Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Immune From Suits Against Commenters
An anonymous reader writes "Suppose a commenter posts a libelous comment here at Slashdot. Can Slashdot and its owners be sued for defamation? A federal appeals court just held that no, they cannot. The court noted that a federal law was designed to ensure that 'within broad limits, message board operators would not be held responsible for the postings made by others on that board,' adding that, were the law otherwise, it would have an 'obvious chilling effect' on blogger speech."
Microsoft sells your soul to satan!
*runs*
try and follow suit against the comment poster?
Now I can clue everyone in that Taco uses Windows! :)
We need more chilling effects! Haven't you guys ever heard of global warming?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I once wrote a slanderous piece about someone and they, knowing that I had no money, determined that the brand of pen that I wrote the document with (pre-computer) was Bic, then filed a lawsuit agains Bic corporation for supplying me with the tool I used for my slanderous remarks.
Note: The above did not really happen. It just served to make a (ball) point.
This is great. What we need now is something to post binary data as a slashdot post and a filesystem to use it!
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
So would this ruling have prevented this story (from the slashdot hall of fame) from having happened?
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
Didn't the church of Scientology threaten to sue once about stuff that was posted in the comment section? Obviously it has nothing to do with libel.. but might the same hold true based on the "within broad limits, message board operators would not be held responsible for the postings made by others on that board" ?
Having previously hosted Think Secret's message boards for a few years, I'm no stranger to having companies like Adobe and Apple threatening to sue over content a user posted into a thread. In many instances where this occurred the content in question (usually pictures, screenshots or diagrams) were not even hosted on our site or any of our servers, but were linked from external sites where the content had originated. In addition, I was sometimes even threatened over mere links to other sites that were displaying the objectionable content in question. (Though, in those cases, I was able to simply refuse to remove the links on the grounds that I could not be held responsible for content hosted on third party websites.)
So, would this imply that a site is protected from such harrassments should a user post a trade secret into the forums without the knowledge of the forum owner?
8==8 Bones 8==8
I'll just begin my copy and paste of articles from whitesupremacy.com to message boards for storage.
My page.
Being as this is a "news" site, can Taco refuse to give info on his sources, aka posters? And if he does refuse to fork over his logs etc under such an exemption can that be interpreted as Slashdot now being liable?
Seeing as there is no reference to this previously, I vote that we reinstate the comments from this thread.
These people really get on my chimes. Our text is ours!
I suggest that suing a Blogger for hosting a comment is a bit like suing New York City because it hosts the graffiti written on building walls.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
What if the poster is someone that is known to be affiliated with /.? Like cowboyneal or taco. Which one started this thing anyway? Well, if the one who didn't start it or own it makes some libelous claims would /. still be off the hook?
And what's the fine line between a blog and something like Wikipedia?
Maybe TFM will have the answers. Oh wait, TFM is dotted.
It's just common sense. If I pick up a megaphone, get up on a soap box downtown, and yell a string of slanderous statements, Fanon Megaphones isn't going to get sued. Shoot the messenger and all.
The site where TFA is hosted appears to have been /.ed already so I can't see it. Is there anything in the decision that might possibly relate to forum comments? Thanks.
Alright! I know I'm in there! If I don't come out, I'll have to come in after me!
were the law otherwise, it would have an 'obvious chilling effect' on blogger speech.
The actual lawsuit has little to do with bloggers, which is nicely glossed over by (surprise) the blogger "reporting" on this. In fact, the word "blog" doesn't appear anywhere in the entire PDF, and the assertation that this "Reaffirms Immunity of Bloggers from Suits Brought Against Commenters" is almost complete hyperbole on the part of the blogger. The court's opinion seems aimed at mailing lists and web boards, and could also apply to cases like Myspace's big "Oops" with their spyware-laden advertising friends. Good luck arguing the finer points of who's the content provider of what with that one. Anyway....
Some Devil's Advocate comments:
If a reporter writes, "Bill Smith bonks goats" and the paper prints it (and doesn't retract it), how is that different from some goofball writing "Bill Smith bonks goats" and the website owner not taking it down when informed of the error? Granted, one is an employee (sometimes), but in both situations, the owner/operator has the technical capability to edit, fact check, etc. Volume isn't really an excuse; newspapers could easily say the same thing. "Gee, we have so many reporters, we can't be expected to keep tabs on each one."
