Defamation consists of false and unprivileged publication which results in economic damages.

How is "X is a paedophile" false??

Financial loss is not necessary where the statement implies that a person is a criminal or has an unpleasant disease,

How do you intend to convince the judge that you do not have "an unpleasant disease"???

or which injures a person in respect to his other office, profession, or business.

If your boss / employer fires you, it is your boss / employer who is responsible before the court of law, not pj, least of all if the release of information is, as usually is, anonymous. As stated elsewhere, even if the reason given is your paedophilia (it will usually be disguised as anything else, and you know it), paedophilia isn't covered by anti-discrimination clauses anywhere in the world.

If you are the company boss / entrepreneur and people refuse to do business with you, it is within those people's economic rights to do so, with the exception as applicable of contracts already signed.

This still says nothing about harassment by private individuals with no direct economic links to you, as your family, neighbours, friends or any other acquaintance (hell, "random guy at the street who saw a flier with your face"!!) can be. pj cannot be held legally responsible for that in any way, shape or form.

A judge in Texas issued an injunction to stop defamatory posting by an Internet user.

Explain to me how you intend to prove company responsibility in the postings of a member of pj.

Hate messages sent by e-mail have also resulted in criminal penalties.

Explain to me how you intend to prove that that e-mail was sent by pj, by a pjer, or on behalf of pj, or of a pjer.



You really don't understand what's the deck you're playing with, do you??