Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Supreme Court OKs Web Libel Immunity

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the something-to-talk-about dept.

tanman writes "The California Supreme Court has ruled that websites which publish libelous text written by third parties cannot be sued for libel, reports CNN. The ruling found for the defendant, who was backed by the likes of Amazon, Microsoft, and Google. The internet service companies following the case feared that a ruling against the defendant would find them liable for content posted to their respective websites. Even though the court allowed this could have far-reaching consequences, they ultimately wanted this to be a question more for Congress than the courts." From the article: "The case centers on an opinion piece sent via e-mail to Ilena Rosenthal, a woman's health advocate who runs various message boards and promotes alternative medicine. The scathing missive, written by Tim Bolen, accused Dr. Terry Polevoy, of Canada, of stalking a Canadian radio producer and included various invectives directed at Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett, of Pennsylvania. The two doctors operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds. After Rosenthal posted the piece to two newsgroups, Polevoy and Barrett sued her, Bolen and others for libel. The lawsuit accuses Rosenthal of republishing the information after being warned it was false and defamatory."

107 comments

  1. games by otacon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let the flames begin...

    --
    In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
  2. Common sense for a change by astonishedelf · · Score: 1

    About time. The net has changed the rules for publishing libel. Think we need a new set of rules. Not sure how it would pan out but some sort of quality mark for reliability and a sensible approach to libel across borders.

    1. Re:Common sense for a change by kassemi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The rules shouldn't be changed, but rather people should understand that the definition of "publish" has in fact changed. Google, MS, Slashdot, etc. are not making an active, reviewed, and personal decision to make public whatever information they receive, but are acting as worlds in which such information is indexed and searched. We should make a distinction between active publication and passive publication. This would definitely solve a few problems.

      --
      What the hell's a "gewie?"
    2. Re:Common sense for a change by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      I don't see that though. Why shouldn't you be liable for what you publish? Just because you CAN publish it, doesn't mean you should, especially when they're obviously incapable of moderating it.

      It's like saying you should have a right to leave loaded guns around, since you can't control EVERYONE it's clearly not your safety problem. Sites like Amazon, and usenet providers, are wonderful places to joe-job and spread disgusting shite without any recourse. I think it's about time they take some reponsibility for the services they claim they provide.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    3. Re:Common sense for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is nothing like having a loaded gun around. That would be something you did with knowledge of the ramifications. This is more like being able to sue the guy who owns Kinko's because you used their copiers to print pamphlets saying your next door neighbor beats his wife despite the fact that he does not. He can sue you, not Kinkos who has no knowledge of what you are doing. And, likewise, "joe-job" can be sued in the Internet example, but thanks to this case, the real world example and the Internet example are consistent.

    4. Re:Common sense for a change by InsaneGeek · · Score: 1

      If you run a website that allows users to post random information, you have to have the knowledge of the ramifications.

    5. Re:Common sense for a change by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Amazon is not like kinkos, in that Amazon produces [or causes to be produced] said information on demand. As far as I know, kinkos does not perform mass mailings of stuff you photocopy.

      There is a distinction. I go to Amazon.com and boom it says "Person $x is a spammer retard, don't buy their book." Sure the poster is the guy who wrote that, but it's Amazon that causes it to be distributed (e.g., published) and available for others. Since Amazon is the one distributing the libel they're the ones who are responsible [or should be] to remove it. And if they can't moderate their content they shouldn't be allowed to indiscriminantly host what would in any other context be considered libel.

      This is like blaming the TV broadcaster and not the TV manufacturer or distributor for any libel/slanderous media.

      Essentially this is saying that we can invent any technology, so long as you can maintain that safety is unreasonable you are not liable for the consequences of your actions. That my friend, is a slippery slope.

      And frankly, until you have people libeling your work (e.g. in my case my two books) with obviously no good cause, you don't know what you are talking about. In my case I spent years writing the texts, and in an instant i had negative reviews and libelous comments posted from people who haven't even read either book.

      So you don't know what you are talking about and should just shut up.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    6. Re:Common sense for a change by astonishedelf · · Score: 1

      In an ideal world, you should be liable for what you publish. When that ideal world shows up, you will be. In the meantime, what we really need in a non-legal and quick way of dealing with libels.

    7. Re:Common sense for a change by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      I've always favoured the DIACF approach. Apparently Justice Canada disagrees with me :-)

      Sadly in my case the best solution is to ride it out. A few trolls in usenet decide they want to cause trouble and there isn't much I can do so long as NNTP servers accept anonymous posting (and usenet readers continue to be ignorant about how NNTP works...).

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    8. Re:Common sense for a change by 0x0000 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The rules shouldn't be changed, but rather people should understand that the definition of "publish" has in fact changed. Google, MS, Slashdot, etc. are not making an active, reviewed, and personal decision to make public whatever information they receive, but are acting as worlds in which such information is indexed and searched. We should make a distinction between active publication and passive publication. This would definitely solve a few problems.

      I agree that rules shouldn't necessarily change - and I don't think they have, really. I think the distinction that needs to be made is not Passive vs Active publication (although those might be useful terms for the concept - rather, the concept of a printer - as opposed to a publisher or an editor needs to be brought forward into the the present day.

      To apply the paradigm of hardcopy book writing, printing, and publishing to online content is not that difficult (one hopes it might even be simple enough for lawyers, courts, and lawmakers to understand - although understanding may not be sufficient in and of itself to keep those types of folk from screwing it up):

      An individual who writes something is a writer.

      When that individual posts writing to an internet forum - say a blog or a forum (for now I'm just talking about writing that is not being done as "work-made-for-hire" or some other editorially-controlled, other-directed work) - they are publishing that work. This individual can be said to be a self-published writer.

      The individual, organization, or company providing the blog or forum technical facilities remain in a position analogous to that of a printer - in the "old-school" sense of the word, when "printer" was "someone who prints things [on a printing press]". Perhaps print shop would be more descriptive. In either case, whether you prefer printer or print shop (there is a subtle distinction in that the added shop may imply a company or organization, whereas printer might be taken to mean an individual, although in the old days "send it to the printers'" was a common phrase) - whichever you prefer, the printer has essentially no control over content, and is typically in no way responsible for the intellectual property content of the work.

      I believe this is similar to the line of thought that went into the "common carrier" concept in telecommunications, which - while not directly applicable to this kind of situation - is obviously similar in it's handling of IP and [potentially] legally actionable communications.

      Just as one does not prosecute (or sue) the phone company if a criminal uses a phone in the commission or a crime (or if a person slanders another over the phone), I don't know of many successful cases of a printer being sued or prosecuted over the contents of a book - perhaps if you went back to the early days of the printing press - I think some printers were prosecuted for printing e.g. Bibles, but they were arguably publishing (distributing) that work, as well as just printing it.

      I believe I am correct in saying that it is typically the publisher - and to some extent the writer - who gets the legal fallout when something is written and released to the public which has legal ramifications. I actually think that is appropriate, provided we can make distinction between publishing and [what on the Internet amounts to] printing.

