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

Negative Review On Yelp Leads To Defamation Lawsuit

from the this-again? dept

There have been plenty of stories about companies suing people for posting negative reviews about their business practices, and it still seems like a really dumb thing to do -- as in the end all it does is call a lot more attention to the negative review. That's what appears to be happening with a lawsuit over a negative review of a chiropractor on Yelp. The review claimed that the chiropractor was using questionable business and billing practices. The chiropractor threatened the reviewer -- and even though the review was deleted, sued the guy for defamation. Of course, now the details of the supposed unethical billing practices (involved trying to bill insurance companies significantly more, and when that didn't work coming back to the guy and asking him to pay up instead) are getting a lot more attention.

Filed Under: defamation, opinions, reviews
Companies: yelp

Model Sues Google Because Some People Are Just So Mean

from the suck-it-up dept

I still haven't quite figured out why people think that it's illegal to be a jerk, but there's just some part of people's brains that makes them believe that if they don't like something, it simply must be illegal. A model named Liskula Cohen is apparently really, really peeved that there are some mean people online who have been making fun of her, and she's suing Google to get the company to reveal the identity of those mean, mean jerks. Of course, in doing so, Cohen has only called that much more attention to the fact that some random anonymous internet losers think she's "skanky."

Filed Under: anonymity, defamation, liskula cohen
Companies: google

Yet Another State Court Explores Right To Anonymity In Online Posting

from the you-can't-go-back... dept

We've seen an awful lot of lawsuits over the years concerning the "right to anonymity" for online commenters. While other countries tend to be pretty quick to take away anonymity, rulings in the US have pretty consistently allowed anonymous posting. However, the issue keeps coming up -- with the latest battle taking place in Maryland's Court of Appeals, where a business owner is demanding the identity of two anonymous posters on an online message board, who complained that the owner's Dunkin' Donuts location was "one of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen" on the site NewsZap, owned by the company Independent Newspapers.

Recently, in a similar case, a court ruled that a newspaper can keep its comments anonymous under the same rules that allow it to keep any sources anonymous. It doesn't sound like this argument came up in this case, but it might be worth considering.

But, more to the point, this seems like it could also be a SLAPP suit. The complaint was clearly a statement of opinion. And, of course, in bringing this lawsuit, it seems like all Zebulon J. Brodie has really done is draw an awful lot more attention to the fact that people think the Dunkin' Donuts he owns in Centreville, Maryland isn't particularly clean. Maybe he would have been a lot better off just making sure that it was clean. And, if he really felt that the message was unfair, why not just post a message pointing out that it wasn't true (hell, put up a photo) and invite anyone to come in and check it out. Wouldn't that have been a lot easier, cheaper and more effective?

Either way, Brodie chose a different route for whatever reason -- but as Public Citizen's Paul Levy argued in court, the issue with anonymity is that once it's removed, you can't go back. A court should be quite cautious and convinced that defamation has actually happened before removing that important right.

Filed Under: anonymity, defamation, maryland

Don't Speak Your Mind In British Columbia -- Even At Home

from the travesty-of-justice dept

Just a warning if you live in British Columbia: you might not want to express your opinion out loud, ever. Even if you're at home. Jon R writes in with a somewhat horrifying story of a man in British Columbia who has been found guilty of defamation for a private conversation he was goaded into, at home, which was secretly recorded. Defamation laws (for libel and slander) were designed to stop the public presentment of false information, traditionally through some sort of media property. It certainly was never intended to be used for the random comments made privately at home.

In this case, a developer was annoyed that residents in one of the developments where he owned the water and sewage rights were complaining about the way he operated. So, he hired a private detective to pretend to be a potential homebuyer in the neighborhood. The detective knocked on the door of Jack and Judy Aasen and asked about the neighborhood. They, being friendly people, invited him in and had a nice discussion with him, pointing out that they liked the neighborhood very much, and the "only problem" was dealing with the guy who owned the utility, Brad Chapman, who was about to tear up their yard and cut back on their sewage service. The Aasens were upset that they had no choice to switch to another provider and that they had no say in stopping their lawn from being torn up. Jack jokingly referred to Chapman as "a prick" and said he "kind of makes the suggestion that he's got the mayor in his pocket." During this conversation with a guy they thought was just a friendly potential new neighbor, the detective was actually recording the whole thing.

Aasen and three others got charged with defamation for this, and the amazing thing is that the court agreed -- specifically on the comment about the mayor being in his pocket. Even that seems pretty questionable, though, since Aasen never said the mayor was actually in the guy's pocket, only that Chapman himself "kind of makes the suggestion" of that. To then charge the guy with defamation for that statement seems like a huge stretch. But, much more troublesome is this idea that you could go into someone's home, misrepresenting yourself, secretly record the conversation while coaxing the people you're talking to to say something negative about someone else... and get them found guilty of defamation for it.

