his site and let defaming rumors stand without intervening.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I wonder why they had to drive him back to Iowa City from Ames so quickly for something that seemed to be resolved fairly fast. An article stated Iowa learned of a letter received when in Ames and someone drove him back.

Yes, why people start rumors is beyond me. People should really try to look at the effects of being wrong before stating anything.
Click to expand...
If people looked at the effects of being wrong we'd lose half the posters. OK, maybe not a bad idea.
 
MelroseHawkins said:
I wonder why they had to drive him back to Iowa City from Ames so quickly for something that seemed to be resolved fairly fast. An article stated Iowa learned of a letter received when in Ames and someone drove him back.

Yes, why people start rumors is beyond me. People should really try to look at the effects of being wrong before stating anything.
Click to expand...

He didn't make the trip to Ames! Rumor monger.
 
JonDMiller said:
Not following that thinking...a rumor that defames someone's character needs never be posted until there are facts. Frankly if I were a parent of a player, and a website allowed libelous rumors to stand on a forum, that were entirely false? I'd be contacting an attorney to investigate whether or not it was actionable.

I was interviewed by a sports business magazine a decade ago, as message boards were exploding, and they had a legal expert on with them whose opinion was there WAS liability for a publisher if he chose to moderate his site and let defaming rumors stand without intervening.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you about not allowing it on your site. I also think whoever started the rumor is a complete idiot.
 
Is it wrong to speculate about aliens and ufo's and the paranormal as it relates to Iowa football? Because if it is then I might be guilty.
 
JonDMiller said:
Not following that thinking...a rumor that defames someone's character needs never be posted until there are facts. Frankly if I were a parent of a player, and a website allowed libelous rumors to stand on a forum, that were entirely false? I'd be contacting an attorney to investigate whether or not it was actionable.

I was interviewed by a sports business magazine a decade ago, as message boards were exploding, and they had a legal expert on with them whose opinion was there WAS liability for a publisher if he chose to moderate his site and let defaming rumors stand without intervening.
Click to expand...

Don't care either way, but you Jon are not to be held liable for information posted by users on your site. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is how sites like Backpage, Topic and Craigslist get away with some of the darkers stuff on their sites.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by others:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
​
In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:

  1. The defendant must be a "provider or user" of an "interactive computer service."
  2. The cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must treat the defendant as the "publisher or speaker" of the harmful information at issue.
  3. The information must be "provided by another information content provider," i.e., the defendant must not be the "information content provider" of the harmful information at issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top