Another example: a streaker runs past a TV camera that's live. Guess what? The streaker gets arrested, but the TV station could be fined by the FCC; the FCC can't say "well, shucks, we can't really stop people from doing that sort of thing, it's live!"; the FCC turns around and says "We don't care, make sure it doesn't happen again"; data, most TV isn't live; it's run off a delay loop, and someone's got their hand over a Big Red Button that cuts the feed. This became very popular after a California TV station "accidentally" broadcast a guy blowing his brains out (I believe after a highway chase).
I'm tired of all this. Bloggers seem like the little naive children of the media; chiefly, they seem shocked and amazed that you can't ignore centuries of common law: you say something and it damages another party, you could be held liable in a civil suit for said damages. Anonymity isn't anything new or special; in fact, in the 1700's anonymously published papers were part of our nation's founding.
Please help metamoderate.
It would have an obvious chilling effect on anonymous coward speech. It's not that hard to disable comments on most blogging engines.
All Scientologists are crazy, whackos who will take all of your money, brainwash you, and give you nothing in return.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
There was some noise being made about forcing ISPs to keep records for a set amount of time. That would be a responsible complementary law to this freedom. Otherwise, you will end up with a situation where sites cannot be held responsible, and intentionally do not keep any records to prevent their users from being held responsible for their speech.
Free speech must still be used within limits, and I'm all for it. I'm also for, when someone willfully and grossly exceeds those limits, to pay the piper and take responsibility.
I'm picturing any number of sites, like youtube and many others, breathing a heavy sigh of relief that a different precedent wasn't set.
Slashdot stole my comments and I want them back!
Scientology (technically, the RTC, one of the many official Scientology corporations) used a DMCA Takedown notice to force Slashdot to remove some copies of their OT ("Operating Thetan") materials. I believe it might have been OT3. Fortunately, they're widely available online if you really want to read that crap.
:-)
In my biased opinion, they're a rather insidious bunch. From what I've read of them online, it appears that they slowly isolate and condition people psychologically (which is why they hate psychologists--such people would recognize what they're doing). Once they get people to the point where they have pretty much everything they own invested in the organization, only then do they let them see the space opera stuff so they can complete their self-delusion. That is, unless they're the cynical type who was only pretending the whole time, who is willing to lie about having psychic powers and... Well, let's just say they might become someone rather like L. Ron Hubbard
*runs* A article I blogged from Humorix.org
Fake news written by James Baughn @ Humorix.org
from the where-do-you-want-to-go-today? dept.
HADES -- Faced with growing competition from Microsoft in the lucrative soul-buying market, the Prince of Darkness today unveiled a new advertising campaign hoping to lure in more customers and turn the tables on Bill Gates.
"The Novell-Microsoft deal was the final straw," Satan said during a press conference at his underground lair. "Novell should have sold their souls to me, not Microsoft. I can offer much greater rewards than some phony-baloney we-promise-not-to-sue covenant. Just look at The SCO Group: they sold their souls to Microsoft and what do they have to show for it now?"
The last few years have been very tough for Satan. "When I look at all of the suckers that have partnered with Microsoft, only to be stabbed in the back repeatedly, I can only shrug my horns," he lamented. "Those should be *my* customers! Between Microsoft and the Republican Party, the competition is eating me alive!"
During the last three quarters, earnings for Hades have plummeted 45%, causing one stock analyst to downgrade Hades (ticker symbol: HELL) from "Strong Buy" to "Exorcise From Your Portfolio Immediately." The added competition from Microsoft and others has caused the futures market for souls to skyrocket, cutting profit margins severely for Hades.
"Fire and brimstone ain't cheap," Satan growled. "I need cheap souls to perform the grunt work that keeps this place going."
Nevertheless, the Prince of Darkness hopes that the situation will improve thanks to an advertising blitz highlighting the advantages of selling out.
"Need cash now?" asks one TV commercial. "Don't mess with high-interest loans... we've got the solution to your money problems right here. In just fifteen minutes and with your signature in blood, you can have all of the money you need!"
Another spot proclaims, "You only have one soul -- sell it wisely. There's a reason The Devil has been the market leader for the last two millennia. We offer much better rewards than the competition. Don't delay, call Hades today! Minions are standing by."
