Filmmaker Sues Websites After Commenters Cost Him A Job

from the misdirected dept

Over the years, we've been threatened with lawsuits a few too many times -- almost always due to something that someone said in our comments. The pace of those threats has certainly increased over the years, but most are nothing more than angry bluster. In the few cases where it appears to be someone serious, we have our lawyers explain to them Section 230 in rather plain language, noting that suing us for something said by others in our forums will (1) get thrown out of court incredibly quickly and (2) probably only serve to bring a lot more attention to the comments they're so pissed off about. To date, this has always worked quite well.

Of course, other countries don't have Section 230 safe harbors, and so you get a lot more ridiculous lawsuits with someone blaming a forum owner for what people say in that forum. Hopefully, common sense prevails in those cases too... but you never know. A bunch of folks have sent in the story of a lawsuit in Australia where a filmmaker is suing some online forums for comments in those forums that the filmmaker believes cost him a job. Apparently, some folks agreed to a deal with him to produce a certain movie, but after finding those comments, they pulled out of the deal.

First of all, the filmmaker, Greg Smith, appears to be suing the wrong parties. Rather than those who actually made the comments, he's suing the owners of the web forums where the comments occurred. And, on top of that, he never contacted those forum owners about the comments in the first place (at least one says that the first he knew about the complaints was when the lawsuit was filed -- at which point he immediately removed the comments anyway). And, of course, all this has really served to do is call a lot more attention to the comments about Smith (and the way he handles such things).

Filed Under: australia, comments, filmmaker, greg smith, liability, reputation, section 230

Google Quietly Kills Off Its Commentary Feature For News

from the time-to-try-something-different dept

Back in 2007, Google released a feature for its News service that let folks comment on news stories. However, there were some weird quirks to it (eg. you had to be somehow involved in the news articles in order to add your comments to them), so it's not really surprising that it didn't really get much use. It was an interesting idea, though, and the feature isn't devoid of merit. But there were other (and, ahem, better) ways for people to respond to the news, and the benefit of commenting via Google News didn't really solidify. So, as Google is wont to do recently, it shut down its news commentary feature, saying that the experiment had ended.

But what is the real lesson here for content platforms? Obviously, businesses shouldn't continue projects that are not generating enough interest. But besides that, this seems to be a case of assuming that "build-it-and-they-will-come" should work for a high traffic site like Google News. However, even when Google actively tried to get people to comment, people still didn't participate for the most part. The problem likely wasn't that people didn't want to comment on news items, but that they wanted to comment and respond in their own way -- on their own site, on their own terms. And Google News didn't really allow that -- and even made it difficult by requiring a step to verify the submitted comments. So it seems that the takeaway for other content platforms is to make it easy to create content (or commentary, in this case), but also, don't try to control or restrict users' content. Lessons that Google should probably have already learned from YouTube and Blogger?

Filed Under: comments, news
Companies: google

ACLU Explains Why It's Fighting To Protect Info On Anonymous Vegas Newspaper Commenters

from the you-should-be-able-to-criticize-the-gov't dept

We recently wrote about the fishing expedition US prosecutors went on trying to get all sorts of info (much of which didn't exist) on anonymous commenters on an article by the Las Vegas Journal-Review. The newspaper fought (publicly) the request as being way too broad, leading the feds to back down and greatly narrow the request to just info on four commenters. The newspaper appears to have no issue giving up that information, but the ACLU is still protesting, claiming that one should be able to anonymously criticize the government without having US Prosecutors track you down. Specifically, the ACLU notes that the US Attorneys are really stretching things to call the comments in question "threats" to the US Prosecutor involved in the lawsuit the article was about. It does seem clear that the comments weren't meant seriously. It sounds like people who disagree with the result of the case venting in the same way people vent on pretty much any forum online. That said, I would agree with the ACLU if the newspaper were being compelled to hand over the info. But if it voluntarily is handing over the info after being asked, then I'm not sure it's an issue for the ACLU to get involved in, because the decision is the newspaper's to make.

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, newspaper, privacy
Companies: aclu, las vegas journal-review

US Prosecutors Narrow Fishing Expedition On Newspaper Commenters

from the but-they're-stil-fishing dept

Last week, we wrote about how US prosecutors appeared to be going on a total fishing expedition, demanding all sorts of information from the Las Vegas Review-Journal about all of the commenters on a certain article, including their "full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers." This seemed to be far overreaching, and we're glad to see many more mainstream news sources picked up on the story this week. It seems that all that public attention has caused the US attorneys to back down a bit, greatly narrowing what they're requesting to information about just two comments. Even then, some are concerned about this, and the ACLU has filed a motion to try to block even the release of the info on those two comments, citing the right to anonymous speech. However, the newspaper seems willing to hand over what little info it had, noting that it really doesn't have much info on the anonymous commenters anyway (and had deleted one of the comments already for violating its terms of service). Either way, it's good to see the US attorneys quickly back down from such an over-broad request.

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, fishing expedition, nevada, newspapers, us prosecutors
Companies: las vegas review-journal

Professor Tries To Get Info On Newspaper Commenters

from the shield-laws dept

There have been a bunch of lawsuits lately testing the boundaries of various "shield laws" that protect journalists from having to give up information on sources. There was one recent case that found that even comments on online newspaper articles could be protected by shield laws, as those commenters represented a source. However, a professor in Montana is suing to try to find out the identity of some commenters on a local news article (found via Citizen Media Law Group). The professor had recently lost a lawsuit, and believes that one of the commenters was on the jury -- and that particular comment (which was posted before the case was decided) suggested he had done independent research and believed information (that was false) in making his decision. So, in seeking a new trial, the professor wants the identity of the commenter in question. Attorneys for the professor claim that the juror admitted to writing the post in an affidavit, though the juror now says he did not. Either way, apparently the strong shield laws in Montana mean that the newspaper probably won't have to give up the info.

