If So Many Content Creators Don't Understand The Law... Perhaps It's The Law That's The Problem?
from the symptom-or-disease? dept
Over in the UK, a lawyer has penned a column for Silicon.com bemoaning the fact that so many folks who create "user generated content" online are unfamiliar with how things like libel law apply to them. He worries that since so many people don't know the law, they're opening themselves up to tremendous liability. He's almost certainly correct about that. Especially when it comes to libel, many folks who blog think they're immune. But what the column is missing is that the problem might not be one of education -- it might be a problem with the law.People look at blogging or other user generated content endeavors as being no different than talking to a friend. They view the internet as just another way to communicate, rather than as a mass "publishing" platform. But defamation laws aren't built for such a world where everyday communication is also available to the masses. Defamation laws are really designed for a day when there was a restriction on publication. It was to deal with the situation where a powerful publishing entity could write false things, and the victim had no recourse or way to respond. That's just not the case anymore. These days, just about anyone can respond with ease and make their voices heard. Yes, you still have the occasional situation of "mob justice," where a false statement falsely lives on -- but the traditional expansive view of defamation law makes less and less sense when pretty much anyone has access to their own publishing mechanism to respond.
So rather than complaining about the fact that not enough bloggers are taking the time to learn the intricacies of defamation law -- perhaps we should be wondering why that defamation law is there 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
Filed Under: blogging, communication, defamation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Reponse to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reponse to
I like your use of "accountable to standards of accuracy and fairness". I think that is a big problem in today's society, where people read something like Wikipedia and assume it's "fact" and that it's true. In reality, it's mostly fact and mostly true, but not quite fully. But look at the amount of content there that IS fact and that IS true. It is definitely a much larger and better source of information than any one entity or publication.
So why is Wikipedia so great? Because it's not ENCUMBERED by so-called standards. People can post just about anything they want, quickly and conveniently, with no burden of approvals or delays until it's posted. And as a result, you get a LOT of content.
So what of this information that's NOT true or accurate? Surely it's there, but it's relatively uncommon and VERY easy to spot.
I first realized this concept of easy to spot when I was buying a rather expensive item on ebay from a "spotty" seller ( credible opinion.
Then it hit me. Evaluating a statement is RECURSIVE. It means that you see content, and you have to evaluate whether or not it's credible. And that's hard for people that don't understand recursion. I think this problem stems from having TOO MUCH accountability in traditional media. That is, there's a lot of red tape to put content up on tv or a newspaper, so viewers/readers can just take it as fact without really validating the author.
Which is terrible. The author is NOT always right. Look at just about any highly technical story published in a non-scientific medium (ie, a newspaper). The author essentially gets a story from a PR firm, and they call up a few industry reps and write down what they say. TERRIBLE. I could probably google for 30 seconds and come up with a hundred examples.
Look at Letterman or Leno, Conan, Bill Maher. They state untrue content on a daily basis, with no lashback. And there is an entire market based around consuming this content that's obviously intended to be consumed as "false". Why should they not be sued by the people they make fun of? Because they "warn" their audience that everything they say is blatantly untrue. Is having this type of content available on television detrimental to society somehow?
Of course not. The only possible harm in publishing false content is when you say "this content is absolutely correct and I verify it as a professional." That's the difference between communication about "who's going out with who" with your friends, and publishing facts. In the former, it's implied that what you say is just your opinion and probably isn't true, and that's why nobody takes it seriously. With something like blogs, you obviously get a few idiots getting upset by taking it too seriously, but there's a limit on the potential harm. If you post something blatantly untrue on your blog, it's just too easy to disprove it, much like a poorly written ebay transaction rating. Where there's no credibility, there's no real potential for harm.
Slander and Libel laws really have mo place in the "blogosphere". Blogs are people chatting, not authors trying to publish official content, or "facts". Or is it? What about the official Google Blog? That is legitimate content, but it's INTENDED to be, and it's STATED as fact, backed by the credibility of Google, being hosted by google.com. So you have two cases, one on a bad ebay user rating, and one of an official Fact-board. Both are present and written on the internet, but neither one can create any harm. So why do we need a law here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reponse to
Perhaps I did not make myself clear. If someone does "spread gossip, rumor and outright falsehoods that demean someone's reputation" then as that news comes out, it's THEIR OWN reputation that gets damaged.
In other words, this should become a self-regulating system, as the risk of doing those things prevents people from doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just because it's abused...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree with you, Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am with the everyone else
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
old/new
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the law doesn't need to change
People need to take responsibility for what they say about others. We should not change defamation laws merely to accommodate the degeneration of personal responsibility that is so pervasive today, especially online.
HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flashing lights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? Change the law because people are stupid/lazy?
However, I can step across the line into libel and be held accountable too,as I should be. I've often used my blog to bring a retailer to justice, and recently to bring my web host to task in the same manner, but I'm aware of the consequences of speaking falsely.
Just because some people are too stupid to bother to know laws that govern their actions doesn't mean the laws should fade away. It's very untrue to state that "That's just not the case anymore. These days, just about anyone can respond with ease and make their voices heard." Sure, you can. I can. Some others can too. But not everyone has a blog, web site, or other means from which to do so.
Since lots of people are driving around our country under age with no license while drunk, I suppose we should repeal those too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other side of coin ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What many here are not taking in to account is that whatever one writes it is illegal, criminal, or libel someplace.
Referencing a historical perspective this entire website and everyone who ever posted to it would have been considered subject to the most severe form of readjustment is Stalin's or Mow's day.
Should a person in the US or UK have been subject to Soviet law?
Well with the internet other like minded governments now have the ability to cruse the world looking for people breaking their law. The only thing left is the means of capture, trial, and punishment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also- People need to take responsibility for the things they say about people? More like people need to be smart enough to disprove anything some "blogger" could say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defimation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many times, bloggers tend to post things without considering the fact that their remarks are being published to the entire world, but this is to be expected. I'm sure all of you remember taking psychology classes where they discuss how individuals speak and act differently in different envirnments. For example, people act completely different at church then while in a gym locker room. The same concept applies online. There is no single "online envirnment" -- it's all mixed up. Some sites are real formal, others are casual, and others are somewhere in the middle.
With that being said, I think defamation law should be revised with that in mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK doesn't have the US 1st Amendment
However in the US the First Amendment gives citizens far more freedom to speak their minds than in the UK. Trying to prosecute a blogger for slander in the US is almost impossible. In the UK, it is much, much easier.
Other nations have much less freedom of speech than the US, and not only can you be sued for slander, but you can be criminally prosecuted.
Some people have attempted to sue Americans for slander, but in UK courts. They do this because they know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel origins
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Libel laws
No, you did not. The point was that if the person is libeled, they have the ability to *spread* the news in a response. If a major publication publishes false statements, you can pretty much bet that there will be many people willing to spread that story and embarrass the original source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]