PDA

View Full Version : Personal Libel Laws on the Internet



CreativeChaos
22 Aug 2006, 07:08 PM
Yeah, I've been researching the subject, and I have this:
http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_journalism_libel_laws.htm

Quote from article:

Congratulations, you are now a publisher

This is the rub. Anyone who operates a blog is now considered a journalist, and subject to the same rules as any other international publisher. Now, I don't believe for a minute that everyone in the "blogsphere" understands the tenets for reporting about celebrities and how the laws are different for a "Limited purpose public figure", much less, the rules for publishing facts about private citizens.

Like it or not, millions of Americans have unwittingly become amateur journalists, without the benefit of understanding the important laws regarding publishing of information that might hurt someone else. Let's take a closer look and explore these issues:



What is Libel?

Libel is the publication of false, defamatory statements. However, in some jurisdictions, defamation, in an of itself is actionable, and in other places, presenting some in a false light in the public eye can get you sued.

Click on: Sure fire ways to wind up in court.


Quote from article:
Here are some common ways to quickly get your pants sued off:

Linking to defamatory web pages
Just found some juicy gossip? Hey, go-ahead and link to-it, it's a free country, right? Wrong. Mr. Gillmor notes:
Click on: Internet Laws and Personal Liability

Quote from the article:

The laws also vary by State and Nation, and South Carolina has strict laws against invasion of privacy. In the publication "THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY vs. THE FIRST AMENDMENT" (1978), author Alice Marie Beard notes that in many States it appears to be illegal to intrude upon someone's seclusion or solitude, to publicly disclose embarrassing private facts about someone; or to generate publicity that places the someone in a "false light" in the public eye:

click on overview of liabel law:
Quote from the article:

SPLC Legal Brief
Libel Law

? 2001 Student Press Law Center



Libel is the publication - in words, photos, pictures or symbols - of false statements of fact that harm another's reputation. (Libel is a form of defamation. Slander is the spoken version of defamation.) Reprinting or re-broadcasting a libelous statement made by someone else (such as a quote or a letter to the editor) can also subject a publication to a libel lawsuit. However, if a statement is true, it cannot be the basis of a successful libel claim.


THE PIHF CHECKLIST

There are four elements a person must establish in order to prove he or she has been defamed: (1) Publication, (2) Identification, (3) Harm and (4) Fault. Each of the four elements must be proven. For example, even if a story you have written meets the publication, harm and fault elements, a libel claim will still fail if you have not identified the claimant.

I. Publication


A statement is "published" if it is communicated to someone other than the person whom the statement is about.
Publication can take many forms and does not simply mean that the statement has been printed in a newspaper or other document. For example, a defamatory statement's presence on a computer screen in the newsroom where it is read by other students could constitute publication.


Disguising a Subject's Identity
Where you successfully omit or alter a subject's identity, they cannot successfully sue you for libel. Care should be taken that: (1) the subject's identity has been disguised enough so that no one can reasonably make an identification and (2) the disguised subject does not resemble some third party who would then have cause for complaint. Every story should clearly state what facts have been altered.

Think not that CC can't be traced to the actual person sitting at this desk typing, if one were so inclined to make the effort? Think again. And think not that the actual person who published (you know what article) cannot be found? Think again.

This isn't just a game. Kids. It involves real people, and real peoples lives, and their careers.

And I've only just begun my search.

Birdsnest
22 Aug 2006, 08:02 PM
Thanks, I do like this information.

melancholeric
22 Aug 2006, 08:07 PM
Are posts on a forum considered publications, and which one is liable, the author of the post or the owner of the site?

Because on some other forums that I've been to the owner of the site owned all rights to the posts since he was, by our laws, the publisher.

That, in turn, meant that post editing was severely restricted.

Claverhouse
22 Aug 2006, 08:15 PM
I think if one strictly confines oneself to pure truth, and refrains from ever being mean to people, that's enough to keep one out of the courts.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

attila_the_hunny
22 Aug 2006, 08:16 PM
and refrains from ever being mean to people

We're all fucked, then.

