But was the 'moron' defamed?
"Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, its surely self-evident that if a site provides the ability to defame, then the site also needs firstly the ability to remove the defamation on request and secondly the ability to disclose the identity of the defamer."
By 'Self evident' do you mean, 'against all basic principles of presumption of innocence'? Why should track people just in case they might in future defame someone?
Also was she defamed? Can you show me the exact comment where she was defamed? I read the comments, but she doesn't dispute the key point, that she has only a 159 and that is very low for being accepted at yale, i.e. an indication of stupidity. I couldn't find the comment saying she had sex with the dean of admissions at all, can you point me to it?
Anon: "Threatening rape is shocking behaviour, and is surely against the law in any jurisdiction."
Shocking? The comment is:
i'll force myself on her, most definitely. can't wait to meet the young lady."
I don't see how that comment could be claimed to have caused her financial loss. More a case of decorating a piss poor lawsuit with a bit of 'I'm a victim'.
William: "Based on the article summary, it looks like these anonymous posters really did some damage financially to the plaintiffs"
She *claims* to have suffered financially, but then plaintiffs always do. Doesn't mean she has a case.
Read the thread. I'm scratching my head what the hell her problem is. If she's 'Britt' from the thread, she calls people 'morons' for example, but can't take it when they call her 'stupid bitch'. Would they prefer it if they called her a moron? Or is she claiming 'Britt' isn't her?