What message do you take away from this $1 million online defamation verdict

I don't think it says anything good.

I'd like to think cases like this might slow down the bloggers spreading fake news and choosing 'sides' based on little fact or knowledge.

But if it takes 2+ years to make them 'stop' - or to make them 'accountable'....not much of a victory there. Appeals will likely drag on for more years.

Is that enough to make bloggers or news media vet their stories better - is it enough to keep online users from jumping into argument with their 'petitions' and threats?

I've long believed the laws must be strengthened to provide more immediate relief from incidents like this. This was an attack on someone's reputation and their business. The photographer's contract may have saved her in the end - but it didn't help keep these people from making false claims or stop the bloggers from jumping on the story.

Personally, on forums like this or on blogs online - when I see a finger-pointing 'story' - I often move on because I know it's only one side of a story.

This is not the work of a third party blogger. It is a current blogger with a following that used that blog to ruin someone's business because she was too stupid to read the contract she signed and when she did, didn't like what was in it. What was in it is pretty normal in the wedding photography business.

Frankly, I think more businesses should sue consumers over defamation. We are guaranteed freedom of speech but it's not always free when you use it to harm someone else. That is my main take from the article. It's also surprising that just the newlyweds were named in the suit. I would think in these litigious times, an enterprising lawyer would have gone after even bigger fish - the networks who propagated the defamatory, baseless story as well as the social media networks who allowed the defamation to occur on their platforms.

Too bad this business will never really see the million dollars. Somebody complaining about spending $125 for a wedding album cover isn't likely to be able to come up with that sum over the course of their life.

This just seems stupid. They should have just paid the small fee and gotten there photos in my opinion.

What to take away from it? Be honest and try not to deceive? honestly, often a few discussions can sort it most issues, no need to try to ruin someone's business

I heard an announcement on the news today about that.....

The Governor of Kentucky will not tolerate hate speech or profanity on his social media accts - so has blocked quite a few people from his FB and Twitter accts.

The ACLU - on behalf of a few disgruntled Gov-haters - has filed a suit against the Gov. saying he is impinging on the freedom of speech of those who want to reach him by social media.

His response is they can say what they want on THEIR social media - not on his accts. Wonder how that will end up....