Is It Defamation If A Commenter Libels The Owner Of A Blog In That Blog's Comments?
from the legal-questions dept
Well, here's an interesting legal question brought about by modern technology. If a commenter on a blog "defames" the owner of that blog, and the blogger does not delete those comments, is it still defamation? According to a court in the UK, the answer is no. The court found that, since the blogger had the ability to moderate comments, leaving them up was a de facto consent to having the comments published. This is fascinating, as defamation law was originally targeted at publishers who used their publications to spread false claims about someone. Yet, today, with the internet and comment systems, the tables are turned somewhat.On the whole, I tend to agree with the ruling -- though, these days I'm fairly skeptical of most defamation suits. It's difficult to see how the guy suffered any "harm" since he left the supposedly damaging comments up when he had every means to delete them. Of course, you could flip that around -- and note that, in deleting those comments, you might only draw more attention to them (hello, Streisand Effect!), and so perhaps you could argue that leaving the comments as they are, and responding to them rather than deleting them, was your way of minimizing the "damage." Either way, it's yet another example of how modern technology sometimes doesn't mesh well with existing laws.
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: blogs, comments, defamation
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If he deletes comments...
That could be a valid argument for leaving them up, even if they are truly libelous.
It could also be used as proof that our legal system is mind numbingly complex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If he deletes comments...
'In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to gain the benefit of the immunity:
'Plaintiffs have successfully argued in a handful of cases that an "interactive computer service" was not entitled to Section 230 immunity because the person or entity in question was an "information content provider" with respect to the information at issue.'
No mention of the defendant not deleting materials. But if you can find something that says otherwise I'd be interested.
CDA Section 230[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want people to knpow about them
I vote for just growing a thinker skin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best way to defuse these is neither litigation nor deletion. Simply post a follow up comment that shuts down the persons rant. It's really hard for someone to gain credibility when they appear to be a raving lunatic and you respond in a controlled and civilized manner, directly refuting the base of their rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're all a bunch...
"Wah! So and so called me a name! Wah! Wah! Sue! Sue!"
Common sense and civility have long since fell to the wayside and personally, I'd like to see dueling re-instated.
"Sir, you have soiled my honor! I demand satisfaction! I will see you at dawn!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We're all a bunch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would be and I think that most other people would be upset. And if they're not upset that bloggers censor their comments, they should be. You really think that censorship, even of stupidity, is the right approach?
You said it yourself, Mike will respond to comments on occasion. This is the right approach, not censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
le sigh :(
And likewise as jesse implied/said, a hate filled comment that adds nothing to an argument or debate will be dismissed even before/if it is deleted, censored, edited, etc.
Pfft. Lost subcriber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: le sigh :(
I thought this would be a position you support but again you just complain/whine.
First off, why would you think that Mike would support a person suing a blogger for defamation? Not only did Mike put scare quotes around the word defame in this post, but based on previous posts, he seems to be quite skeptical of defamation lawsuits.
Secondly, if you interpret his post as complaining and whining, you're just flat out confused. The post was about a fascinating legal issue brought about by technology. Believe it or not, you can discuss an issue, even a contentious one, without it being complaining or whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The ruling is most reasonble
The "publisher" in this case is the blog owner. The commenter has merely sent "a letter to the Editor". The "blog owner" chose to publish this "letter to the Editor" in his own publication.
If the blob owner really wants to sue someone what this, he should sue the publisher (himself). :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]