If the claim made is false --- bingo. That is a false statement of fact. Opinion and hyperbole are not generally actionable. And libel and defamation are almost always a tort (civil). It would, in most jurisdictions, cross into criminal only in a case where there is a threat of harm (likely physical harm) You, Jake, have yet to cite these alleged falsities and refute them with any verifiable facts. You are just blowing smoke, lad. And, again U.S. federal law seems to be escaping you.Jake Simmons11:29 AM on December 02, 2011Wallace says...In a word I would be more than happy to debate this issue with you, you see you must know the laws of the land not state what you interpret them to be. Any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published and if the claim made is false and published is communicated to someone other than the person defamed falls under defamation by principle and law. In common law jurisdictions and United States law, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. The law and act states the burden of proof falls on the individual making the claims and the burden of proof is very high. You do have the freedom of speech in most of these jurisdictions; however the laws in most jurisdictions supersede the freedom of speech when it comes to unwarranted harmful or hateful statements. The fact that you state that the owner of Real Scam is not involved tells me you have some type of contact with them to know this and if in fact he/she is not involved would mean that they are just the broadcasting medium and therefore fall under the broadcasters code if they have a legal statement on their site that they do not endorse or support the statements made by members. The FCC which covers the legislation of broadcasters and is careful to not become involved with the broadcasters First Amendment Rights unless they broadcast hate, defamation, slander or libel. There is such a Legal link on the Adlandpro site stating the responsibilities of the members or customers postings but it appears you have chosen to ignore that and make implications which my friend is in fact criminal. Personally I have asked others in my class to look into this as part of our test studies. You and your friends may believe what you are doing is noble and for that you will be protected; however breaking laws under the guise of righteousness is not noble it just in fact criminal. You and your friends are going down a dangerous road, my free advice would be I am sure you believe in your cause and that's fine but use some discretion and be more careful in what you state and about who, otherwise you will find that the one's you are chasing will be well inside their legal rights to be chasing you and if you have no documentation or physical proof to back yourselves up you will lose.
An interesting argument, but flawed. You are viewing Realscam as an entity, or organization, which it is not. It is a forum, where people can voice their opinions and observations. As has been stated many times, the owner is anonymous and does not actively participate. The opinions are those of the individual posters only. Your assertion that Realscam is engaging in anything is ludicrous.
The Harvard Law site states:
You, Jake, better be able to substantiate your claims that folks from RS are doing something criminal. And, let's be honest. I could get better advice from the nearest bartender!...if you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) will likely shield you from liability for certain kinds of problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties on your site. This important federal law protects you from tort liability for statements contained in these materials – and any other user-submitted content – you publish on your site. You will not lose this immunity even if you moderate or edit this content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that CDA 230 will only protect you if a third-party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website. It does not shield you from liability for your own statements.