Re:Federal Judge Says Internet Archive's Wayback Machine a L...
by corecoder on Friday May 20, 2016 @03:32AM
(#11736079)
Of course in the cases I mentioned the opposing side challenged the screenshots; screenshots are not invalid by themselves, but if I bring a screenshot and claim that it's not been forged, that's still just my word, so it cannot add value to my word.
Re:Federal Judge Says Internet Archive's Wayback Machine a L...
by sandworm101 on Thursday May 19, 2016 @10:59AM
(#11730720)
You always need testimony in US courts. Evidence is not just admitted, someone has to vouch for it (not the legal term).
Re:Federal Judge Says Internet Archive's Wayback Machine a L...
by pdabbadabba on Thursday May 19, 2016 @11:39AM
(#11731018)
Yes, that's right. I was just trying to stay out of the procedural weeds a bit.
Re:Federal Judge Says Internet Archive's Wayback Machine a L...
by zerocrates on Thursday May 19, 2016 @11:55AM
(#11731142)
Well, there is such a thing as self-authenticating evidence.
Both are right. Defamation is a general term that encompasses both libel and slander. Libel is written, slander is spoken. When in doubt, just say "defamation."
> a screenshot cannot possibly be used as evidence
Generally speaking, I see no reason why this should be the case. And screenshots are routinely used as evidence in U.S. courts. Of course, if the opposing side challenges the accuracy of the screenshot, then you'll need to give more evidence (testimony, probably) about how it was produced. But that doesn't mean that screenshots are per se unreliable.