Free Speech on the Internet

[BuzWeaver]

This will be interesting to follow:

The California Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in San Francisco Tuesday on whether someone who posts a defamatory comment by another person on the Internet can be sued for libel.

Two civil liberties groups say the court’s eventual ruling, due in three months, could have far-reaching implications for free speech on the Internet.

While the case before the court concerns individuals-a Canadian doctor seeking to sue a women’s health activist for posting a third person’s comment about him-the court’s ruling could also determine whether Internet service providers can be held liable when they knowingly allow defamatory remarks to be posted.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/0...-the-internet/

[Itek]

/sigh

For libel / slander / defamation of charcter cases you have to prove either...

Per se defamation (there are some specific things that count as automatic defamation, the two most common are "so-and-so commits fraudulent business practices" [read: the butcher sells dog meat] and "an unmarried woman is unchaste" [read: suzy's a slut] basicly)

OR...

a) that the claim is untrue
b) the speaker KNEW it was untrue (or should have known)
c) that someone heard them
d) that damage to reputation was done

On an "alternative medicine" board accusing a "doctor" of "stalking" hardly rises to Per Se defamation, so the onus falls on the doc to prove it's not true, the speaker knew it was not true, that someone (who did NOT already hold a low opinion of the doc) heard it, and that THAT SOMEONE lost respect for the doctor.

The case was 2 years old when it was thrown out. A "panel of 3 appeals judges" reinstated the case.

Even deeper on this case is if the "publisher / distributer" also knew or should have known the statements were false.

It's a "big pockets, sue them" case. (Though just how deep the pockets of an alternative medicine website might be I could not hazard a guess.) It's unlikely the doc has sufficient evidence on any point. (really, your reputation as a doctor suffered because the readers of an alternative medicine website heard you were a "stalker" ... puh-lease)

It's a giant "oh my gosh, my provider might get sued for people posting flames/flame-bait" scare. While I'm not saying that flaming people or posting what is obviously Per Se defamation should be tolerated, I am -so- not worried about my Free Speech Rights.

AOL filed an amicus brief. (They want the court to hear their side / opinion, surprise.)

Let's review...

Jerry: Tom is a stalker, he won't leave my sister alone.
Tom: I called her like 3 times, that's defamation. You don't have any money, so I'll sue AOL for letting you post that.
AOL: Man, what? Like I can read every post? Get a life.
Judge: /sigh ... I wish there were frivolous lawsuit penalties...
Tom: defamation...
Judge: 30 days, contempt of court...

[Angelsyn]

Have to agree with Itek here.

While I do agree that Libel, Defamation of Character & Slander are all bad things... I also agree that a web-host should not be held liable for things posted on sites that they Host.

However... The person who actually did post something knowingly untrue should be held liable. And if that person posted that thing only with the direct consent of the owner of the web-site... then the owner of that website is at least partially culpable for not verifying the veracity of the statement.

Further... the person being Slandered/Libeled/Defamed should have first gone to the owner of the site with his complaint, and then to the Hosting company. A responsible-minded Site owner and/or Hosting company would quickly pull the questionable material until/unless the veracity of that material is confirmed (or proven false).

[Quichon]

There's another very big legal issue involved with websites... you can have posters who are not in the nation that the message board is hosted in. That gets into an even bigger kettle of worms, because then you're talking international laws, which are still very spotty (mostly because the UN couldn't convince everyone the sky was blue most of the time, and no one can decide what the laws should be), and nearly impossible to enforce.

Quite frankly, it's impossible to sue for slander/libel from comments posted on the internet. No one is going to want to be held responsible for something a flamer wrote on their website which they may have taken down as soon as they saw it, but between the posting and the removing, someone saw it who had not previously known the topic and garnered a negative opinion on that topic as a result. While it may be next to impossible to prove it, that onus would cause 90% of the websites that are privately owned to go down overnight because private citizens generally cannot afford the lawyers and courtroom time to prove themselves innocent, and so would rather drop the website than risk being subject to action. Since no one really wants this to happen, it's never gonna fly.

Furthermore, try convincing a jury of your peers that a website owner is held liable for such things. Considering his peers would be other website owners, I think they'd come to the unanimous decision that it's a big crock of... well, you get the idea.