      Also, there's the fact that if libel someone on the internet, I think I should get the full benefit of the publicity that goes along with the lawsuit (the phrase "there is no such thing as bad publicity" originated in the newspaper publishing industry, did it not?) - why should I share the spotlight with News Corp if I libel someone on MySpace.com, after all?

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    9. Re:Common sense for a change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC:

      1) Amazon IS like Kinkos in that they reproduce anything I want to say on demand. They perform no action for this to take place. They do not monitor what I write, for the labor required to do so would be too massive to still allow them to provide the forum with any amount of usability.

      2) The "immediate" aspect of the web is part of the issue. If Amazon did remove the "Person $x is a spammer retard...", you could go back 10 minutes later and add it again. They can't prevent this type of abuse without shutting down the forum. It isn't Amazon that is saying it, it is some moron (and most people would disregard such a comment out-of-hand), and the benefits of an open forum as a whole outweigh the problems IMHO.

      3) Saying the book you wrote is bad is not a libelous act. It is an opinion. If they in fact said that YOU did some action or belong to some group that you did not or do not, then that might be libelous, and any data Amazon has can be subpoenaed in order to identify the poster for your case. If they did not say such a thing, then it isn't libel, and Amazon wouldn't be held responsible for that statement even if they were responsible for the content posted in their forum. As more people read your book and comment, a more accurate depiction of the book will emerge. As people look at the reviews and say certain ones are helpful and other are not, the more helpful ones will trickle up and the less helpful will trickle down. You are totally ignoring the sales of your books that resulted from positive feedback from posters. (If you never got any positive feedback, then "...with obviously no good cause..." is merely a delusion.)

      4) Your last two paragraphs are fallacious.

      Forrest

    10. Re:Common sense for a change by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      1) Kinkos does not DISTRIBUTE said publication. You do. That alone makes them sufficiently unlike Kinkos that your argument makes no sense.

      2) Yes, they can either prevent it (e.g. ban the user by IP, require 24 hours before posting reviews, ... require them to BUY A COPY OF THE BOOK BEFORE REVIEWING IT). Or if they can't, they shouldn't be free to host stuff like that.

      3) acusing someone of being a spammer retard and that you should avoid the book at all cost is actually libel as defined in section 298 of the CCC. For your benefit:

      298. (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

      So, as far as the CCC is concerned the reviews were libelous as there was no lawful justification for posting something which injured my reputation and exposed me to contempt.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    11. Re:Common sense for a change by forrestt · · Score: 1

      1) Amazon does not "distribute" it either. They merely provide me the ability to distribute it. I am the one taking the action. They are not.

      2) It is technically impossible for them to prevent it. (None of your recommendations would ban THAT particular user w/o alienating other potentially valid readers of your book.) Freedom of speech and press gives them the right.

      3) I wasn't sure from your post if this was an example you gave or the actual offensive post. I totally agree with you that it is libelous. (Unless of course you do send spam and have an IQ of 30 :) )

    12. Re:Common sense for a change by crackspackle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about vigilante sites like http://platewire.com, as reported in this article, or www.womansavers.com. These sights tend to encourage posts which on the face of it are libelous if unfounded, if not a whole lot more (IANAL).

      It seems to me that sights like these should not only be ethically bound but legally bound to provide an active means to challenge and remove posts which contain false or misleading statements since they more or less directly identify individuals involved. At the very least, they should not benefit from a ruling like because they encouraged the behavior from the start.

      It's not the same as a craiglist here there is no such vigalante intention. Even they have rules and systems to challenge defamatory posts.

    13. Re:Common sense for a change by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      ""Person $x is a spammer retard, don't buy their book.""
      That to me that doesn't sound like libel, but IANAL. Now if they would of accused you of fudging your research, or claim that you are a card carrying member of N.A.M.B.L.A., or say that you didn't really have a degree in X, that would be libelous. Besides, I would guess most people that read reviews from sites that let anonymous people post would take those reviews with a large grain of salt. I know I do. But freedom of speech must be protected - sometimes you are going to have to hear things you don't like, but that is the price we must pay for freedom.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    14. Re:Common sense for a change by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      If your reputation can be injured by an anonymous insult, it wasn't that solid to begin with.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    15. Re:Common sense for a change by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Actually, calling someone a "retard" is not libel. The term "retard" is a common-language insult without a presumption of accuracy - that is, it's inherently unable to be a libelous term.

      It's similar to the term "butt-head" as used in the case of Apple Computer when sued by Carl Sagan for using the code name "BHA" which was generally understood to mean "butt-headed astronomer". The judge ruled that the term "butt-head" cannot be considered libel as it is impossible to use the term "butt-head" to discredit a reputable astronomer.

      And in the case of "retard", it is not believable that someone writing an anonymous review on Amazon would have actual knowledge of a published author's mental retardation. Therefore, you cannot prove that calling someone a retard is anything but opinion in the vast majority of circumstances.

      "Spammer" is more troublesome, in that it is not a strictly defined term that might well be true, and might be significantly damaging to someone's reputation. Of course, it would be easy enough to prove its truth, given that "spammer" can be defined as "one who sends unsolicited commercial email" and chances are good that many authors have at some point sent unsolicited commercial email.

      I suspect that "lawful justification or excuse" will pretty clearly include actual truth or statements of opinion, if you look up the rest of the statute and associated case law.

    16. Re:Common sense for a change by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      I would say that in an ideal world, you should be able to speak or publish freely without fear of reprisal.

      That's extremely difficult today, and why anonymity is sometimes VERY necessary.

      But you do have a quick and easy way of dealing with something someone else says or publishes today. The legal system doesn't come into play at all.

      You can just ignore it.

    17. Re:Common sense for a change by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      How would you handle a situation where a private user makes a post to an online discussion group expressing opinion A. Some other individual picks up the post and, without notifying the author or obtaining their consent, uses it to promote a product (Makuka Olive Oil supplements), sell advertising space on the web page, and express an opinion B (which is complete opposite that of the original author's opinion A) by (deliberately?) misinterpreting the subject line of the original e-mail.

      To add insult to injury the web page defames the original author by egregious use of improper paraphrasing--attributing to the author both drug use and a heart attack and making it seem as if the author is willing to testify to the direct association of the heart attack with an event which never actually occurred, at least not within the context of the original forum post. The heartdiseaseguru.com page is automatically regenerated with each page load and may or may not contain the libelous statement which appears in the summary provided with a Google search--it does about two out of five page loads.

