MN Supreme Court Rules In Internet Libel Case

MrSparkle writes: "In a first-of-its-kind case in Minnesota, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday the Internet shouldn't be treated differently than other media in out-of-state libel cases. WCCO has the story."

Comments

could be good or bad

[douglas jeffries]

it's good that this case might set precedent to keep authors from getting sued in other jurisdictions representing an unintended audience.

but could this mean that newsgroup posts will be treated more as a formal publications than a public conversation? we should be able to say more in public at the mall or in a newsgroup than we can publish in the local paper.

Re:could be good or bad

[PastorOfMuppets]

Fortunatly, it doesn't matter. In order to win a lible suit you have to show:

1. A) The published information is known to be untrue by the author

2. B) The author was representing said information as fact (meaning that it was not intended to be a joke)

   That a resonable person would believe that the information was true (the pubilcation is credable)

So, all one has to do is place a disclaimer at the end of ones post in order to avoid litigation

DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of it's author and in no way refect the opinions os Slashdot, nor should they be miscontrued as absolute fact. I am not an attorney and am not in any way qualified to give legal advice.

** "Muppets" is a registered trademark of Henson Associates Incorperated.

--