It's Still A Bad Idea To Commit Libel On Your Blog
from the be-careful dept
It's taken some time, but courts seem to be coming around to the idea that there's no reason to think of bloggers as being distinct from journalists in terms of what rights they have. Last year, the California Appeals overturned a lower court's ruling that a site posting Apple trade secrets did not have the right to protect its sources. Well, with rights come responsibilities, as some are now finding out. In Georgia, an appeals court upheld a $50,000 judgment against a blogger for libeling his former lawyer. The blogger was angry that his lawyer refused to return $3,000 to him after he removed that lawyer from a DUI case. So, he started attacking the lawyer on his blog, accusing him of bribing judges on behalf of a drug dealing operation. It's pretty obvious that this wouldn't fly in a traditional publication, and blogs are no exceptions. What's interesting -- and a positive indication that blogs aren't the legal novelty they once were -- is that the case seemed to be decided on the same grounds as any other libel case. The jury pondered issues such as whether the statements were indeed defamatory, and whether the defamed individual was a public figure or not. Neither the jury nor the court of appeals seemed interested in the longstanding issue of whether one could commit libel on a blog. As for the blogger, who is described as a local political gadfly, he seemed unrepentant, claiming that the trial was a sham and that he planned to "...let the public know it."
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
you mean he allegedly libeled his lawyer right ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diminished capacity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Caps Lock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You, sir, are either incredibly misinformed or an idiot. I'm leaning toward the latter.
I see. You're not just an idiot, you're a hypocritical idiot. Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:freedom of speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hm
Uhh, no. What is the distinction between an online version of a magaxine or paper and a blog? Perhaps a name, but even that distinction can easily be blurred for very popular blogs. The point is that since there's no legal "certification" of publications as "fact sources" the test for libel is based on the publication of damaging statements in a public medium, which posting to an open blog would certainly constitute.
As internet denizens I think we WANT to believe that commenting on blogs comes without consequence (aside from the occasiional flame), but I am glad that the courts are saying that isn't the case. In the future, in order for accurate and less restricted access to information, you need to have a legal "penalty" for those who produce intentionally incorrect and malicious content that was not meant as satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More like a Poster
OTOH, if he said that the lawyer was involved in crime, and could not at least provide some sort of evidence for this, then he should be punished, since a bad reputation could damage his laywer's career.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel
The classic definition is:"a publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule."
(Parke, B. in Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) GM&W 105 at 108)
We as adults must assume responsibility for our actions, that is a very essential part of living in a society. While we Americans enjoy the right of Freedom of Speech, that does not give us the right to use that freedom to injure another person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
let freedom ring!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let freedom ring!
Bill,
Did you even read the link to the case summary? Clearly the lawyer didn't sue until after the comments were posted, so he did sue after the fact as you suggested. Don't get me wrong, my heart isn't tender for lawyers as a rule, but the defendant in this case went so far as to dare the lawyer to sue him, which he did:
That takes a special bread of cahones, or stupidity, to dare a lawyer to take legal action against you. The defendant seems to be a very vengful, morally questionable guy who got what he deserved. This isn't the case of some guy fighting against government wrongdoing or something (which is clearly 1st amendment speech), but a DUI defendent that didn't like the services rendered by his attorney and decided to take a very cheap and apparently made up swipe at the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: let freedom ring!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To make personal attacks on someone is easy to do as well, as long as you are not stating it as fact. "So and so seemed rude to me and I felt cheated" "So and so is always rude and cheats everyone."
there is a difference
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Way I See It.
So, the defendant writes that the lawyer is a so-and-so and won't pay him back. That is the original wrong here. The man was stupid enough to expose his own stupidity in his blog, and should be told to just STFU and go home and sulk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the Message, Not the Medium
If you consider the potential audience, a blog is about as public as you can get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defending lawyers again ;0(
Seems to me if you are going to publish anything in the public domain, whether that be a pamphlet, a sign, on the internet or whatever that libel laws apply
Freedom of speech is great and allows you to say things like "I think this guy sounds suspicious...". However as several posts have pointed out it does not let you make unfounded accusations such as "This guy is doing xxx..."
While the distinction between stating an opinion and stating a fact may seem to be semantics, it is huge. Put it this way - would you be more careful around a snake if someone stated "I don't think its dangerous" or, if they said "I know it's not dangerous" (and yes I would be careful either way but one of the above would be more alarming)
Basically publish and be damned - freedom of speech is great, but you have to bear in mind the injured party in this case has a right not to be unjustly defamed
Or as Caffeine Kitty put it in post #11 - The freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. Great quote by the way - I'll have to remember it ;0)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Freedom'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]