      Upon gaining employment with a large corporate entity in the Real World, outside of the realm of web pages featuring dietary supplements and their frivolous/libelous authors, the original author is puzzled that he is getting the third degree from his management and can't gain the support of HR even if he's being verbally assaulted in the hallways by senior group leaders. This is because the HR rep, while scraping the web for employees' names and known e-mail addresses (a morally questionable tactic--even if it is, and it may not be depending upon local laws, perfectly legal), came across a web page that attributed drug use and a heart attack to a new star employee--the perfect way to find the "what's wrong with this otherwise perfect picture" and completely dismantle what might have been an otherwise booming start to an ascending career.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  3. Huge win for corrupt news organizations by Josh+Lindenmuth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So basically, the California Supreme Court has just provided a fantastic shield to online news channels and even tabloids against libel suits. The work-around would look something like this:
    1. News site writes libelous story that's too slanderous to publish
    2. The company has one of their employee anonymously publish the story on a newsgroup, forum, or blog
    3. Since the story is now "out", they now republish the story citing the now anonymous (and mostly forgotten) source
    4. News company basks in their immunity

    I'm no fan of lawsuits, and this decision is certainly a win for bloggers and most honest web publishers, but it sounds like the consequences of this decision were not well thought out (particularly in respect to the larger news organizations or tabloids).
    --
    Huh? Don't mind me, I'm just the new guy.
    1. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freedom can be used for both good and bad things.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    2. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      Newspapers frequently publish libelous stories that aren't true, then later publish a correction and an apology buried somewhere in the next issue of the paper. Especially when it comes to celebrities or other famous people. How should it be the responsibility of the hosting site to censor their users, as newspaper writers don't even bother researching their facts?

      Information on the internet from ordinary users, has to be treated like information you get from a drunkard at a bar. You have no idea if it's true.

    3. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      newspapers have ways round libel laws for anything they want to print anyway. this hasn't opened any floodgates.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    4. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by tritonman · · Score: 0

      Freedom Isn't Free


      Dey Took YER JOB!

    5. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      With freedom comes personal responsibility.

      Of course, all it would take for the web publisher to be sued for libel is for this article to be tracked back to the publisher through the process of discovery.

      If you've ever been through a discovery process, you'll know that people get deposed, evidence is gathered, and almost anything is fair game to ask for, within reason. E-mails, memos, files. Maybe the shredder does wonderful things, but e-mails are forever these days.

      --
      My blog
    6. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by almost+entirely+lega · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem you cite in your hypothetical is potentially real, but your premise is wrong. The California Supreme Court didn't provide the shield, Congress did, and the Court's decision makes that plain - something judges occasionally do when they make a decision that they recognize can yield the wrong result, but feel bound nonetheless to issue the decision because, hey, they don't make the laws, they just interpret them. It should be no surprise that the troublesome section of law is part of the Communications Decency Act - the CDA has been problematic since it was hurriedly written...and parts of it have already been ruled to be unconstitutional.

    7. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by aliendisaster · · Score: 1
      Freedom Isn't Free

      I hate when someone regurgitates this bullshit. The meaning of freedom is being free. Read the definition.
      --
      Freedom is a state of mind. A mind is a state of being. Stay the fuck out of my mind and my being. - Corporate Avenger
    8. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by tritonman · · Score: 0

      yea, it was meant to make fun of the people who say that. That's why I included the "they took your job" reference.

    9. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom can be used for both good and bad things.

      Sure, but when you use your freedom to do bad things, you still have to face consequences.

      In the philosophy that underlies our system of government, freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. Especially in matters of speech, the government is not allowed to act in a paternalistically preemptive way, based on the speculation that harm might result. In fact it is sometimes prevented from doing things when demonstrable harm will result, because granting too much discretion to the government to preempt things is a bad idea.

      The only thing that makes restricting the government this way tolerable is the protection afforded calling wrongdoers to account after the fact.

      The First Amendment works just this way. Protecting defamatory speech before it is made is an important check on the government's ability to use this as a pretext to quash free debate. Once the cat is out of the bag, legitimate speech and defamation part ways. There is usually no public interest in protecting malicious lies after they have been made.

      Sometimes, the enforcement of civil damages after the fact have a chilling effect on legitimate speech. Then the First Amendment does come into play. This involves judgment calls that has been made over the years by the courts, based on their best efforts to anticipate the harm to legitimate speech. Where they anticipate little or no harm, then civil actions can proceed.

      One of Congress's jobs is to anticipate differntly than the courts and strike a different balance. While they cannot unprotect protected speech, they can protect unprotected speech, effectively giving speech rights greater weight than other rights. Note the court held the publishers immunized, not on constitutional grounds, but on statutory grounds: the Communications Decency Act.

      However, "balance" is still the operative word. This is not an unambigous victory for Freedom. Congress merely judged the threat to one freedom more important than a threat to another freedom, and the Courts enforced this judgment.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Especially in matters of speech, the government is not allowed to act in a paternalistically preemptive way, based on the
      > speculation that harm might result.

      Bombing civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, IS allowed.

    11. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by Slithe · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the word Free has two different meanings: gratis (i.e. free beer) and libre (i.e free speech). I think the intended meaning of Free in the phrase "Freedom isn't Free" is the gratis one. I agree that one occasionally has to sacrifice in the eternal war to maintain one's freedom from forces that seek to limit it (i.e. one's own government).

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    12. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by hey! · · Score: 1

      Bombing civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, however, IS allowed.


      Actually, an important distinction that is often missed is between prevention and preemption.

      Often, these are used as if synonymous, as I have above. But prevention is much broader than preemption, which refers to stopping a process that is already in motion. In general, when the government can take "preventive" steps against its citizens, these steps would be more precisely described as "preemptive". It's the difference between shutting down my press because I might publish state secrets, and shutting down my press when I have troop movement plans set in type and inked.

      In the case of Iraq, the whole mess was justified using emotionally charged images that suggested we were "preempting", when in fact at most what we were doing could be said to be "preventing". That's why I was against the war before we got in. The justifications were clearly being misrepresented, in my opinion.

      Afghanistan is a different situation altogether. That was neither preemptive nor preventive, it was reactive.
      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm no fan of lawsuits, and this decision is certainly a win for bloggers and most honest web publishers, but it sounds like the consequences of this decision were not well thought out

      The proper role of the court is to interpret the existing laws and apply them to their decisions in specific instances. If the current laws are not covering a particular point or require amendment then that is a job for Congress or your state legislature and NOT the courts. The justices acted appropriately in this case.

    14. Re:Huge win for corrupt news organizations by Threni · · Score: 1

      > the whole mess was justified using emotionally charged images that suggested we were "preempting",
      > when in fact at most what we were doing could be said to be "preventing".

      No, you were "causing" conflict, but it was justified as a pre-emptive strike.

      > The justifications were clearly being misrepresented, in my opinion.

      Well, they just didn't make sense. It was WMD first, then, once it became clear that none would be found, it was regime change. Neither charge made sense - the WMD they once had were supplied and their use tolerated by a then-friendly US, which also makes a mockery of the calls for 'regime change'.

      > Afghanistan is a different situation altogether. That was neither preemptive nor preventive, it was
      > reactive.

      Again, no - it was demonstrating what happens to countries which don't passively accept whatever the US tells them to do. It was punishment for not handing over Bin Laden - a Saudi national. It made as much sense as would the UK bombing Northern Ireland because of the actions of the IRA.

