Watch what you write about people on the internet!

http://www.watoday.com.au/technology...28-11vxwm.html

In before Tom Dwan sues the pants off of 1000 random NVGers

" it's never really been about the money; it's just been about clearing my reputation."

said while suing them for $340k. I imagine some of these guys may well be members of 2+2. Wonder whether this will spark any other similar proceedings.

Lol of course a poker player would sue his friends over that. It's also illegal to troll in the UK. Better watch what you say these days and remember to report any British trolls to the proper authorities.

quite right.

Doug Lee is gonna be rich once he hears about this.

So, looks like the guy stole $2000. If so, they r totally in their rights imo.

Well it says it the article the only way they could win the case was if they could prove the guy stole the money. And they didn't. It's not like this was decided by an arbitrator or a respected member of the poker community. This was decided by a judge in a court of law that there was no proof he stole it...

Is it possible he hid the money in order to later steal it? Seems strange they would accuse him of stealing the money if it was in fact hidden in a "soft toy" (pocket pussy?). Or it was possibly hidden there after he was called out on it? It seems strange that it was "found" in a soft toy. You would think the owner of said money would recall where he placed 2k.

Guy looks like a used car salesman in that picture.

Someone called me arsedonky fish******65876tyhgkjh6k on pokerstars

can i know sue?

That's up to sue, not us, or any judge for that matter.

Money in the flesh light, make 300 G's

I suppose you mean can you sue someone for insulting you (although I like the answer below yours). Generally not, at least in the U.S., unless what they said could be considered a provable fact and not opinion, rhetoric, hyperbole, or ridicule.

If they said at a table with other players "You arsedonky fish that broke in my house and stole my laptop", now you may have something, depending on its context and whether you were ever convicted of doing such a thing.

* Not a lawyer disclaimer

Edit:

Australia defamation laws must be more stringent than U.S. (assuming that quote from the article is accurate) because there are several other defenses to a defamation suit here, which is why so many are B.S. filed by people trying to be a bully because they got their feelings hurt or are trying to force their unethical behavior out of the public light.

Getting a fact wrong does not automatically make it defamation in the U.S. like that paragraphs makes it seem like it is in Australia.

Seems like a pretty terrible ruling to me. Payout is obviously ridiculous given it's basically a bunch of people who don't like each other calling each other names.

I've heard a bit about this in 'Australian poker circles', but I guess i'd better not comment incase I get sued for 340k lol

Agreed. This is a bunch of acquaintances that had a falling out that are mudslinging on Facebook, hardly a forum where one expects to find credible discussion and hyperbole and rhetoric run rampant.

http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-....W76cSejw.dpuf

Good luck with that here.

I think it is clear that Australia has a different standard than the U.S.

how is this real? Even two people who read the posts on facebook and repeated them in a private gathering have to pay tens of thousands of dollars?

Seems pretty disgraceful to me. By all means order the defendants to stop saying nasty things about the guy (regardless of whether they're true or not) and make them pay his legal fees, but 340k in punitive damages seems absurdly excessive given that it was basically an argument on facebook and things said in private conversations.

Out of curiosity, anybody have a link to his explanation of what happened to the chips and how they wound up in the toy or can recall what he wrote?

what in the ****

When I started reading the article, I thought the amount of money was outrageous, but the more I read it, the more I thought it wasn't that far out of line. I mean, I still think it's high, but it should definitely be quite a bit more than "make them pay his legal fees".

The judge didn't just say that they had failed to prove the plantiff stole the money; the judge is convinced it wasn't stolen in the first place. If that's true, it would stand to reason that someone has made up this story solely to damage the plantiff. That's got to be worth more than just court costs - there need to be some disincentive to just calling someone a thief with nothing to back it up. Maybe not $340 K, but certainly more than court costs. Especially given this:

All of that is pretty damning; especially the last part.

Apparently in Australia, yes:

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resourc...tralia_02.html

This.
They pretty much deserve it.

I tend to look unfavorably to people that threaten or file these types of suits because they tend to be SLAPPs but after rereading that I think I was not being objective enough. If true, that is exactly why defamation laws exist.

It is stories like that which make the nonsense ones appear to have the slightest bit of legitimacy.

On the other hand, who the hell makes up a story like that and spreads it around? What is the point of that?

True, although it is amazing some of the stupid stuff people do.

But then there is another possible explanation, maybe the most likely - the money isn't found until some time after (maybe later in that day, a day or two later, even longer), but the story has already been put out there because initially they genuinely did believe the money had been stolen. The defendants are too embarrassed to recant, or maybe they don't like the plaintiff so they choose not to, and they keep up the charade right through the hearing. Doesn't make it any better, but it makes a little more sense.

lol facebook idiots