Reminder: Defamation Still Applies To Bloggers
from the in-case-you-thought-otherwise dept
There's this odd belief among some bloggers that defamation and libel laws don't actually apply to bloggers. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. Some of the confusion may stem from court rulings about comment liability, suggesting that a blogger is not liable for defamatory statements made by others in their comments. Unfortunately, many have taken this to mean that there is no liability for blogging defamatory statements. Others believe that since it's their personal blog, they can say what they want and there shouldn't be any liability, because it's not like a newspaper. While I tend to think the entire concept of defamation laws should be rethought in an era when everyone is a publisher, that doesn't change the fact that they do exist and they do apply to bloggers. At least, that's what one set of bloggers is finding out after a court refused to dismiss a defamation suit against them, when the bloggers insisted their statements weren't defamatory because they were just their opinions. But the claim was pretty seriously undermined by the fact that many of the potentially defamatory statements weren't just made as statements of fact, but were posted on a blog that exclaimed across the site: "OUR STORIES ARE TRUE." Oops.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: bloggers, blogs, defamation, libel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's A 2.0 World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's A 2.0 World
Huh? Reality has been over-marketed to keep up with web over-marketing. Somebody just needs to over-market the law as well?
How exactly is the justice system's fictitious marketing department going to help here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's A 2.0 World
Web 2.0 is, in part, a reference to the low barrier of entry to blogging, and other sites creating models around user-generated content. As opposed to a world where information doesn't flow very well upstream, information now flows in all directions fairly equally - I get your personal opinion just as easily as I get CNN's opinion. The law needs to take that into account when regulating communication (i.e. libel laws)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's A 2.0 World
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal ignorance
The Media Bloggers Association recently introduced a requirement that, in order to join, its members pass an online legal course. Certainly, anyone who is blogging professionally ought to familiarize themselves with the legal basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happened to free speech?
Say what you want to say, just don't say something like;
(put persons name here) killed (put other persons name here) without proof. That's wrong, but you should be able to state an opinion like,
If She/He killed them, then She/He is a dirty f uc king pig.
~ Jim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What happened to free speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
serious question
So, is that grounds for libel? Seems like there's a fine line there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: serious question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defamation still harmful
Oh, and ehrichweiss, I am assuming you are not a lawyer, since the advice you are giving is not very good advice. Though not typical, there have been successful libel suits where even though the person's name was not used, the publication was directed toward an audience who clearly understood, based on the statements made, exactly who the author was talking about. Moreover, the American rule in litigation does not generally allow you to "countersue for . . . attorney fees." If a lawsuit is entirely frivolous, one can petition the court to award attorney fees as a sanction, but it would have to be so clearly lacking in any merit as to leave no doubt that the person who brought the suit did so in utter bad faith. Although I'm dubious of a suit like the one shanoboy describes, I seriously doubt it would meet that standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defamation still harmful
I simply see no justification for carving out a broader exemption of blogs in general; that seems to me to be going much too far.
To me, it looks like you're jumping to conclusions about what Mike actually said. He didn't say that bloggers should be "let off the hook" or given an "exception" in the way you describe. Here's what he actually said...
"While I tend to think the entire concept of defamation laws should be rethought in an era when everyone is a publisher"
Rethinking something doesn't automatically translate into granting carte blanche. Maybe Mike just meant to clarify the law to take into account the relatively new phenomenon of the blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MP3 defamation is still libel, not slander
[ link to this | view in chronology ]