  4. New precedents by gwayne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This may also set new precedents for libel in print. Newspapers and publishers can now simply claim a piece was submitted by a third-party...

    1. Re:New precedents by Salvance · · Score: 1

      Well, they'd probably have to show some proof ... but an editor or writer could easily create that proof and make sure that his/her tracks cannot be followed. For example, let's say a single writer decided to ridiculously slander a celebrity. As long as the writer published the story on a message board first, they could republish the story in their online newspaper (or if the law was extended as you suggest, in their print). Since the only person who knows the scheme is the writer, it would be difficult to impossible to link the newspaper to the libelous content.

      --
      Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    2. Re:New precedents by abscr · · Score: 1

      They have to show proof? Aren't reporters protected from naming anonymous sources? A reporter could just claim that the source does not want to be named.

    3. Re:New precedents by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      This may also set new precedents for libel in print. Newspapers and publishers can now simply claim a piece was submitted by a third-party...


      Except publishers of newspapers will have a lot of trouble arguing that they aren't the publishers of the information, whereas online services and their users are, explicitly, under federal statute, legally defined as not being "publishers" or "speakers" of information they make available online if that information originated with someone else.

      This case applied a very specific statutory liability shield. "Offline" publishers are the class from which online services and their users are distinguished by the statute in question, so this ruling is extremely unlikely to have any weight at all as legal precedent for any immunity for offline publishers.
    4. Re:New precedents by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      This may also set new precedents for libel in print. Newspapers and publishers can now simply claim a piece was submitted by a third-party...

      I doubt it, the role of freelance reporters and news services (e.g. Reuters) is well established.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  5. Why should a message board get special treatment? by SuperMario666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Publishers like newspapers, magazines and tv broadcasters are held liable for everything that their employees produce, post, and broadcast, so why shouldn't those who publish materials on the web be held to a similar standard? I'm guessing a lot of you all on /. have never been on the receiving end of serious, reputation-destroying, libel.

  6. How about if the third party is anonymous? by KingJoshi · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So if I have a blog but I quote someone anonymous and that quote is defamatory and libelous, how is the victim supposed to get justice? Is the publisher held accountable if the third party is unnamed? Or is that an easy way to just post anything someone wants? "disturbing implications" indeed.

    --
    In times like these, it is helpful to remember that there have always been times like these. - Paul Harvey
    1. Re:How about if the third party is anonymous? by LordEd · · Score: 1

      IANAL or American, but could you not sue the person as a john doe and compel the publisher for the name of the source (like the RIAA's john doe lawsuits)?

    2. Re:How about if the third party is anonymous? by k12linux · · Score: 1

      Assuming there was any record of the source. I'm sure a good many blogs out there don't even record the IP address of the poster.

  7. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Salvance · · Score: 1

    There definitely needs to be some sort of line drawn, the difficulty is finding where to put it. If a blogger republishes a story about K-Fed and Britney, I could see offering some sort of protection/immunity against the blogger getting sued by K-Fed or Britney. But stating that anyone who republishes a story, particularly if it's from an anonymous source, cannot be sued goes too far in my opinion.

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
  8. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Nos. · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think your misunderstanding the ruling. Here's the clearest thing I saw from the article:
    Unless Congress revises the existing law, people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement, the court ruled..

    So, if I were to write something libel about you in the comments section of a /. article, you can sue /. You can however, come after me. If a third party news site picks up and reports based on what I posted, you can go after them either. You can only come after the original source, in this case, me.

  9. What about redistributing anonymous posts? by netbuzz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the journalist in me applauds the decision, I have to wonder how far the underlying principle is going to be taken. If victims of libel can only pursue action against the original poster, what about cases where the original poster is anonymous? If no one but the original poster holds responsibility for the content -- even when it's known to be false and defamatory -- the opportunities for intentional, unfettered smear campaigns would seem to be enormous. ... I mean even more enormous than under our previous understanding of libel protections. I'm willing to pay an awful lot for free speech. Just hope I'm not on the receiving end of one of these smears.

    1. Re:What about redistributing anonymous posts? by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 1

      I can't say I'd mind it so much. Frankly, if some sort of massive "Rob T Firefly eats babies" campaign was launched, and it was all traceable back to nothing more than an "Anonymous Coward" post somewhere, I'd hope that fact alone would take most of the wind out of its sails for anyone whose opinion of me really matters for whatever reason.

      And hey, it's free publicity. Perhaps someone Googling for baby-eating sites will come upon me instead, and suddenly realize they need to hire someone with my skills for something totally unrelated to baby-eating.

      Everyone wins.

      Well, everyone except the babies. Mmmm, babies...

      --
      Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
    2. Re:What about redistributing anonymous posts? by Control+Group · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't happen to be related to Rufus, would you?

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    3. Re:What about redistributing anonymous posts? by NIckGorton · · Score: 1

      You could do this before the internet. It simply had to be done with print rather than with a blog entry. Unidentified sources have been around since there were clay tablets and journalists have been protecting them for just as long. Of course when its the Pentagon Papers that's different...

    4. Re:What about redistributing anonymous posts? by kabocox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the journalist in me applauds the decision, I have to wonder how far the underlying principle is going to be taken. If victims of libel can only pursue action against the original poster, what about cases where the original poster is anonymous? If no one but the original poster holds responsibility for the content -- even when it's known to be false and defamatory -- the opportunities for intentional, unfettered smear campaigns would seem to be enormous. ... I mean even more enormous than under our previous understanding of libel protections. I'm willing to pay an awful lot for free speech. Just hope I'm not on the receiving end of one of these smears.

      I'm exactly of the exact opposite opinion. I find that it was horrible for judge to rule this way. He is basically openning up the online world for massive libel with no little recourse from those that were libeled. Libel isn't something that newspapers or journalist would like. It's basically for the subject to correct and recieve damages for blantantly wrong and/or hurtful statements about the individual. This is a blow true speech. False lies can now be spread in the online world as "free speech" and not punished except by that original poster. (Like that person will ever turn up.) I think that damages should be against any news reporting agency that falsely reports news and at a min. the news reporting agency should have to pay a fine and remove the article or reference.

      "Forums" shouldn't be considered news sources though. Would you quote any AC posting from /. reguardless of moderation as a news source? Forums should be considered like water cooler chat. It is out there and broadcast, but the forum postings aren't meant as "news" and shouldn't be spread as such. If a libelous statement was posting on slashdot's main page in the summary or headings, then I think slashdot should be held accountable. If within thread some posters make libelious statements, then those postings should be removed. I hope no other site actually uses slashdot posts as "news" articles. Actually, with blogging and the general stupidity of people it is possible. I occasionally copy a few links from slashdot threads, but I'd never use a slashdot quote as a serious quote from an individual.

    5. Re:What about redistributing anonymous posts? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      ? If no one but the original poster holds responsibility for the content -- even when it's known to be false and defamatory -- the opportunities for intentional, unfettered smear campaigns would seem to be enormous.