Industry observers expressed mixed reactions at the news. "I'm glad that we're seeing such viable competition," said an analyst for the Blartner Group. "For centuries, mortals have faced the unpleasant challenge of trying to sell their souls in a buyer's market. All of that has changed now that Satan no longer has a stranglehold."
However, a rival pundit said, "This is terrible. It's bad enough that Satan represents pure evil, but now we have a corporation that is even worse! When will the insanity end?"
A slave... er, spokesperson for Microsoft was unavailable for comment at press time.
Sell Your Soul?
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Great to hear common sense was in action here. In Germany there was a ruling recently stating the exact opposit. The reasoning was something like if you don't have the resourses to monitor your message boards 100%, don't run one. Which should, if it playes out worst-case, eleminate most boards at some point. Next stop: cashing.
Looky here dude, I want to be sued. I've went to great lengths now for 4 straight YEARS trying to get sued. You can't take my Right to be Sued away from me. You think I'm KIDDING? You haven't read some of my posts and web pages > http://www.newpath4.com/sitemap.htm . I want the people to sue me so it pulls my arguments against them before a dang Judge and Jury. That's why they don't sue me, they know and are sore afraid. The Department of Energy knows it has worked 4 long years to suppress people hearing my air + steam engine really does work, really does produce its own power "on the fly" using gravity power to re-compress the air, with compressors replacing the car's springs & shocks. It isn't Perpetual Motion, it's Smart Motion using an Outside Power Source >>> GRAVITY-INERTIA. And the D.O.E. will not grant me my day in Court for Love or Money. Read my posts how I faxed the information straight to President Bush's White House fax machine, to him & Cheney and both their wives! That was back in the Fall of 2003, before I knew the White House was owned by Big Oil and Halliburton. I fought them in the NY Times trenches for two years over damn Global Warming, knowing all along paid bloggers were fighting with me to discredit me and my zero emissions powerhouse engines. That's Right. I have two such engines, two different systems.
And you don't hear about them outside my posts and web pages because the White House has control of the News Media by the b^lls. Neither Bush or Cheney nor all the King's Men want me testifying in a Court of Law or a Senate Hearing facing them and they damn well know it. I got News for SlashDotters and SlashDot. I can make the flying car engine with a few changes to my Millenial Dawn engine, and while the military fiddle farts around getting to the Moon by 2020 we can be there sipping tea.
And the White House knows that too. I didn't stutter... but apologies for the French. I've spent so much time time typing I actually got carpal tunnel in my left elbow so I'm a little ticked off. I can't do bench presses or any presses. I was already on disability so now I'm disabled all over again, again. Have a nice day but don't take my day in Court. It will come. I built it and it will come. Bush admitted Global Warming, and my day is coming. He knows he actively tried to suppress Public Knowledge about my engines. Not only is my day coming Mr. Bush, yours is coming also. Put that in your memoirs my friend. Riley step, Riley step, Riley step.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
thanks to the DMCA.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
I'm a photographer with a copyright suit against a corporation who has counterclaimed defamation (see my website's page about Vilana Financial). Part of their counterclaim was over insulting comments posted on my website by third parties.
This came up in oral arguments when they sought a preliminary injuction to remove my website. The federal judge (Ann D. Montgomery, District of Minnesota) was already aware, without any input from me, Vilana could not make a claim against me over comments posted by a third party. They tried to shoe-horn it in by saying I allowed the comments, or I had a "supervisory role". The judge didn't give that any merit.
On the other hand, I'm still spending two years in court to defend saying something long-since proven to be true -- that Vilana published my photos in the phone book without my knowledge or permission.
www.cgstock.com
Executing a Base Delta Zero is the only thing that will really solve the question. It has a side benefit of also addressing the current issue of global warming.
ISO certified == THX certified
They all look like this anyway. I can't believe anyone would take anything on a message board seriously.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
Recently, a photographer had some of his pics hotlinked on a messageboard I administrate, we took them down and informed our members to not hotlink his pictures in a post.
Of course, this inspired our members to make other jokes about him and mention him quite a bit in other posts, which the photog noticed started showing up on search engines. He started threatening us because our members started making comments about him. It's good to know that the federal courts are saying we are protected when our members say the photog sucks.
When I first glanced at this I swore I saw "Boogers ...."
Sorry, just had to tell someone.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.