Manage Subscriptions · Subscribe Now · F.A.Q.'s
HOME · Friday, May 16, 2008
The choice between having nothing nice to say and saying nothing at all, at least on the web, is becoming increasingly easier by the day. Say nothing at all.
When the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) was struck down to allow indecent, as opposed to obscene speech, the effect – unintended or otherwise – was to give online service providers immunity from the actions of its customers. While the act was created with obscenity in mind, the CDA was part of the larger Telecommunications Act of 1996, and that piece of law says that your service provider is not liable should you knowingly or unknowingly commit libel on your Web site.
However, if you knowingly or unknowingly commit libel on your website, you could be in deep trouble. On the other hand, if you suspect somebody has committed libel against you online, you have the same recourse as if the person had defamed you in the morning paper. In other words, just because the Web seems like a no-rules environment, don’t think for a second that you’re not protected.
Any fourth-year journalism student can tell you that libel is comprised of the following elements:
On the other hand, while the odds of winning a libel case are notoriously slim; if you have been libeled, take heed – many have come before.
Here are a few plain-English explanations of some famous online libel cases:
Cubby v. CompuServe, 1991
Plaintiff says that CompuServe should be held liable for alleged defamatory bulletin board postings in a forum called Rumorville, available on CompuServe’s system. The plaintiff’s argument was that, as the publisher of the alleged defamatory information, CompuServe should be held accountable. The Court disagreed primarily because CompuServe did not have any procedures in place for monitoring posts regularly.
Stratton-Oakmont & Porush v. Prodigy, 1995
Prodigy gets sued by investment banking firm Stratton- Oakmont and its president, Daniel Porush, claiming that anonymous postings on Prodigy’s Money Talk bulletin board were libelous. According to a summary found on the Eff.org website, “The statements claimed that Stratton Oakmont committed criminal and fraudulent acts in connection with the initial public offering of stock of Solomon-Page, Ltd.”
Because Prodigy had a policy of regularly monitoring message board posts, the court decided that the company had editorial control of its forum, which was moderated by a volunteer. The court, therefore, held that Prodigy was liable for the content of the forum’s messages.
Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal, 2003
Illena Rosenthal posts a controversial opinion piece, written by somebody else, to a Usenet news group. The article was critical of a Canadian-based doctor, Terry Polevoy.
Polevoy sued. The case was dismissed. But then, a California Court of Appeals overruled the dismissal, ruling that people could sue Internet publishers for what others write on their sites, a departure (or re-interpretation, depending on your point of view) from the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The California Supreme Court is reviewing, but the case’s implications have bloggers, in particular, extremely nervous.
Because blogging typically involves some original writing interspersed with others’ work and ideas, complete with links, bloggers are concerned that anything less than a victory for Rosenthal would leave them open for liability.
Blinklist | Del.icio.us | Furl | Ma.gnolia | Newsvine | Spurl | Reddit | Technorati
Published on Monday, August 01, 2005
Copyright 2007 Confluence Distribution, Inc. and Practical eCommerce.
All Rights Reserved.
There are no comments posted for this article.