      I suppose the best solution is to play the game in reverse.

      Either make it so that regardless of claims that no matter how bad the libel, that your image won't change. Or perhaps use your own methods to call the source into question.

      The problem of society that sees false information as negative towards their image is not the false information but the current image. That may not make sense until you call into question the validity of popular opinion.

      If you set about a campaign to make someone look like they eat babies, and the public believes the anonymous source and tarnishes the targets image, then the target should be in a position to make it so that his reputation wouldn't change regardless if he really was eating babies.

      I don't know if that made sense... And to pull this off is rather complex, but if if I were a politician of high importance and I saw on the news tomorrow that a source was saying that I eat babies. I would counter with a non-denial that babies are too high in fat and bad for your health without actually denying that I eat babies.

      And that if I did eat babies, it would be unpatriotic to question such a practice and those who cut and run want to given the enemy an advantage by letting morals get in the way on the war on terror.

      Of course, I am not a politician.

      However, I would also point out, even if you do sue for libel and win, the damage is done and you still loose. Information war is a nasty business.

      In reality, if you have no reputation to begin with then you won't be a target. Which is why you need other people for replaceable figure heads which you can simply use as human PR shields and replace them as they get tarnished.

      No I haven't been planning a career as CEO, President for Life, or cult leader... Why do you ask?

      I know this was a non-serious response to your serious question, but the point of the matter is that even with the ability to sue people for libel, it is pointless when you are a target of a concerted and organized group. The best defense is to put yourself into situations where your reputation does not matter and you can do things unilaterally without the need for anyone else's approval.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  10. How can this possibly be a sensible result? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Disclaimer: I can't RTFA for some reason, so I'm only going on the summary here.

    Rashly assuming that said summary is accurate, this seems like a dangerous ruling. It basically says that deliberately and directly propagating harmful untruths about someone on-line is OK. Surely the whole point of defamation laws is surely that spreading those harmful untruths around is, well, harmful, and therefore should not be permitted (and compensation due if that law is broken)?

    Now, you can make strong arguments both ways about the responsibilities and freedoms of on-line service providers in relation to content supplied by others but hosted on or transmitted by the service provider's systems.

    On the one hand, there is the "common carrier" argument: service providers don't know about or control the content and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for it. By extension, you have to consider that even if they do receive a complaint from someone, that person may or may not be justified in making that complaint, and it may or may not be appropriate for the service provider to censor content on request.

    On the other hand, this is a huge legal loophole, which basically says that on-line free speech is completely unaccountable, even in cases like defamation where the same speech is clearly held by law to be an abuse in other contexts. In the current legal and technological climate, where a lengthy court process is required to get anything done about anything yet the information can spread very fast, there's simply no effective way for someone who is damaged by this sort of action to defend themselves.

    The only way forward, as far as I can see, is to introduce fast-track legal processes that can resolve fairly straightforward cases quickly and relatively informally, following a similar principle to small claims courts. Such a legal framework could deal with all kinds of on-line abuses -- not least defamation and copyright infringement -- in a timely fashion, without resorting to appointing service providers to the role of courts.

    To me, this makes far more sense than either attempting technological controls (as copyright holders are doing with DRM, for example) or just giving up (as frequently seems the case with defamation, and people offering bad advice on regulated subjects like health, law and finances). Of course, a healthy dose of population education, so that people don't just believe anything they see (particularly from an anonymous source on a random web site or chat room) wouldn't do any harm, either.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    1. Re:How can this possibly be a sensible result? by LordEd · · Score: 1

      The way I read the article, it means that the company (amazon, google, etc) is immune from libel just because they are the publisher. However, I didn't read anything that indicated the person who actually wrote the article is immune.

      So if I say that you go around burning buildings and drowning kittens, Slashdot would be safe, but I could still be a participant in the great American sport of lawsuits.

    2. Re:How can this possibly be a sensible result? by MollyB · · Score: 1

      I had no problem with the link. From TFA: "The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the majority opinion. "Nevertheless ... statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended."

      Of course, folks could complain that this is Outrageous Judicial Restraint. =)

    3. Re:How can this possibly be a sensible result? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sure, but combined with anonymity, that immediately implies that anyone can write anything about anyone without liability, as long as the original author remains anonymous. Other posts in this discussion have given examples about how this could be abused by news organisations trying to push an agenda; the leaking rumours about new Apple hardware that were mentioned on Slashdot a few months back come to mind as another possible case.

      Moreover, with the rise of on-line distribution of information, we have a new trend that the law doesn't really address at present: large-scale content providers whose profit model essentially relies on distributing content of dubious legality, who argue that they cannot realistically moderate all of that content, who therefore directly magnify the damage caused by any illegal content they are carrying, yet who remain completely isolated from any legal liability for that damage because of rulings such as this one. Regardless of any specific case, if the law allows someone to run a profitable model based on damaging others, I don't think it's appropriate to let "But we can't do anything about it, Your Honour!" stand as a defence.

      Many alternative approaches are also viable legal positions, from a requirement to make a good faith effort to filter obviously illegal content, through compulsory moderation of some or all content, right up to saying "Well, sorry, you just can't run that damaging but profitable service then". Of course, the service provider might not like all of those alternatives, but laws should be written to protect the members of the society, and that may conflict with furthering the interests of business.

      (As an aside, can anyone tell me why my GP post looks like a troll? It certainly wasn't meant as one, but has been modded as such, so I'm wondering if something isn't reading as I intended.)

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:How can this possibly be a sensible result? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can read it...

      In reading, you will note that the judge in this case recognizes to potential for trouble, but also leaves it up to Congress to make the laws, not the judge.

      Court OKs broad Web libel immunity

      SAN JOSE,California (AP) -- Web sites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

      The ruling in favor of free online expression was a victory for a San Diego woman who was sued by two doctors for posting an allegedly libelous e-mail on two Web sites.

      Some of the Internet's biggest names, including Amazon.com, America Online Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., took the defendant's side out of concern that a ruling against her would expose them to liability.

      In reversing an appellate court's decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides broad immunity from defamation lawsuits for people who publish information on the Internet that was gathered from another source.

      "The prospect of blanket immunity for those who intentionally redistribute defamatory statements on the Internet has disturbing implications," Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the majority opinion. "Nevertheless ... statutory immunity serves to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation, as Congress intended."

      Unless Congress revises the existing law, people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement, the court ruled.

      The case centers on an opinion piece sent via e-mail to Ilena Rosenthal, a woman's health advocate who runs various message boards and promotes alternative medicine.

      The scathing missive, written by Tim Bolen, accused Dr. Terry Polevoy, of Canada, of stalking a Canadian radio producer and included various invectives directed at Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett, of Pennsylvania. The two doctors operated Web sites devoted to exposing health frauds.

      After Rosenthal posted the piece to two newsgroups, Polevoy and Barrett sued her, Bolen and others for libel. The lawsuit accuses Rosenthal of republishing the information after being warned it was false and defamatory.

