Crazy Uncle Auctions Prevails Over CJDave False Claims

[jpittman765]

This is such a sad story. I was new to the hobby when this case first came to light with the false claims about Crazy Uncle Auctions. In fact, my first auction house purchases came from the Crazy Uncle Auctions. My experience was great. I purchased three very nice cards that were promptly delivered. When the false fraud posts started, I posted that, speaking from my experience, I saw no problems. Crazy Uncle Auctions had delivered as promised. There were some opinions offered by others then that were harsh. I am very happy that justice was eventually served. Thank you for the update!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Casey2296]

I have to admit I believed the hype and formed a negative opinion about you based on superficial comments.
I'm impressed you stuck to your guns and came out victorious. Props to you and a refreshing resolution in our current crazy world.

[Yoda]

Leon, be careful of any and all potential liability arising from any Board topic. You never know what kind of snake is in the woodpile. As you know, I had to close down the Full Count board on legal advise due to several adverse comments made, which, however remotely, might have exposed me to some potential liability, e.g. hosting a facility where slander was taking place.

[Exhibitman]

John, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides limited immunity from defamation cases to providers and users of interactive computer services. Basically, someone shit-posting someone else on your site does not make you as the site host liable for their defamatory conduct unless you have an active role in editing it. There are nuances, but the whole idea was to prevent a shut-down like you were advised to do.

[Leon]

+1
When this new, non-network54 forum (we changed hosts in '09) first got off the ground I would get Cease and Desist letters from lawyers, concerning what other members said. I was threatened but knew Section 230 fairly well. There were at least 5 instances where I told a lawyer they had no clue about the law. A few I hung up on, a few I laughed at and told to EFF off and all of them got yelled at . After I said, go read section 230 of the Federal Communications and Decency Act, they didn't call back. Precisly it defines who a publisher of information is. And a publisher isn't the site owner, unless the site owner is saying it. And, yes if the owner changes someone elses post, to mean something different, they can be responsible too. It's been a few years since I was threatened for what someone else said on the forum.

ps...good for you on hanging in there, Aaron. I wish you all the best!!

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

John, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides limited immunity from defamation cases to providers and users of interactive computer services. Basically, someone shit-posting someone else on your site does not make you as the site host liable for their defamatory conduct unless you have an active role in editing it. There are nuances, but the whole idea was to prevent a shut-down like you were advised to do.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Leon

+1
When this new, non-network54 forum (we changed hosts in '09) first got off the ground I would get Cease and Desist letters from lawyers, concerning what other members said. I was threatened but knew Section 230 fairly well. There were at least 5 instances where I told a lawyer they had no clue about the law. A few I hung up on, a few I laughed at and told to EFF off and all of them got yelled at .

Did you go all Les Grossman on them?



I will rain down an un-Godly f***ng firestorm upon you! You're gonna have to call the f***ng United Nations and get a f***ng binding resolution to keep me from f***ng destroying you. I'm talking scorched earth, motherf****! I will massacre you! I WILL F*** YOU UP!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Did you go all Les Grossman on them?



I will rain down an un-Godly f***ng firestorm upon you! You're gonna have to call the f***ng United Nations and get a f***ng binding resolution to keep me from f***ng destroying you. I'm talking scorched earth, motherf****! I will massacre you! I WILL F*** YOU UP!

It was more like "you're just a f'ing dumbass, so study section 230 and get back to me, asshole!!" and hung up. With a few I drew it out a little bit, knowing they didn't know their ass from a hole in the ground with regards to this law, otherwise, they wouldn't have sent the freaking C and D to start with.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

John, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides limited immunity from defamation cases to providers and users of interactive computer services. Basically, someone shit-posting someone else on your site does not make you as the site host liable for their defamatory conduct unless you have an active role in editing it. There are nuances, but the whole idea was to prevent a shut-down like you were advised to do.

Adam, thanks, very helpful to know there is a law protecting hosts of forums like Leon's and mine. I think I need a new lawyer. Alas, too late in the game for me to try something again and why would I since we have a much better model in Net54.