[dangrossman]

The site wouldn't be liable. A lawyer would tell his client that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...

Anyone could post libelous statements on the 50+ million blogs and forums out there, yet you've never seen "Warn HN: Monitor your blog comments for libel" -- that's because you can't be treated as the publisher or speaker, so can't be held liable for what was said.

[getsat]

This, and the fact that the truth can not be libelous. As long as you're not misrepresenting a claim, you're fine.

[Ergomane]

That depends on your location. In NL the truth can get you in a lot of trouble.

Also not that the TOS tries to make the submitter liable for all damages _and_ cost : http://iwasntpaid.com/terms_of_submission

[getsat]

If you stole money from me, I sued you and won the lawsuit, and then published an article about how you stole from me, that could be construed as being libelous?

[Ergomane]

No, because our law separates defamation into two parts.

- Libel (laster) where allegations are not true or the defendant should have known they are not true.

- Smaad where allegations are true, or it's reasonable for the defendant to assume they are true.

In your example, you could be convicted of Smaad, unless you could show that you

1) acted in the public interest.

2) or needed to defend yourself against eg a counterclaim

3) or did not intend to harm someones good name

See http://lexius.nl/wetboek-van-strafrecht/boek2/titel16

[getsat]

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

[WettowelReactor]

You still need to defend yourself against the suits no matter how unjustified. That is not a free activity in terms of money or time.