" 

  
 == FORMAL NOTICE OF MALICIOUS CONDUCT, REPEATING OF LIBEL & SLANDER ==  

 While harming someone's reputation may make you apparently giddy with a sense of power I think you are operating under an illussion and this is not a threat but intended to bring real perspective to what is occurring on this page since you are committed to operate in ignorance by linking to sources shown not only not credible but having been thge subject of lkibel and slander. You apply a double standard allowing sites like ChasinhTheFrog to be cited only when the information on it was derfamatory of Dux... and after investigating the allegations even those made by the LA Times in which photogreaphic evidence proves the LA Times lied and is unreliable, you direct others to slander and libel in print. 

 The law is evolving, but the explosion of blogs has made it clear that a blogger must be very careful when linking-to or repeating statements that might embarrass someone, even if they are completely true and verifiable.  Many states and countries have criminal laws against defamation, even if the embarrassing facts are completely true, and many jurisdictions have strict invasion of privacy laws. 

  Here are some common ways to quickly get your pants sued off: 

 Linking to defamatory web pages 

 Just found some juicy gossip?  Hey, go-ahead and link to-it, it's a free country, right?  Wrong.  The law for republishing a defamation goes back hundreds of years in English common law, and many courts have affirmed that hyperlinking to a lie is republishing the lie.  Further, if the act of hyperlinking can be shown to be malicious, criminal libel penalties (including prison) can be levied: 

     Hird v Wood (1894) - This case held that evidence that a person sat by a defamatory placard beside a roadway, and pointed to it whenever others passed, was sufficient to constitute publication of defamatory material on the placard. 

 (Note: You do not need to be a citizen of a country to avail yourself of their libel protection.  For example, if you have a good reputation in Australia and an Australian citizen has linked to a libelous web page, then you may invoke the Australian criminal libel statutes). 

 Another common game among web villains is ""Google bombing"", having someone publish a defamation on an anonymous web page and then repeatedly hyperlinking to the lie in order to drive-up the false page ranking. 
 Linking to a defamatory web page is republishing the web page 

 As noted in Hird v. Wood, it's been long-established that you cannot ""point"" readers to a defamation without sharing in the responsibility.  This is especially important where the statute of limitations on a libelous web page has expired (often as little as 90 days).  While the victim may not be able to file charges against the original publisher, they do have a cause of action against those who repeat the libel via hyperlinking to the false content.  Also, bloggers are now being considered journalists and they now have the same fact-checking requirements as any other publisher, so ignorance of the law is not an excuse.  We see this reflected in mainstream publishing where blogger Insurance now required for any responsible publisher. 
 Hyperlinking and Jurisdictions 

 The research suggests that defamation laws vary widely between countries and jurisdictions.  Today's blogger is subject to the jurisdictions of over 190 countries and states and you must ensure that you do not inadvertently defame or injure someone by linking to a ""false light"" or a defamation.  In the United Kingdom the act of hyperlinking to a defamatory web page alone is legally actionable as “republishing defamation”.  It is also risky to link to a web page that defames some who lives in Georgia, a state that has tough laws against painting someone in a false light in the public eye. 

 See this 2003 Cyberlibel case where ""an intermediate California Appellate court holds that the Communications Decency Act (""CDA"") does not immunize a user of interactive computer services from a defamation claim arising out of her republication of statements authored by a third party, when the user knew or had reason to know of the falsity of those statements."" 

 While the case law is vastly different between jurisdictions, we see this in the comprehensive legal review ""Defamation via the Internet"": 

     ""Although the case law is not entirely clear, contrary to what many may believe, incorporating a hyperlink to associated Web content may possibly render a content 
     provider liable for publishing defamatory material published on the hyperlinked documents. 

     This is because a hyperlink may be interpreted as directing users to the defamatory content, in a similar way to the person pointing to the placar