A Guide To Libel For Bloggers
from the useful-resource dept
There's a belief out there among some bloggers that they're immune to libel laws. That is simply untrue. While they are likely immune from libel in their comments made by others, things they write themselves are likely to still be open to potential libel lawsuits. Many bloggers don't realize this at all, assuming that "free speech" rights means they can say pretty much whatever they want. And, to some extent, some courts may take into account the nature of the "forum" in which the comments are made -- but by that point (in front of a judge) it's definitely way too late for many people. That's why it's great that the folks over at Public Citizen have put together a nice Guide for Bloggers and Non-Profit Organizations About Writing With Libel in Mind. It's a worthwhile read if you write online.
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
Well....
I will call every douche a douche. Like john edward. The biggest douche in the universe. Talks to the dead my ass....
If I get sued, I will willingly lose, and NOT FUCKING PAY!
most people don't realize that is an option. Just dont pay if you lose. Fuck em. Being sued is not criminal so they can't send you to jail, so fuck em, just don't pay, and keep calling them a douche.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well....
Saying untrue things about someone or making accusations that would hurt their reputation on the other hand is.
Best bet is to say what you want, but never name or picture the person you're ranting about. If they happen to "know" who you're talking about then great!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well....
Your best bet is to keep your comments within the bounds of protected free speech when it comes to public figures, and when it comes to private individuals be sure you have facts to support you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well....
Too much grey area. Say whatever you want; worry about the consequences later. Rah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well....
On the other hand, if John Doe is the mayor of your city and your criticism is related to his ability to perform in office, it is protected by the first amendment.
Yes, there is gray in libel and slander, both of which are civil matters. Fortunately, courts mostly get libel and slander right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Mike Mansick seen doing something somewhere at sometime!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Attorney will be in contact with you Mr Doe.
You have impugned my reputation and I intend to seek legal redress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Note from the Fake Mike Masnick
Besides, if there can be a Fake Steve Jobs, there can be a Fake Mike Masnick.
Next up, the Fake Weird Harold. ;-)
April Fools!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, if you can afford to have an attorney review each post before it goes online, then why would you need a guide like this. Most bloggers have limited resources and it would have been nice to get advice that reflected this. Also, in an age where anonymous message board posts and comments can break a story, how are bloggers suppose to tell the difference between "tabloid" sources and "respected" publications. One of my top blog posts last year was sourced from a Doom9 forum posting, could this have exposed me to liability whereas the same article in the New York Times wouldn't? I understand the need to be more cautious with sources you can't identify, but this guide makes no attempt at recognizing the realities of being part of the blogging community. The sphere is built on links, yet we're not supposed to link unless it's to some kind of official report.
While I realize that libel laws can be harsh and that this guide is designed to create a 100% bullet proof defense against this kind of liability, but I would have rather seen some practical advice on when you might be better off leaving a link out or finding another corroborating source.
It would also have been nice to see them focus more on how to present an opinion without getting sued, especially since most blogs are 100% opinion. End of the day, it seemed like this info would be of more use to newspapers or professionally run sites then it would be to the vast majority of bloggers who are just normal people interested in sharing their thoughts online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Davis Freeberg's comment
Many of the specific issues on which Davis seeks more guidance are covered in greater detail in some of the resources linked at the end of the guide.
As for writing in prose as opposed to bullet points, I do plead guilty to being a lawyer. At least there are only two footnotes :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Necessity of libel laws?
It's exactly the same as those people who copy techdirt posts and claim them as their own - as Mike has said when they are found out they take a huge reputation hit, and your reputation is really one of your most valuable resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Necessity of libel laws?
Libel and slander laws will remain in place as a reminder to people that they should in fact guard their reputation while they still have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the linked advice doesn't mention is the atrocious state of English libel laws, and English courts' willingness to rule on overseas publications that have only reached a handful of English readers (search "Al Qaeda banker libel" for examples). Some US states have passed laws (NY, IIRC) allowing American writers to countersue locally over cases brought in England that ignore US free speech rights.
That, like everything surrounding libel, is still going to be a long and costly process, that will wreck your life for years, even if you win.
If you want to write serious investigative journalism, whatever the venue, you need to bear in mind the risks you face, not just from local courts but from courts around the world.
If you live in an Engish-speaking country, and you want your local journalists to be able to write freely, you should encourage your local politicians to put pressure on England to rewrite its libel laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Libel Laws, Money Talks Freedom Walks
The writer is defending this action in person as the costs are astronomical and I am supporting this writer and his cause. All writers and journalists should also support him as he is in the forefront of the battle for free speech.
What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet? This action is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists
www.g-book.co.uk is the book web site
[ link to this | view in chronology ]