Yes, Believe It Or Not, Libel Online Falls Under The Same Laws As Libel On Paper
from the is-it-that-hard-to-figure-out? dept
This is one of those legal decisions that's apparently being hailed as "important," but which could just as easily be described as a no brainer. A U.S District Court in Texas has ruled that libel laws face the same statute of limitations online as they do offline. This seems like it should be obvious, but one company apparently felt that the rules should be extended since the content "lives on" online. Of course, it lives on offline too, it's just not as easily findable (in most cases). However, it hardly seems fair to change the statute of limitations just because the ability to find the content is easier. If anything, you'd think that's an argument to limit the statute of limitations, since it's so much easier to find the potentially libelous content in the first place.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Lawyer's credibility?
The Internet is one great big library, isn't it? What is missing from the Internet is an equivalent to the Dewey Decimal system for content, and there is nobody tapping you on the shoulder saying "shh...."
This is a no brainer to me... Libel laws, or any other laws that relate to it, should be no different for Internet content than any other medium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now, how can you charge someone with liable if the site/blog/comments are made/hosted in another country?
what if the writer is in the US, but the site is in another country? or if the writer is in another country and the server is US?
the internet can't be both domestic and international. pick one. then have general rules. but that won't happen, because if country A doesn't want to follow the rules, they make their "own section" of the internet, and all is fine and dandy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fine and dandy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Responsibility to the responsible.
Ok, now is the time you have to make a distinction. People are responsible for their own actions. Period. Traci Lords did what she did of her own free will regardless of her sour grapes attitude of the present day. She was poor and a runaway, yes, but nobody forced her to go into porn, she had to go out of her way to get ID that said she was old enough and blaming it on porn doesn't work. Drugs are another personal choice, if someone takes them they cannot then blame their consequential actions on the drugs. If they are poor and rob a store, no one but most stupid will blame their actions on their financial status. It doesn't work in a court of law and doesn't work in the real world either.
There ARE exceptions but they are a minority and then blaming porn(or drugs or tobacco companies or whatever) isn't the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Internet can't be both domestic and Internatio
NEW WORLD ORDER
. . . and you can bet Bush wants to rule . . .
And in a rasping breath, you can still hear George SR say: " W. , I *AM* your father. Join ME and together we can RULE the Earth as Father and Son!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Internet can't be both domestic and Intern
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re: Internet can't be both domestic and Intern
Politicians, Conspiracy-Theorists, and Sociopaths
. . . and you can bet that all Politicians are either Conspiracy-Theorists or Sociopaths (some are both). . .
And in a raspy throat, you can still hear George Carlin say: "F*** that!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
legality
the first posters had it right. libel is libel. doesn't much matter if it's on the net or in a book.
no brainer indeed.
as for people doing stupid stuff, there's no reason to say I shouldn't be allowed to do something if my reasons aren't stupid just because other people did it for stupid reasons.
porn itself is victimless.
if you abuse someone into it, that's the crime.
if you force someone to take drugs, that's a crime.
if someone is poor and want to do it for money, that's not a crime.
and it's not really a stupid reason.
they just won't be able to run for president later.
-MBtW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it comes down to who has jurisdiction, is it where client or server is located? the client "does the action" but the server "records" it.
if i write a letter to a paper in FL, but live in MA, and in the letter i "liable" someone, who has jurisdiction? FL or MA? what if the person lives in CA? am i at fault? is the paper?
now, i agree that yes, crimes should be the same online and in "reality" and as i mentioned, it's a matter of determining jurisdiction of events in the internet. once the global community accecpts a standard for internet policy (isn't this against net neutrality) then crimes can be judged. however, i find it difficult to prosicute a case where there may be several jurisdictions involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ps it's LIBEL, not "liable"
LIABLE is what you are if you libel someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeeezus you people! Is it not possible to have an intelligent conversation anymore without somehow blaming the President? My God, get a f***ing life and direct that energy into something productive.
The conversation was about the ignorance of the courts and thier failure to grasp the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but in our fast track world, it's easy to not catch errors. we see a word, it "sounds" the same, and we move on. everyone knows lible, but liable sounds close enough, and our brains say, same difference, move on to more "important" things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel and Liable
Since your the one caught with the mistake you want every one to just move on? "Hypocrite".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monarch
and if you had that much trouble, why not post a correction, or are you that busy with jerking off to TD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]