CreativeChaos
22 Aug 2006, 08:19 PM
Are posts on a forum considered publications, and which one is liable, the author of the post or the owner of the site?

Because on some other forums that I've been to the owner of the site owned all rights to the posts since he was, by our laws, the publisher.

That, in turn, meant that post editing was severely restricted.

Yeah, that's a good question. From what I have read so far, the answer is yes, if and only if it's really damaging to the person. And if a username is used, whether that can be traced back to the real person.

It talks about Blogs. Now, I'd say, if you have your own personal blog site, and you really defame a person or a company, you had better beware. Especially a company. Your blog site is a publication. Whether or not said person or company would bother to sue is another matter. But defaming and giving out personal information and such of a person is considered lible.

And if you say something really damaging about a company on your blog, you'd better think twice. They may or may not come after you, depending on how damaging they think your little blog is, or whatever.

But since the net captures everything with its little spiders everywhere, you'd be surprised (or maybe you computer wizer guys wouldn't) at what you can find out about a company or a person, by googling. So everything you write here is captured. And since the web is a public domain, it is quite similar to publishing.

Dr. Haight
22 Aug 2006, 08:30 PM
But since the net captures everything with its little spiders everywhere, you'd be surprised (or maybe you computer wizer guys wouldn't) at what you can find out about a company or a person, by googling. So everything you write here is captured. And since the web is a public domain, it is quite similar to publishing.

:unsure: :shock:

attila_the_hunny
22 Aug 2006, 08:33 PM
I never use real names, even for myself, so I don't really care. I have a million different aliases.

melancholeric
22 Aug 2006, 08:39 PM
To answer my own question of which one is liable, the author or the owner, I had opened the registration agreement:

Although the administrators and moderators of INTP Central will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of INTP Central, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
No idea if that's enough for the courts though. I'm still a bit curious about that.

I never use real names, even for myself, so I don't really care. I have a million different aliases.
The aliases can be tracked down quite easily if needed. In most cases, anyway.

s0978
22 Aug 2006, 08:52 PM
:unsure: :shock:haha, CC begins a new reign of terror: everybody be fucking nice, dammit!


(you know what article)what article?

attila_the_hunny
22 Aug 2006, 08:56 PM
The aliases can be tracked down quite easily if needed. In most cases, anyway.

People who have private journals are exempt from the bots.

tinribz
22 Aug 2006, 09:04 PM
To answer my own question of which one is liable, the author or the owner, I had opened the registration agreement:

No idea if that's enough for the courts though. I'm still a bit curious about that.The agreement isn't worth the virtual paper it is written on. Both are equally liable the site owner and the author. There are plenty of president cases to prove it. In fact individual admin and moderators can also be prosecuted personally whether a contract of employment exists or not.

But no judge will hold a site or its staff responsible if it took reasonable measures like removing libelous content when made aware of it and took measures to try and stop it like warnings or banning. And did not act recklessly with inefficient moderation.

That said if you stick to facts and personal opinions just because something is damaging does not make it libelous.

melancholeric
22 Aug 2006, 09:07 PM
The server keeps logs of every single IP of every single post. From the IP it's easy to find out the location and the ISP. The ISP, on the other hand, keeps logs of their users and their IPs. So, unless you are using a proxy or have stolen someone's wireless, or your ISP doesn't know your contact information, your username can be traced fairly easily.

Does this have something to do with the bots?

melancholeric
22 Aug 2006, 09:08 PM
The agreement isn't worth the virtual paper it is written on. Both are equally liable the site owner and the author. There are plenty of president cases to prove it. In fact individual admin and moderators can also be prosecuted personally whether a contract of employment exists or not.

But no judge will hold a site or its staff responsible if it took reasonable measures like removing libelous content when made aware of it and took measures to try and stop it like warnings or banning. And did not act recklessly with inefficient moderation.

