CA Court: Message Boards Are Opinions, Not Facts

Masem writes: "According to this Newsbytes story, a CA appeals court has issued a ruling that says that typical messages posted to internet message boards can not be considered as libel or slander, as they inheritently are framed as opinions and not as statements of fact. The case stems from rather negative comments posted by defendants about a computer reseller company on the internet; the company sued for libelous comments; lower courts did initially rule for the company, but the appeals court has overturned this. While not every message posted in a public forum is safe, the court's decision seems to convey that unless the message is framed as a form of fact, then any message posted to a public internet forum should be considered as opinion, and thus cannot be considered as a libelous comment."

Comments

New disclaimer:

[rjamestaylor]

"Comments are owned by the Poster."

Change to

"Comments are Opinions owned by the Poster."

Besides, the best defense may just be, "Hey, this is Slashdot -- you were expecting facts?"

;-)

Re:New disclaimer:

[Bonker]

+5 Funny, yes, but damned good advice all the same. Are you listening, Taco?

Changing the line to something like

"All comments are the opinions of the owner and not the property of Slashdot"

might just save you a world of grief down the line.

Re:New disclaimer:

[TekPolitik]

If the "context" is framed (that's what the disclaimer does; frames the context unambiguously) then this ruling does, in fact, apply.

The content can counter the disclaimer depending on form. For example, if you say "John Doe raped Jane Bloggs", that will be read as an attempt to state facts rather than an opinion. On the other hand, if you say "I believe John Doe raped Jane Bloggs", it's probably a statement of opinion put together with the disclaimer. If you say "Jane Bloggs was raped. In my opinion, the most likely culprit is John Doe", then the disclaimer isn't even necessary.

You need to be careful though - in the United States, opinion is absolutely protected in the same way truth is protected, because "there can be no such thing as a false opinion." Here in New South Wales, opinion has unqualified protection under the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s32. But on the Internet you need to make sure that the web site you publish on is in a jurisdiction that has this unqualified protection of opinion, but as long as it's in such a jurisdiction, and you make no attempt to limit the persons who access your web site, a defendant in another jurisdiction won't be able to touch you, even under their local laws (Kostiuk v. Braintech (1999) 171 DLR (4d) 46).

You also need to make sure that when making comment you provide the statement of fact that backs it up. For example, if you say "Joe is a person incompetent to hold a position as a public official", you might be nailed in some places. On the other hand, if you say "Joe cannot read. A person who cannot read is incompetent to hold a position as a public official", the provided it's true that Joe can't read, your OK (in fact in this case you'd be OK most anywhere in the English speaking world).

It's best to make it absolutely clear what part is opinion (or "comment" in defamation terms) and what parts are facts when you're saying something you know somebody might claim is defamatory. This is critical (although less so in the US) - failure to make clear the separation between facts and comments can kill the "fair comment" defence. In some jurisdictions you also have to prove your facts, so it's better to say "I received this email which purports to be from X and says Y" rather than "X sent me this email that says Y".

Of course it's easier just not to say anything bad about other people, but much more boring.

IANALY,TINLA

Yeah, but...

[cburley]

isn't this ruling just one court's opinion??

IMHO

[pete-classic]

Note to self: start every comment "IMHO . . ."

Good news for Fuckedcompany.com

[Nerftoe]

Fuckedcompany.com recently received a subpoena from the lawyers of Printcafe.com to cough up "records" of the anonymous posters who made slanderous comments on the site. Some of the comments were directed to the CEO's wife. It seems that Pud (owner of FC) doesn't keep records of the IP addresses of those who frequent the site. Pud said that it was too bad that he already had finished up his book, because they would have received a mention.

/. is still safe

[EccentricAnomaly]

Deep, Deep, down in the sprawling dungeons below Redmond, Washington:

"Yes, Yes, my precious"

"Uhhh... Mr. Gates?"

"WHAT are you doing here!"

"Uhhh... sir, I was sent my the legal team... ya know, Nazgul, Balrog, & son... it seems a court ruling in California put a crimp in our plan to rid oursleves of that vile website, slash-"

"DON'T say that word!! ...well, I guess we need to go to plan B... Send forth the flying monkeys!! Muhahaha!!"

"Uh, sir.. we don't have any flying monkeys... all we have is Dancing Monkey boy..."

"Crap... forget this, I'm just going to stay down here and play with my invisibility ring"

This ruling (would) make no sense

[cryptochrome]

There's a big difference between a negative opinion and libel - an opinion is a personal statement meant to negatively impact the object, while libel is a FALSE written statement meant to negatively impact the object.

So while it's true that most of what you find on message boards is bullshit, and should thus be regarded as such without further verification, it can still be libel. All that matters is that it's a lie presented as fact to hurt the object.

However, what the defendants were accused of is TRADE libel - apparently they were saying things like "this stock sucks" clearly within the context of opinion. It could be considered libel within some contexts - but not within that of a message forum. Anyone getting stock tips off one of those is pretty dumb. So in their limited case, it seems they were not commiting libel.

cryptochrome

Re:This ruling (would) make no sense

[thelaw]

probably not. the stock-price-inflater's action qualifies as willful manipulation of financial markets, which, of course, is illegal. :) even if he'd lost money it would have been illegal.

on the other hand, if he'd been making derogatory comments specifically for the purpose of manipulating the markets, and the appeals court said it was okay, then he might get his money back.

is this the 9th appeals court? they seem to have a history of being reversed...

jon