> [56] As for the possibility of suing the author of the Defamatory Post for defamation, the Plaintiff was advised by a lawyer in Town B that he was time-barred because, under [State A] law, the action must be brought within one year of its appearance, regardless of when the victim of the defamation sees the publication.[2]
> [57] The content of [State A] law in this respect is uncontested by the parties.
As for the owner of the website, it's a bit more unclear. It does say that the plaintiff corresponded with the website operator.
> [62] The email correspondence shows that Mr. Magedson asked Mr. T. U. to provide documentation from a police authority showing that the Plaintiff was never the subject of the kind of charges alleged in the Defamatory Post, a Kafkaesque reverse-burden demand to prove one’s innocence.
> [63] If that information were to be provided, Mr. Magedson stated that he would be willing to insert a statement that RipOffReport investigated and concluded that the post is not true. He said that the Defamatory Post would not be removed but certain words would be redacted.
> [64] Mr. Magedson said he never takes down a report posted on his site. In his last email to Mr. T. U., he signed off ominously with the following sentence, “We will all be blogged – good or bad, right or wrong – WE WILL ALL BE BLOGGED” (reproduced as is).
> [65] Mr. T. U. testified that he abandoned the correspondence with Mr. Magedson since he lost hope of obtaining satisfactory relief.[4]
I think it's because the 1 year from time of appearance also holds.
> [56] As for the possibility of suing the author of the Defamatory Post for defamation, the Plaintiff was advised by a lawyer in Town B that he was time-barred because, under [State A] law, the action must be brought within one year of its appearance, regardless of when the victim of the defamation sees the publication.[2]
> [57] The content of [State A] law in this respect is uncontested by the parties.
As for the owner of the website, it's a bit more unclear. It does say that the plaintiff corresponded with the website operator.
> [62] The email correspondence shows that Mr. Magedson asked Mr. T. U. to provide documentation from a police authority showing that the Plaintiff was never the subject of the kind of charges alleged in the Defamatory Post, a Kafkaesque reverse-burden demand to prove one’s innocence.
> [63] If that information were to be provided, Mr. Magedson stated that he would be willing to insert a statement that RipOffReport investigated and concluded that the post is not true. He said that the Defamatory Post would not be removed but certain words would be redacted.
> [64] Mr. Magedson said he never takes down a report posted on his site. In his last email to Mr. T. U., he signed off ominously with the following sentence, “We will all be blogged – good or bad, right or wrong – WE WILL ALL BE BLOGGED” (reproduced as is).
> [65] Mr. T. U. testified that he abandoned the correspondence with Mr. Magedson since he lost hope of obtaining satisfactory relief.[4]
I think it's because the 1 year from time of appearance also holds.