Filed Under: british columbia, canada, defamation, opinion

Auto Forum Moderator Sued For Highlighting Problems With Aftermarket Maker

from the can't-take-the-criticism,-so-we'll-sue dept

It really amazes me when we see companies go out of their way to sue critics or those who post negative reviews of their products or practices. If those companies put the same amount of effort into actually treating their customers right and taking the criticism as feedback, they'd probably be doing a lot better. Instead, companies that treat customers badly usually discover that suing critics only helps turn more people off to the company. Reader Crash70rs points us to a post on the HotRodders.com forum, where one of the moderators at the site is being sued for defamation by an aftermarket manufacturer named Streetbeasts.

The moderator had written a wiki article about the company, highlighting the fact that the company was connected to another company that had been found guilty of wire fraud and defrauding customers. Streetbeasts seems upset about a bunch of things that were said about the company -- though, some of them clearly seem to be opinion-based, and others hardly seem defamatory. The moderator notes that this is basically a SLAPP lawsuit designed to silence him rather than to win a defamation case, and he's decided to fight it (good for him). Maybe, one day, companies will realize that dealing with your problems is better than suing those who point them out.

Filed Under: cars, defamation, slapp
Companies: streetbeasts

Canadian Court Rules That Linking To Defamatory Articles Isn't Defamatory

from the victory-for-free-speech-online dept

You may recall the story of Wayne Crookes, a Canadian businessman who is active in the Green Party in Canada. In 2007, he sued Google, Yahoo, Myspace, Wikipedia and some other sites, claiming that all were liable for content that he found defamatory. It's somewhat interesting to try to follow the trail of what the actual libel is -- as many of the lawsuits for libel are focused on stories about (you guessed it) him filing for libel lawsuits (which certainly appears to be true, rather than libelous). With at least some of those lawsuits, the Canadian Supreme Court tossed them out, though over jurisdiction issues, rather than on the merits of the case.

In one case, Crookes sued the website P2PNet for just linking to the material that Crookes found libelous. It seemed like a huge stretch to say that merely linking to content (even if you grant that it was libelous) is also libel. And, the good news is that a court has now agreed. It has sided with Jon Newton, the operator of P2PNet in noting that simply linking to libelous material is not, in itself, libelous. The ruling does note that if the link text had been libelous, that might be a different story -- but just linking to the text as part of a discussion about the lawsuits is hardly libelous. This is definitely a huge win for free speech in Canada -- though, Canada could take a big step forward in updating its defamation laws to make it clear that the liability for libel should be on those who actually were libelous, rather than those who host it or point to it.

Filed Under: canada, defamation, free speech, jon newton, libel, linking, p2pnet, wayne crookes

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.

Filed Under: bloggers, blogs, defamation, libel

Yet Another Company Sues Over Being Called Adware

from the yet-again dept

We've seen a few such cases in the past -- and they usually end with a judge telling the suing company to shove off, but here we have yet another company upset that its being labeled as an adware/spyware provider. In this case, it's a company called 7Search, which is suing McAfee. 7Search is claiming that McAfee's warning about "downloads" from its site having been "credibly" called adware or spyware are false and defamatory because 7Search no longer offers software for download off its site (though it apparently did in the past).

As Eric Goldman notes in the link above, just bringing these types of lawsuits tends to backfire. As we noted above, they rarely, if ever, win, and simply filing the lawsuit draws much more attention to the company -- often including reports from users about why they do think the software in question is adware or spyware. In the meantime, if 7Search no longer offers downloads, then it's not clear what it's upset about either, since it's not like the McAfee warning is going to stop people from downloading its software -- since, apparently, there's no software to download.

Filed Under: adware, defamation, lawsuits, naming, spyware
Companies: 7search, mcafee

Principal Loses Lawsuit Against Students Over Fake MySpace Profile

from the taking-the-pal-out-of-principal dept

You may remember a story we had last year about a principal at a school so overreacting to some students creating a fake MySpace profile for him that he took them to court. It's one thing to ask MySpace to take down such a profile or to discipline the students in school (both of which would likely backfire as well), but to take them to court seems extreme. And, apparently, the courts think so too. An appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that there was no defamation or intentional infliction of emotional distress in the case. Of course, the judge does also scold the kids for their "unacceptable" conduct. Luckily for the kids, "unacceptable" wasn't against the law in this case.

Filed Under: defamation, myspace profile, principal, students
Companies: myspace