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."

Comments

Let's test it out....

[Mikachu]

Microsoft sells your soul to satan!

*runs*

Re:Let's test it out....

[gQuigs]

It said message board operators are not liable. They could still sue individual users on the site.

Re:Let's test it out....

[Harmonious Botch]

They can't sue GP. It's got to be FALSE information.

Re:Let's test it out....

[monopole]

There's going to be a problem with cat overpopulation then.

Re:Let's test it out....

[Romancer]

Slashdot should script in the submit form: "My opinion is:" before each post in very tiny print.

To ensure that posters don't get sued since opinions can't be lible.

Re:Let's test it out....

[QRDeNameland]

I wholeheartedly agree that to say that "a certain congressman deserves 'two in the back of the head'" is offensive.

They ALL deserve two in the back of the head.

Re:Let's test it out....

[maxume]

There is a difference between racism, homophobia and hate speech, and inciting someone to violence.

I don't really care if I live in a world where people with ugly thoughts refrain from expressing them because of the rules. I see no(little?) virtue in meeting the basic requirements of society. It always wacks me out when people show offense at 'sinners'; I can see showing concern for a sinner, but why the hell would you take it as a personal offense that someone else is scum?

Re:Let's test it out....

[general_re]

I'm not sure that the turds who run those sites should be allowed to skate completely free from responsibility for the repositories of ugliness that their comments sections have become, when they clearly encourage the basest instincts of their most twisted readers.

Since such liability wouldn't likely be limited solely to board operators you happen to dislike, I guess the only question is who gets to the courthouse first - the people suing Free Republic and LGF, or the people suing DKos and Democratic Underground. If we really put our minds to it, we can eliminate interactive message boards altogether.

Re:Let's test it out....

[FLEB]

One of the fundamental points of free speech is that, while they are not censored, we are all free to dismiss such bozos as the gaggle of nuts that they are, and spread word of this far and wide.

Re:Let's test it out....

[Wordsmith]

No, no it's not. It's speech, and it's clearly offensive to you (and me, from your description). You've got this wonderful ability not to expose yourself to it.

Now, if they posters are actively encouraging people to shoot one another (not just saying some people deserve to be shot), or making threats that they'll do so, that's something else altogther.

Ugly is ugly, but it ain't up to us to decide what's too ugly. You have every right to be racist, homophobic and hateful. Just don't expect an invitation to dinner at my place or try to date my daughter.

Re:Let's test it out....

[cpt kangarooski]

To ensure that posters don't get sued since opinions can't be lible.

What makes you think that? It depends on your jurisdiction, of course, since defamation laws can vary quite a lot, but at least with regard to federal defamation law, opinions can indeed be libelous. Also, merely using a preface like 'my opinion is' is not a magic incantation that is going to protect you no matter what follows it; simply saying that something is an opinion doesn't make it an opinion, and no court is stupid enough to be tricked in that manner.

You should read a very on-point Supreme Court case: Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., in which the Court clearly stated that as a matter of First Amendment law, there is no categorical opinion defense.

Re:Let's test it out....

[Skreems]

If you don't act offended at the behavior of others, how are you going to get that warm fuzzy feeling of superiority?

Re:Let's test it out....

[Citizen of Earth]

They ALL deserve two in the back of the head.

Sounds risky. Better to unload the whole clip.

will they then

[Neuropol]

try and follow suit against the comment poster?

Re:will they then

[pilgrim23]

Wasn't this all fought out 20 years ago over BBSs?

Re:will they then

[drinkypoo]

Who is "they"? If the comment is linked to a [possible] crime, then sure, they will go after the poster. Which involves your access logs, your ISP's access logs, and possibly your database (if it will be helpful.)

If someone should post copyrighted material in a comment, then the first thing they do is send you a takedown notice. Then they can come after you if you are not responsive.

P.S. "file suit", not "follow suit".

Re:will they then

[ivanmarsh]

I guess that depends on whether you're stating opinion or fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how stupid it is.

None of these cases will ever go anywhere.

"I never made any claim that my blogg is a lagitimate source of factual material" case dismissed.
If it works for Fox news it should certainly work for a blog.

Re:will they then

[PCM2]

I guess that depends on whether you're stating opinion or fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how stupid it is.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they are not necessarily entitled to write it down and publish it for the whole world to read. If I say "I think George W. Bush looks like a child molester. In fact think he is a child molester" and then I go on for the next few paragraphs to talk about George W. Bush as if he molests children, speculating on the times and places where he might have had access to children to molest them, then I am begging for a lawsuit. I'd be a fool to believe that "but I told you up front that it was just my opinion" was going to save me. In the United States, the Supreme Court has pretty much rejected the "fair comment" defense for libel cases.