Filed Under: comments, journalism, newspapers, shield laws

Washington Post Editor Defends Anonymous Unmoderated Comments

from the good-for-him dept

When it comes to major media properties (and even quite a few blogs these days), it seems that "moderating" comments has become the norm. However, it's surprising (though, refreshing) to see a Washington Post editor speak up in defense of unmoderated and anonymous comments, which the Washington Post allows:

I believe that it is useful to be reminded bluntly that the dark forces are out there and that it is too easy to forget that truth by imposing rules that obscure it. As Oscar Wilde wrote in a different context, "Man is least in himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth."

Too many of us like to think that we have made great progress in human relations and that little remains to be done. Unmoderated comments provide an antidote to such ridiculous conclusions. It's not like the rest of us don't know those words and hear them occasionally, depending on where we choose to tread, but most of us don't want to have to confront them.

What's most impressive is that this comes from a guy who wasn't just opposed to such things originally, but was opposed to the whole concept of "blogging." When he finally relented to blogging, he was adamantly against unmoderated comments... but the more he's seen, the more he's realized the value in them:

I have come to think that online comments are a terrific addition to the conversation and that journalists need to take them seriously. Comments provide a forum for readers to complain about what they see as unfairness or inaccuracy in an article (and too often they have a point), to talk to each other (sometimes in an uncivilized manner) and, yes, to bloviate....

In fact, comment strings are often self-correcting and provide informative exchanges. If somebody says something ridiculous, somebody else will challenge it. And there is wit.... Comments also tell us that readers do not always agree with journalists about what is important.

We have always felt that way about comments. While they can be frustrating and ridiculous at times, they are also incredibly educational and entertaining. And, the most ridiculous stuff of all is quickly dismantled by others. That said, it doesn't mean that there aren't ways to improve the commenting experience without necessarily moderating or banning anonymous commenters. We're working on some things here that we'll be rolling out in the near future to hopefully continue to improve the overall commenting and discussion experience.

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, moderation
Companies: washington post

Texas Judge Forces Topix To Unveil Info About Anonymous Commenters

from the so-much-for-protecting-anonymity dept

While plenty of other countries don't provide very much protection to anonymous commenters online, US courts have time and time and time and time again found that it's important to protect the rights of anonymous speech online. That doesn't mean that you can say anything you want -- but it does mean that a court should be quite clearly convinced that the speech violates the law before allowing any progress in an attempt to unmask an anonymous participant.

Unfortunately, it looks like a judge in Texas has ignored all of that. Topix, the online news aggregation and local community site, has apparently been told by a judge to cough up identifying information on 178 formerly anonymous commenters on the site. The details are still a little unclear from the article linked here -- but it looks like the commenters were discussing a sexual harassment case that was happening in Texas. In that case, the defendants were found not guilty, but apparently the online comments on Topix got somewhat nasty. So the couple, fresh off being acquitted of sexual assault charges, sued 178 different anonymous commenters -- and the judge seemed to have no problem ordering Topix to turn over any identifying information it had on those commenters.

This is troubling for a variety of reasons, as it does not appear that the court spent much time in determining whether or not actual libelous statements were made -- it just ordered Topix to hand over the info. Previous courts have found that even if the commenters were being jerks and totally obnoxious, that doesn't take away their right to anonymity. So why is this judge so willing to wipe away anonymity? If there are truly libelous comments, then it could make sense to go through a careful process of trying to identify who they came from. But to give a blanket order to hand over the names seems to go against what so many other US courts have done in similar situations, and raises serious questions about the right to anonymity online.

Filed Under: anonymity, comments, libel, texas
Companies: topix

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.

Filed Under: blogs, comments, defamation

Australian Filtering Boss: Turning Off Blog And Comments

from the but-listening...-we-swear... dept

With the story earlier this week about Australia's Broadband Minister, Stephen Conroy, considering adding BitTorrent filtering to the country's ISP filtering/censorship program, it was notable that Conroy said he was paying close attention to the commentary about the program online -- including various blogs and social network systems like Twitter. That was actually a small glimmer of hope mixed in with the ridiculous policy -- but it appears that Conroy has decided he'd really rather not listen to the conversation on his own blog. While that post about BitTorrent filtering got a lot of attention, it also got a ton of comments, and now Conroy and his team are turning off their blog and closing down the comments. Way to communicate with the people...

Filed Under: australia, bittorrent, blogs, censorship, comments, filters, stephen conroy

Wait, You Mean Homeland Security Isn't Already Scanning Blogs & Forums For Terrorists?

from the uh,-yikes? dept

USA Today is reporting that Homeland Security is looking to start scanning blogs, forums and message boards to try to track terrorists and terrorist activity. My first reaction to this, honestly, was shock. Shouldn't they have been doing this already? As in, for many, many years? To be fair, the article suggests that the real difference here is that in the past Homeland Security has done static searches that they check on every so often -- and now they're hoping for a more real-time solution. Even so, it strikes me as odd that Homeland Security didn't already have something that was at least close to real-time in alerting them to certain things online. For all the talk of sophisticated monitoring on internet activities, could it be that we're really that far behind in internet terrorist monitoring?

Filed Under: blogs, comments, forums, homeland security, monitoring, terrorists