That said if you stick to facts and personal opinions just because something is damaging does not make it libelous.
Yeah, there was a thread ages ago that touched this: http://intpcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2791

Dr. Haight
22 Aug 2006, 09:12 PM
In fact individual admin and moderators can also be prosecuted personally whether a contract of employment exists or not.
:horror:




But no judge will hold a site or its staff responsible if it took reasonable measures like removing libelous content when made aware of it and took measures to try and stop it like warnings or banning. And did not act recklessly with inefficient moderation.

:whoop: See Hustler, I should definitely continue to delete the crap offensive material.

songbird36
22 Aug 2006, 09:24 PM
About time. People should be legally accountable for the BS they post on the net. I look forward to some suitable prosecutions :)

htb
22 Aug 2006, 09:26 PM
That's a slightly goofy article.


excerpt:
Anyone who operates a blog is now considered a journalist, and subject to the same rules as any other international publisher.Libel laws don't differentiate between the occupation of would-be defendants. Defamation in print is defamation in print. If it isn't in print, a statement believed to malign a party is considered slander.

"International publisher"? The 2002 Australian ruling against Dow Jones notwithstanding, foreign claims are tenuous; in the most vivid hypothetical case, i.e., a Zimbabwean kangaroo court ruling that a Scotch Plains man is capitally liable for calling Robert Mugabe a horse's ass, it's unlikely Washington would agree to any arrangement for extradition. And decisions like Young v. New Haven Advocate indicate the American judiciary's low tolerance for plaintiffs exploiting the internet's ubiquity.

CreativeChaos
22 Aug 2006, 09:30 PM
:unsure: :shock:

Oh, yeah, as if you don't know EVERYTHING there is to know about computers and the web and such stuff, Mr. Whizz!

cjs55
23 Aug 2006, 06:59 PM
FFS. What happened to the good ol' net where idiots could rightfully be mocked, and those without critical thinking skills were made fools of (as if this doesn't happen outside of the net!)

Heleuiski
23 Aug 2006, 07:04 PM
I think it's fine to say stuff like... "you are a total idiot" but not defamitory things like... "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" type stuff... mebbeee..hmmnnn..

EmmaPeel
23 Aug 2006, 07:07 PM
We're all fucked, then.
Heh, heh. I want to know what made CC look that info up. Did something happen? Are you afraid someone might do something? Or someone already has? Maybe I know already.

Heleuiski
23 Aug 2006, 07:43 PM
Heh, heh. I want to know what made CC look that info up. Did something happen? Are you afraid someone might do something? Or someone already has? Maybe I know already.

You know too much.

:ph34r:

Geoff
23 Aug 2006, 07:51 PM
I think it's fine to say stuff like... "you are a total idiot" but not defamitory things like... "Your mother sucks cocks in hell" type stuff... mebbeee..hmmnnn..

Depends whether it is true or not...

-Geoff

songbird36
23 Aug 2006, 08:54 PM
Depends whether it is true or not...

-Geoff

And whether it is a matter of opinion, or measurable fact. If it's true then you won't have a legal issue but you may have a moral one.

In any case how often can truth be verified online?

mgb
24 Aug 2006, 01:49 AM
About time. People should be legally accountable for the BS they post on the net. I look forward to some suitable prosecutions :)

Or crazy people being committed.

Rajah
24 Aug 2006, 01:53 AM
About time. People should be legally accountable for the BS they post on the net. I look forward to some suitable prosecutions :)For the love of all that is holy, please please tell me you're joking.

songbird36
24 Aug 2006, 04:09 AM
For the love of all that is holy, please please tell me you're joking.

Not at all. If people make comments that are defamatory of others and thereby damage a person's character within an identifiable community, what's the difference between that and doing the same off the net? Why should such people not be culpable? Of course there are jurisdictional issues, as there always are on the net, but as a matter of principle I don't see why it shouldn't be possible, and even desirable.