Re:will they then

[PopeRatzo]

PCM2, I absolutely agree, except for your last sentence. I think SCOTUS has been overly hard on slander and libel suits when the plaintiff is a "public figure", allowing a level of ugliness in discourse that exceeds the worst in our history. Even in the most divisive days of our Civil War, when public figures would say stuff that caused them to fight duels to the death, you didn't hear the kind of stuff you hear today (I'm something of a political history hobbyist, and I've checked). You can read certain blogs or tune into talk radio any evening to hear a lot worst than "GW Bush is a child molester". Recently, it has become common to hear the loudmouths on the Salem Radio outlet here in Chicago refer to members of congress as "drug addicted communist traitors who should to be hung" (note, not "deserve to be hung", but "should be hung"). In fact, yesterday the afternoon guy was talking about how Bill Clinton was a serial rapist and murderer. His callers ran with that thought into an area that went way, way past slander. And by the way, he wasn't talking about "murder" in the sense of "sent soldiers to their death in a needless war" or "left hurricane victims to die", but in the sense that he personally killed someone with his own hands. This stuff goes on every single day on thousands of AM radio stations across the US. The network (SRN)that carries this stuff likes to run promos about how "Your Opinion Counts". mm hmm. Then they'll cry about how their political adversaries are so full of "anger and hate".

And it gets lots, lots worse, with no suits brought because Federal judges would throw them out since it was about a "public figure" and "protected, political speech". It seems that there's a concerted effort to make the level of discourse so outrageous that no serious issue could ever be discussed, allowing election results to be dictated further by the fun-house mirrors of our "personality" media.

Re:will they then

[FLEB]

Simply saying something is an opinion doesn't make it so. An accusation of child molestation, presented as a straight statement without metaphor, is a provable right-or-wrong statement of fact.

Now, the first statement would fly-- you can legitimately think he looks like a child molester (that's something wholly dependent upon your personal perception), but you put yourself into a statement of fact when you say that he is a child molester. Granted, the "I think" tempers it a bit, but it's still shaky ground if someone were to take you up on it.

(By my own measure-- I don't know the legal opinions on the subject.)

Cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I can clue everyone in that Taco uses Windows! :)

It's a bad thing!

[spun]

We need more chilling effects! Haven't you guys ever heard of global warming?

sue the makers of Pens

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:sue the makers of Pens

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, when you put it like that everyone would think your crazy but if someone were to suggest suing firearms manufacturers for things done with their products many people would have no problem with that.

Hall of fame story

[The_Wilschon]

So would this ruling have prevented this story (from the slashdot hall of fame) from having happened?

Re:Hall of fame story

[Harmonious Botch]

No, this suit does not change the scientology on slashdot issue.

The scientology text in question was copyrighted, and to copy without permission is a violation of copyright law. In TFA, the situation is different. The plantif alledges that several people ( mostly John Does ) bought options to sell the stock at a certain price, defamed it on the forum, then after the price dropped, cashed their options for a profit. Apparently some people did defame it, and some people did profit from the drop in vale. But the court found that the plantiff was unable to prove that any of them were the same people. So, now law was proven to have been broken.

Re:Hall of fame story

[Jim Hall]

I think it still would have happened. From the story you linked to (emphasis mine):

Last Saturday a comment was posted here by an anonymous reader that contained text that was copyrighted by the Church of Scientology. They have since followed the DMCA and demanded that we remove the comment. While Slashdot is an open forum and we encourage free discussion and sharing of ideas, our lawyers have advised us that, considering all the details of this case, the comment should come down. Read on to understand what this means.

This is the first time since we instituted our moderation system that a comment has had to be removed because of its content, and believe me nobody is more broken hearted about it than me. It's a bad precedent, and a blow for the freedom of speech that we all share in this forum. But this simply doesn't look like a case we can win. Our lawyers tell us that it appears to be a violation of Copyright law, and under the terms of the DMCA, we must remove it. Else we risk legal action that would at best be expensive, and potentially cause Slashdot to go down temporarily or even permanently. At the worst, court orders could jeporadize your privacy, and we would be helpless to stop it.

So in that case, the issue was copyright infringement and issuance of the DMCA. Nothing about defamation, which is what this new case is about (note: I cannot RTFA, because it is slashdotted. But going by the summary, I believe this is correct.)

What about..

[SillySnake]

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" ?

How About Other Content?

[Bones3D_mac]

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?

Sueing the posters?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Scientology

[JamDonut]

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!

Re:Scientology

[quanticle]

First, there is a previous reference. Second, this doesn't affect the scientology case in any way. The text posted in the scientology thread is copyrighted, and the Church of Scientology sued under the DMCA, which this ruling does not affect.

This case just affects libel, in which you falsely allege wrongdoing against someone for the purpose of destroying their reputation.

What about graffiti?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

Re:What about graffiti?

[The_Wilschon]

But only a bit. The blogger can quite easily delete the offending post within a few clicks. NYC has to send a guy with not only a bucket of paint and brushes, but also an armed escort, to remove the offending graffiti. Much more difficult and much more expensive. Furthermore, NYC is a public entity, a blogger is a private entity.

More questions to answer?

[i_should_be_working]

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.

ruling doesn't mention "blog" anywhere...

[SuperBanana]

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.

Re:Common sense

[The_Wilschon]

It's just common sense.

But it is also politics. The two are seen together about as often as whales are seen in deserts.

Satan: Sell your soul to me, not Microsoft

[Cope57]

Microsoft sells your soul to satan!

*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?