Blog Faces Lawsuit Over Reader Comments

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "In a legal case being watched closely by bloggers, an Internet company has sued the owner of a blog for comments posted to his site by readers, the Wall Street Journal Online reports. Traffic-Power.com, which sells tools for boosting Web traffic, sued Aaron Wall, age 25, over statements posted in the comments section of Wall's search-engine-optimization blog, SEOBook.com. (Wall also has posted about the case.) 'Legal analysts said the case falls into somewhat murky legal territory, but that Mr. Wall may have some protection from liability under federal law,' WSJ.com says. 'Courts generally have held that the operators of computer message boards and mailing lists cannot be held liable for statements posted by other people. Blogs might be viewed in a similar light, they said.' However, Daniel Perry, a lawyer who has followed the case, says that Wall's case is complicated by his own negative comments about Traffic-Power, which could be seen as a competitor to his site. 'To be candid, he sort of moved into this moving propeller,' Perry said. 'The Internet is not your personal stump to beat up people.'"

Comments

The Law is Not So "Murky" Here: See CDA sec. 230

[Froomkin]

The Communications Decency Act, sec. 230(c)(1) says,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

And, in sect. 230 (f)(3),

"The term ''information content provider'' means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

Why a blog with comments would be treated differently from, say, a BBS or a chat room escapes me. And I teach this stuff for a living. So much for the defamation claims.

The trade secret claim is a little harder. It's probably the case that Congress didn't have trade secrets in mind when it wrote sec. 230. On the other hand, if you read the full text of sec. 230 you will see that Congress intended fairly broad protection; in sec. 230(f)(3) it certainly wrote in very broad terms. In law there are few certainties until after a court rules, but I think the balance here points towards a finding of non-liability both on CDA grounds and traditional trade secret grounds (where innocent receivers of information, and especially journalists who receive information, are not usually liable).

Not the nicest SEO company

[Mr. Flibble]

As seen on this discussion and this website.

Reminds me a bit of a certan guy at SCO...

For something to be libel

[Sycraft-fu]

It must meet three criteria:

1) The statements you make must be false statements. Truth is the ultimate defence against a libel suit. No matter how bad something is that you say, if it's true, it's not libel.

2) You had to know the statements were false. If you believed you were making true statements, that is also a defence against libel. Of course that's a little harder to prove, gets in to he-said, she-said to try and prove if you knew or not.

3) The statements had to be made with the intent to cause harm. If they were made as a joke, it's not libel. Again, gets in to an argument of if you really intended to cause harm.

So, if your statements are true, and provably so, you are fine. If not it gets a little more unclear.

Now please note, they could still sue you, even if their suit had no merit. That shit happens ALL the time. Even if everything you said was true you could still be sued. Doesn't mean you'd be liable for anything if you defended yourself, but you'd still have to defend yourself.

Re:Power of the pulpit

[glassjaw rocks]

"That would mean Slashdot might be held liable in a lawsuit, amiright?"

Possibly. But I doubt it.

"Also, if you're not allowed to make negative comments about people on the Internet, then about 98% of all blogs ever written would be in violation of the law."

You do know the difference between a negative comment and libel, don't you?

libel:
      1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
      2. The act of presenting such material to the public.

Re:Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

[Mithrandir]

Please define "reasonable person".

There is a defined legal concept known as "The Common Man" that Common Law countries use. I am specifically aware of the concept in the UK, Canada and Australia.

Loosely put, the definition is "if the common man would not find that to be a reasonable action, you loose". For example, going swimming in a large storm on a beach with signs saying beach closed due to dangerous conditions, a person going swimming and breaking their neck has no legal grounds for suing. It very effectively stops so many of the stupid lawsuits you see here in the USA before they get anywhere.