      The trial court ruled that Rosenthal's actions were protected, but an appeals court decided she was not shielded from liability as a distributor of the information. The state Supreme Court's ruling reversed that decision.

      Legal experts said the ruling follows similar decisions in other states designed to protect free and open access to information.

      "Even though the court recognizes that it could have unfortunate consequences, they're saying that Congress controls this area," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

      Christopher Grell, the lawyer for Polevoy and Barrett, said they have not decided whether to appeal the decision.

      "What this decision does is, it basically promotes the distribution of offensive material, which I can't imagine Congress ever intended," Grell said.

      Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

      Find this article at:
      http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/20/internet.libel.a p/index.html

  11. The real way to get away with 'libel' is by Channard · · Score: 1, Troll

    .. to do what various tabloid UK rags do and have a 'Wicked Whispers' section where they mention something dodgy happening between a celebrity and someone else, without saying who the celebrity is. Rather thay say 'well known daytime TV presenter' or something. Usually you've got a pretty good idea of who they're referring to, but they never name names. Of course, the other advantages is they can just completely make stuff up.

  12. As it should be by weinerofthemonth · · Score: 1

    Two wins in a a week for free speech, unbelievable. I have to commend the California Supreme Court and the US District Court in Chicago(Craigslist ruling) for getting it right in these two cases.

  13. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

    Publishers like newspapers, magazines and tv broadcasters are held liable for everything that their employees produce, post, and broadcast...

    Excellent point. However, are they also as responsible for the Letters to the Editor section? I find this a closer analogy. The writer of the article was, to my knowledge, not an employee of the publisher in this case.

  14. It's a lose - lose situation by Kris_B_04 · · Score: 1

    Okay, so now I can take something I find on the web, written by someone else, and even if I know it is untrue, or suspected untruth, or even just uncertain of it's truth, I can spread it around and be safe from any liability.

    I can search long and hard for info about someone I don't like, public figure or not? And spread the news started by someone else.

    Yeah, free speech, that's great, but who or what's going to protect someone like me or normal every day people from such stuff. It's all great until someone gets hurt. Small communities have forums or sites with comments. Now, someone can jump on somewhere, say something awful (gossip) about a person in the community and then someone else (or a lot of someone else's) can take that gossip and spread it around even further with no worry of retaliation because they didn't start the gossip!!!

    Damn!! So, John down the street is a child molester and Sally at the grocery store beats up her husband for money for her drug addiction isn't going to destroy their lives if someone grabs that and runs. Just because John started dating Sally instead of me, I can ruin two lives because the original information came from someone else... and I can take that and spread it like wildfire!!! Lucky me!! That'll teach John!! That'll teach Sally.

    PS
    I'm playing devil's advocate, as a former journalist, I love the idea of even more basic freedoms... ;)

    PPS
    Oh yeah..
    The characters and events portrayed in this post are entirely fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or undead is purely unintentional.

    PPPS
    Hmm.. That would make a pretty good .sig ;)

    --
    Remember when Windows were washed, mice were trapped and UNIX guarded the harem?
    1. Re:It's a lose - lose situation by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      No?

      I'm pretty sure you can still be sued for that.

      All this does is mean that the sites that you post to cannot be sued for displaying what you posted.

      i.e. you slander someone on slashdot. That person can sue you, but not slashdot.

      Then again, i didn't read the article so who knows

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    2. Re:It's a lose - lose situation by Kris_B_04 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... maybe I misunderstood...

      "Unless Congress revises the existing law, people who claim they were defamed in an Internet posting can only seek damages from the original source of the statement, the court ruled."

      But it seems that only the original poster can be sued....

      --
      Remember when Windows were washed, mice were trapped and UNIX guarded the harem?
    3. Re:It's a lose - lose situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe, but i would think the original source means the poster... although worded like that it would probably be easy to get out of it just by saying "i didnt write it i just posted it"

    4. Re:It's a lose - lose situation by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      I don't follow your interpretation. Sorry to single you out, because I've read this opinion a few times, and I think it's a ridiculous conclusion.

      "Okay, so now I can take something I find on the web, written by someone else, and even if I know it is untrue, or suspected untruth, or even just uncertain of it's truth, I can spread it around and be safe from any liability."

      NO! I don't read that into this ruling at all. The ruling is stating that if you operate a WEB SITE, you don't have to be responsible for information posted by a 3rd party. That's all.

      It does NOT imply that you can gather random information you found on web sites(from anonymous 3rd party sources) and then redistribute the info as fact. In that case, YOU would be responsible for the content and liable for it. I would argue that this holds true even if you made a direct quote and cited the source as www.BS.com posted by "Anonymous Coward"

    5. Re:It's a lose - lose situation by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The person who happens to be providing the web hosting cannot be.

      If you stand up on a soap box and start spouting libel, the soap box manufacturer can't be sued for it's 'part' in that libel, right? Well, if you buy web hosting and put libel on your site, the host now can't be sued for it's 'part' in the libel. Should the hoster, however, endorse the libel, reprint it elsewhere, and so on, they've then involved themselves.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  15. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Control+Group · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I believe they are, though I'm not a lawyer - but the difference is that letters to the editor are, of necessity, read and vetted by the editorial staff. This means the decision to publish them is an implicit stamp of approval. Posts on the internet are not necessarily even seen by the people nominally "publishing" them.

    Really, the issue is what "publishing" means. Traditionally, publishing requires the publisher to select and edit stories which would then be pushed out to readers. The internet is different; a site like /., for example, is not analogous to a traditional publisher. Holding slashdot liable for things said in comments would be more analogous to holding the paperboy liable for things said in the paper.

    My argument would be that the new publishers are the people hitting "submit" on the web form, since they're the ones selecting stories, validating them for truth (I crack me up), editing them for typos, and making the decision to make them public (i.e., "publish" them). Which is what this court decision seems to be in agreement with.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  16. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Meatloaf+Surprise · · Score: 2, Informative
    So, if I were to write something libel about you in the comments section of a /. article, you can sue /. You can however, come after me. If a third party news site picks up and reports based on what I posted, you can go after them either. You can only come after the original source, in this case, me.

    I think your post is missing a few 't.

  17. That's not what this decision is about by overshoot · · Score: 4, Informative
    The rules shouldn't be changed, but rather people should understand that the definition of "publish" has in fact changed. Google, MS, Slashdot, etc. are not making an active, reviewed, and personal decision to make public whatever information they receive, but are acting as worlds in which such information is indexed and searched. We should make a distinction between active publication and passive publication. This would definitely solve a few problems.

    Except in this case Rosenthal did exercise editorial control. She doesn't run a blog comments section; she broadcast Bolen's accusations to Usenet under her own account.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
    1. Re:That's not what this decision is about by dthomas731 · · Score: 1

      I agree. If she knew ahead of time the content of the material, and had an active roll in it being posted, then I don't know how she can be excluded from the lawsuit. Otherwise, anyone could post anything, using an anonymous writer as the source.

