I'd like you to meet my attorney, Rob Neuhouse
There's been a lot written about Saturday's Blog Summit. One of the big issues was the discussion about blog legalities and libel.
It's important to get this right because of what's at stake.
Jennifer Peterson cited a verdict that cost a blogger $40 grand. Good speakers know how to get an audience's attention. A lawyer sued a blogger for libel and won.
But how many of us write about things we can't cite support for? How many of us write about non-public people other than family members?
There are standards for libel.
People in the public domain, like President Bush or Michael Jackson, have little recourse for public mockery, or even public defamation that cannot be proven. Consider Rathergate, David Letterman and every tabloid from the Globe to the Enquirer. The limits on what can be said/written are minimal.
Peterson noted that issues of libel could extend to a blog's comments page. There is no precedent for this, and I doubt a suit would stand up in court.
A main impediment is that most comments pages don't have a review function; anyone can post a comment. This is nothing like a newspaper's Letters to the Editor page, which posts edited comments approved by the editors. It's more like a discussion by an audience.
Comments also come with time stamps and ID that record ISPs. This makes it clear that another author is behind the comments. If the author or others argue against the defamer, further support exists that the "publisher" has acted responsibly.
Peterson did say that the most likely case would be if a complaint were lodged to the blog publisher and there was no response. Don't ignore complaints. If you have to remove a comment, leave the post space with a note that the content has been deleted by the site administrator. This prevents problems with cacheing.
Nonetheless, the suit must prove that a private citizen has been falsely defamed to several people. Anyone dumb enough to do that deserves what they get.
Another problem for bloggers is allowing the legal and big media communities or politicians to define this issue for us in Congress and the courts.
I would like to see some proactive involvement on the part of blogging lawyers to secure bloggers' free speech and liability - heaven knows there's enough of them - and an extension of the discussion at future Blog Summits.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this should be construed as discussion and not advice, but as an editor I had to have a fairly firm grasp of my magazine's areas of potential liability. Plus I am concerned when lawyers cause anxiety in areas that are questionable with concern to applicable precedent or law.
It's important to get this right because of what's at stake.
Jennifer Peterson cited a verdict that cost a blogger $40 grand. Good speakers know how to get an audience's attention. A lawyer sued a blogger for libel and won.
But how many of us write about things we can't cite support for? How many of us write about non-public people other than family members?
There are standards for libel.
LIBEL - Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander.
People in the public domain, like President Bush or Michael Jackson, have little recourse for public mockery, or even public defamation that cannot be proven. Consider Rathergate, David Letterman and every tabloid from the Globe to the Enquirer. The limits on what can be said/written are minimal.
Peterson noted that issues of libel could extend to a blog's comments page. There is no precedent for this, and I doubt a suit would stand up in court.
A main impediment is that most comments pages don't have a review function; anyone can post a comment. This is nothing like a newspaper's Letters to the Editor page, which posts edited comments approved by the editors. It's more like a discussion by an audience.
Comments also come with time stamps and ID that record ISPs. This makes it clear that another author is behind the comments. If the author or others argue against the defamer, further support exists that the "publisher" has acted responsibly.
Peterson did say that the most likely case would be if a complaint were lodged to the blog publisher and there was no response. Don't ignore complaints. If you have to remove a comment, leave the post space with a note that the content has been deleted by the site administrator. This prevents problems with cacheing.
Nonetheless, the suit must prove that a private citizen has been falsely defamed to several people. Anyone dumb enough to do that deserves what they get.
Another problem for bloggers is allowing the legal and big media communities or politicians to define this issue for us in Congress and the courts.
I would like to see some proactive involvement on the part of blogging lawyers to secure bloggers' free speech and liability - heaven knows there's enough of them - and an extension of the discussion at future Blog Summits.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this should be construed as discussion and not advice, but as an editor I had to have a fairly firm grasp of my magazine's areas of potential liability. Plus I am concerned when lawyers cause anxiety in areas that are questionable with concern to applicable precedent or law.
posted by Jane Bellwether @ 5:28 PM
<< Home