Links
[1] https://www.dmlp.org/threats/ramsey-v-harman
[2] http://www.bonifide.us/
[3] https://www.dmlp.org/resources/primer-section-230-communications-decency-act
[4] http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bychapter/chapter_50c.html
[5] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-06-17-Ramsey%20v.%20Harman%20Appeals%20Opinion.pdf
[6] http://blog.internetcases.com/2008/07/01/accused-blogger-did-not-cause-substantial-emotional-distress/
[7] http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/dsheets/071536-1.htm
[8] https://www.dmlp.org/sites/dmlp.org/files/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2008-06-17-Ramsey%20v.%20Harman%20Appeals%20Opinion.pdf
[9] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/1112#comment-1112
[10] https://www.dmlp.org/comment/1113#comment-1113
Comments
You are inaccuarte [9]
The Appeals court did not rule that these posts were found to be harrassment. Read the findings...You incorrectly posted inaccuaracies...
Change made [10]
Cindie,
That part of the appellate opinion is a bit ambiguous, so I changed our description to make it clear that the appeals court overturned the lower court's order because the plaintiffs failed to show evidence that the posts were intended to cause or actually did cause them substantial emotional distress.