    2. Re:That's not what this decision is about by gravesb · · Score: 1

      They say hard cases make bad law, and maybe the court was trying to establish a precedent to limit similar law suits in the future. It is interesting, coming from California, which has very liberal long arm statutes and has in the past applied those to libel suits. However, even if this case was incorrectly decided, I think it is the right thing for the long term. I would rather the court err on the side of too much editorial excess than limit speech.

      --
      http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
    3. Re:That's not what this decision is about by cultrhetor · · Score: 1

      I think, though, that in cases such as this, the rules of a public forum should apply: just because people aren't physically present doesn't mean that the discussion isn't "oral" in nature. Orality is part of a given existential situation, with responses shaped by the statements of other participants. "Textuality" implies forethought, consideration, planning, and then writing in an abstract form: you're writing for an audience that you don't assume you'll ever meet. In this case, laws based on print should not apply because the rhetorical situation, while public, is oral.

      --
      "Tu fui, ego eris" - Virgil
  18. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  19. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by tubs · · Score: 1

    Could the argument be you wouldn't sue the Infrastucture would you? Foe example if a TV program is broadcast you wouldn't sue the supplier of the satellite, or the company that provides the cable - you'd sue the publisher.

    --

    try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Pre-approved or not by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The difference is whether there is a prior approval before publishing.

    If sites like /. were liable for what the users posted, they would have to employ editors for screening all submissions before they appeared. They would need some legal training, and thus not be entirely cheap.

    Most advertisement funded or hobbyist sites would not be able to afford this. Which mean that the net would fall back into the hands of a few large media corporations, and most of the democratic potential of the Internet would get lost.

    With regard to the victims of libel: If the person doing the libel is anonymous, they should consider if their trustworthiness is smaller than that of an anonymous cowards. If that is the case, they have already greater problems than the libel. If the person doing the libel is not anonymous, sue that person rather than the messenger.

  22. Another unrelated libel... by one_red_eye · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Some years ago a malicious person posted a hate letter in Art Bell's name directed at the Filipino people. Art Bell is the host of a very popular late night radio talk show. CoastToCoastAM The latest article.

    Needless to say the FBI got involved and traced the letter to an anonymous terminal at a US university. Art who now lives in Manilla, Phillipines with his Filipino wife is in a dangerous position because the newspapers keep printing it even after it's been proven to be a hoax. All he can do is decry the libel and get the paper to print retractions.

    How do you control internet libel?

    1. Re:Another unrelated libel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People shouldn't take things at face value. That is how you combat libel.

  23. Judges are not computers by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    A judge could and might look underneath the appearances and conclude that it was libel after all despite the attempt to launder it.

  24. This means... by abaddononion · · Score: 1

    that we can all attack Steve Ballmer at will, without fear of retaliation!

    Not that that ever stopped anyone here at Slashdot anyway.

    Actually, in all seriousness, it seemed to me that this ruling was saying that if I post something libelous (sp? maybe not a word?) here on Slashdot, Slashdot can't be sued for it. But if Slashdot is ordered to turn over my registration information, or perhaps figure out the IP from which I'm posting... if they could get a reasonable finger on me, they could still sue me. I don't think this law is *quite* so bad. I mean... there are a lot of potential corollaries, but all-in-all, I don't think /. should be held accountable for my comments. There are just way too many comments and commenters on /. for that expectation to even be reasonable. If I say something bad on an open forum, I should be responsible for my actions, not the people who originally coded up and (in some cases) maintain the website.

  25. Too gray for my taste by frankie · · Score: 1

    If we were talking about a fully automated BBS/newsgroup/Slash/blog/etc where there is no direct involvement between the site host and any particular message, IMO it would be completely clear that the host should not be liable. The only possible exception might be if the host received an explicit sworn statement that the message is libelous or otherwise illegal, but refuses to remove it. And that would only be maybe.

    However, in this case we have a manually moderated forum, where the host made a conscious decision to publish disputed material. Giving blanket immunity to all secondhand posting doesn't just open a huge can of worms, it takes those worms and tosses them all over a crowded public square.

    And relying on Congress to pick up this cause-du-jour and "do the right thing"... that's just plain crazy.
  26. This was inevitable... by burningion · · Score: 1

    This was inevitable if the US wanted to keep its place as one of the leaders of the internet. The web wants to be free, and if the US had decided to make sites accountable for libel, the sites would all just move out of the US.
    It's becoming harder and harder to find countries with governments sympathetic to freedom of information. If the pirate party ever got off the ground, I could see a massive opportunity for people to create sites that share information in the way that YouTube did before it got bought by Google. That is, without real worry about copyrights.

    Imagine being able to watch a lower quality version of a DVD before you decided to buy one. Not happening with our lobbyists, but with a different set of lobbyists...

  27. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by almost+entirely+lega · · Score: 1

    There's a somewhat strange disconnect between the immunity granted by Congress in this type of case and the copyright/trademark cases in which ISPs and message board providers (to say nothing of file sharers like Napster) are found liable for contributory infringement if they refuse to take down material about which claims of a violation are made. One might argue that granting the message board defamation immunity is a way to encourage (or at least not discourage) speech, by contrast with a more black & white test of trademark/copyright infringement...but I'm not sure that the argument is entirely satisfactory.

  28. But you are by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    >Why shouldn't you be liable for what you publish?

    The opinion is explicit that libel victims have recourse against the person who libeled them.

    The exemption is for service providers and conduits, and a single illustration proves how necessary it is. Imagine a defamatory statement on Usenet. Thousands of sites will be passing that statement along, storing it, and showing it to users. If the hosts and forwarders were in the legal line of fire, they'd shut down and there wouldn't be a Usenet. Most of us would intuit that it's unfair to sue a backbone provider for defamatory postings.

    1. Re:But you are by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except that "Anonymous Joe" on Amazon isn't exactly easy to track down unless Amazon tells me their IP and the ISP tells me their name.

      Now, I should mention that in my case Amazon *was* good enough to remove the libelous reviews in only a day or two. So I don't want to give the impression that they're irresponsible. I just don't think they should be totally immune because who knows if in the future they will react with the same speed and objectiveness.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:But you are by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      And what if Anonymous Joe used an anonymous wireless connection at a coffee shop, or the hallway of an apartment building?? It really isn't hard to put more layers of anonymity on if you try when going online... Making everyone up the chain liable is just a Bad Idea(TM) - all I would have to do to get revenge on anyone with an unsecured wireless connection would be to use their connection to write libelous statements, then sit back and watch them get nailed. This is why online publishing and real world publishing differ. In the real world, you know who REALLY published it.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    3. Re:But you are by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes shit happens, and it's hard to get justice? No kidding! Just because you can't find the responsible party doesn't mean that you can just go to the "next closes party" and start pointing blame.

