Be careful. The Sullivan standard applied in this case says that journalists can be sued for libel only if they exercise knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. But that standard only applies when you're talking about public figures; if you call your next door neighbor a drug trafficker on the Web, you'd better be able to prove it.
The RIAA didn't sue Felton. Felton sued the RIAA and the attorney general, essentially asking for a declaratory judgment that he didn't do anything wrong. DoJ is quite correct that Felton was never prosecuted or threatened with prosecution (the language in the letter the RIAA sent to Felton was too vague to constitute a threat.) Unless you're actually a defendant or under threat of suit or prosecution, you don't have standing in court to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Otherwise any yahoo could go into court and waste time challenging anything he didn't like. For that reason, Felton is justifiably about to get his suit thrown out.
Incidentally, as far as I can see the DoJ has not expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, only on the process. Why waste time bashing the DoJ for defending themselves against a lawsuit that any lawyer should have known not to file in the first place? Wait until they really prosecute somebody under the DMCA.
Slashdot Mirror
Be careful. The Sullivan standard applied in this case says that journalists can be sued for libel only if they exercise knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. But that standard only applies when you're talking about public figures; if you call your next door neighbor a drug trafficker on the Web, you'd better be able to prove it.
The RIAA didn't sue Felton. Felton sued the RIAA and the attorney general, essentially asking for a declaratory judgment that he didn't do anything wrong. DoJ is quite correct that Felton was never prosecuted or threatened with prosecution (the language in the letter the RIAA sent to Felton was too vague to constitute a threat.) Unless you're actually a defendant or under threat of suit or prosecution, you don't have standing in court to challenge the constitutionality of a law. Otherwise any yahoo could go into court and waste time challenging anything he didn't like. For that reason, Felton is justifiably about to get his suit thrown out. Incidentally, as far as I can see the DoJ has not expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, only on the process. Why waste time bashing the DoJ for defending themselves against a lawsuit that any lawyer should have known not to file in the first place? Wait until they really prosecute somebody under the DMCA.
"Justiciable" is not a made-up word. It's a legalese word, meaning that the court in question has jurisdiction and authority to try the case.