Comments on: Blogs Held to Lower Standards on Defamatory Speech

By: legion

legion — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:27:11 +0000

But aren’t bloggers the ones arguing that we should be treated like MSM journalists?

Yes, but time and again, the MSM & the general pulic have rejected that. I don't agree with all the details, but this decision is just the court's agreeing with everyone else...

By: The American Mind / Libel Away, I’m Safe

The American Mind / Libel Away, I’m Safe — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:56:26 +0000

[...] James Joyner links to discussion in the blogosphere about how this ruling affects webloggers. The ruling reinforces the idea that I as TAM publisher couldn’t be held liable for someone leaving a libelous comment. Joyner writes, Still, it’s interesting that Internet sites, including blogs, are being held to a lower standard than newspapers. Presumably, this is a recognition of the differing natures of the media. For the most part, bloggers do not have the resources of a big city paper; only a few have anything approaching that type of audience, either. [...]

By: legion

legion — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:34:09 +0000

Of course there is the distinction that the ISP is not filtering the letters the way the newspaper filters letters to the editor for publication.

True. And I don't see how the ISP could be held liable under any circumstances. But as Volokh says,

But this case, as well as Batzel and some others, apply this principle even to immunize those who actively repost material, rather than just serve as passive conduits for what others post.

And that's why this is important - because when someone reposts someone else's words, for example, if James quotes someone's comments on the main page, James _still_ can't be held liable, even though he drew further attention to the (potentially) actionable words.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:04:32 +0000

I think the analogy to the newspaper would be if they were exempted from libel laws associated with letters to the editor. Of course there is the distinction that the ISP is not filtering the letters the way the newspaper filters letters to the editor for publication.

In a rational world, I think the best way to handle this is to require the addition of a link if a formal protest of defamation is made. The link could lead the user to a web site with the counter argument. The claim of defamation would be identified along with the link. Then the competing ideas can clash all they want.

By: http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com

http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Original Article syndicated via RSS from Outside The Beltway | OTB

By: QandO - Free Markets, Free People

QandO - Free Markets, Free People — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

or federal criminal law," see 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1).The first commenter at Volokh’s site asks "is this begging for gross abuse?" Well, probably. Can you think of anything, given human nature, which won’t be abused if the potential exists. But James Joyner notes:Still, it’s interesting that Internet sites, including blogs, are being held to a lower standard than newspapers. Presumably, this is a recognition of the differing natures of the media. For the most part, bloggers do not have the resources of

By: Wake up America

Wake up America — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to Internet service providers, like AOL, but also to bloggers and other users of their services. Much more on this from: Outside the Beltway . Patterico . Keep up with the discussions here .