  29. Infamy by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our libelling slanderous overlords.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  30. bittorrent sites by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that bittorrent sites are no longer liable for what people post on them?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:bittorrent sites by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      only if the torrent allows you to download a file called oliverthered_eats_babies.txt

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  31. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So, if I were to write something libel about you in the comments section of a /. article, you can sue /. You can however, come after me.


    I think you meant to say I can *not* sue /., but I can sue you.
  32. Tim Bolen is a spammer by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1

    He initiated the funniest thread in the history of NANAE.

  33. So, in honor of the article... by nschubach · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn Jews! It's all their fault.

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  34. I hate grammar nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but it took me a couple minutes to figure out one of your sentences so as a public service: "Even though the court allowed [that] this could have far-reaching consequences, they ultimately wanted this to be a question more for Congress than the courts." FTFY Not sure "allowed" is the best word choice either.

  35. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am free to say that the judge who decided this is gay. Or straight. Whichever offends him more.

  36. not good by Jack+Sombra · · Score: 1

    If I am understanding this correctly then it is quite different from the normal case of the carrier (unmoderated host,search engine,forum,blog...) being immune from being sued but it is now also making the the poster of content (aka the person who actually put it on the site) immune as well, now only leaving the person who first created the content liable (and they can hide behind anonminity)

    If this is case it is a very very bad ruling which turns the web from a place where "freedom of speech is allowed" to a place where "freedom to lie without repercussions is allowed"

    1. Re:not good by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
      If I am understanding this correctly then it is quite different from the normal case of the carrier (unmoderated host,search engine,forum,blog...) being immune from being sued but it is now also making the the poster of content (aka the person who actually put it on the site) immune as well, now only leaving the person who first created the content liable (and they can hide behind anonminity)


      This is correct.

      If this is case it is a very very bad ruling which turns the web from a place where "freedom of speech is allowed" to a place where "freedom to lie without repercussions is allowed"


      I agree that it is "bad" in the sense of being an undesirable result, OTOH, I dont think it is "bad" in the sense of being legally incorrect. The plain language of the Communications Decency Act immunizes users of online systems from liability as the "publisher" or "speaker" (thus barring slander/libel liability) for online-published material where the information originated with a third party, under any circumstances. Presuming the constitutionality of that portion of the CDA (which seems likely under the Insterstate Commerce Clause), any state law libel liability that would exist for such publication is preempted by federal law, and the court had no choice but to rule as it did.

      It may be a bad law, but it is not the job of a state court (or any court in the US system), to judge whether a law is "good" or "bad" so long as it is within the Constitutional power of the legislative body that made the law.
    2. Re:not good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      freedom to lie without repercussions is allowed

      Just like the doctrine that it is better that ten guilty go free than that one innocent be executed, I think it is likewise far more important that freedom to tell the truth without repercussions is allowed.

      Ironic that the captcha for this posting is "patriots".

  37. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by DragonWriter · · Score: 1
    Publishers like newspapers, magazines and tv broadcasters are held liable for everything that their employees produce, post, and broadcast, so why shouldn't those who publish materials on the web be held to a similar standard?


    "Shouldn't", I dunno, but they don't get the same treatment because they were clever enough to go to Congress and convince them that immunizing them against libel liability would somehow be useful to protecting kids against pornography. The broad liability shield in the CDA was specifically lobbied-for on the basis that it would protect online services using (and, in the process, republishing the descriptions published by) content blocking/screening services from liability for defamatory false descriptions provided by those services, and thereby encourage online services to make use of content blocking systems to protect children from "harmful" matter.

  38. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    One might argue that granting the message board defamation immunity is a way to encourage (or at least not discourage) speech


    One might, but as is apparent from the labels of both the broad title of law (the "Communications Decency Act") and the specific applicable subsection ("Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material"), encouraging free speech is the precise opposite of Congress' intent with this liability shield, it was indeed intended to discourage content that Congress didn't like. Congress just made the judgement lies which demonstrably cause specific harm to specific people were less undesirable than nekkid pictures on the internet, and decided to protect the former in the hopes that it might promote actions which would limit exposure to the latter.

  39. Tim Bolen is not an impressive guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim Bolen, cited in the article, does not exactly inspire confidence. Check out this legal deposition of Bolen from 2006. Talk about evasive!!

  40. In other news ... by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

    ... OSTG servers are relocated to California overnight :) I for one welcome our libelous overlords.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  41. And by maop · · Score: 1

    5. Nobody gives a fuck because people are skeptical about anonymous postings to the internet.

  42. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by bidule · · Score: 1
    My argument would be that the new publishers are the people hitting "submit" on the web form, since they're the ones selecting stories, validating them for truth (I crack me up), editing them for typos, and making the decision to make them public (i.e., "publish" them). Which is what this court decision seems to be in agreement with.


    I would say "validate for interest", not for truth. Letters to the editors are a tool for the community to voice their concerns about current events. In a sense they complement the editorials by giving alternate understandings of these events. Someone can be 100% wrong, but be spot-on on the feeling of the community.

    How can you have a constructive dialog if you don't understand the other POV? This is what I hate about /. groupthink and plagiarism. Copying someone else's idea without adding anything fresh, a mere regurgitation of prejudice, this doesn't show any insight and should be worth a big zero. <oldgeezer>You kids need to learn to post (and moderate) quality, not whatever you agree with.</oldgeezer>
    --
    ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
  43. What about this? by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    I was hassled in my old job, which just about cracked me up. When I put up an article on my website detailing how I was bullied, I was threatened with legal action, libel - you name it. It seems that the company involved, whom I regard as having an obsession with power and money, wanted to stifle any criticisms, even going so far as to have articles (yes, even on Slashdot) and newsgroup submissions deleted. And yet, they don't care about the harm done to me. http://www.btinternet.com/~dr_paul_lee/auto.shtml

    --
    My web domain.
  44. Re:Why should a message board get special treatmen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Publishers like newspapers, magazines and tv broadcasters are held liable for everything that their employees produce, post, and broadcast, so why shouldn't those who publish materials on the web be held to a similar standard? I'm guessing a lot of you all on /. have never been on the receiving end of serious, reputation-destroying, libel.

    That depends on your definition of employee.

    I have a friend who attended a high-end authors' workshop. One of the sessions dealt with the difference between publishing a novel vs. a memoir, both of which which included unfavorable reflections on your (renamed) family members.

    In the case of a novel (and more importantly, a professedly true account), even changing the names might not shield you from a libel suit. In a memoir, OTOH, where "I'm not saying this is true or not true -- it's simply my (perhaps faulty) recollection" it's harder to nail you for libel.

    The next question from an attendee was, "Well, won't the aggrieved party simply sue my publisher? Or won't my publisher cover my defense costs?" In both cases, the answer was that the publisher will simply point to you as the party to sue.

    Next question -- "How does Kitty Kelly avoid being sued into the ground after writing some of her famous books about the Reagans and others?"

    Answer -- "She doesn't avod being sued. She surrounds herself with a bevy of extravagantly good (and correspondingly expensive) lawyers who can get her off every time."