6 ms·
My understanding is that you would sue the person who originally posted the content. You can sue "John Doe" and subpoena the social media companies and internet
by tonyztan 6y ago
My understanding is that you would sue the person who originally posted the content. You can sue "John Doe" and subpoena the social media companies and internet service providers for information to identify the poster.
https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/defamation-attorney/internet-defamation-who-do-i-sue-if-i-dont-know-who-defamed/ https://revisionlegal.com/internet-law/defamation-attorney/i...
- edoceo 6y agoSeems reasonable, just costs a lot of money. The cost of harassment should out-weigh the cost of protection here tho. A) post video to YouTube for $0 b) contact lawyer to subpoena YT and then sue a jerk? $50,000
- lostcolony 6y agoWhich the removal or not of Section 230 doesn't change. No matter what the law says, no matter what culpability exists, if you can't afford a lawyer, you're not getting anything. An issue with the law in the US, but hardly relevant to the issue at hand.
- leereeves 6y agoBut YouTube has deep pockets, so if you could sue YouTube, lawyers would work on contingency. What lawyer would take a John Doe case on contingency? Worse, what if the defamer is able to hide their identity or from a jursdiction that doesn't care about an order from US courts? In that case, even paying for a lawyer won't help.