Go Back to the B3 Home Page
Complaints, compliments, arguments? Email me.
[<< "Army Times article - scrubbed?"] [Archive Index] [>>"'Let's you and him fight.'"]
07/02/2003 Archived Entry: "Good news for the citizens of Bloghdad."
Good news for the citizens of Bloghdad.
Here's some good news - we bloggers can't be held liable if we re-publish libelous information from the 'conventional' media.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Tuesday that Web loggers, website operators and e-mail list editors can't be held responsible for libel for information they republish, extending crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers. Online free speech advocates praised the decision as a victory. The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists. One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers cannot be sued as easily.
Replies: 2 people speak up
So does this mean that you're NOT gonna' spend the next few years on a Georgia chain gang?
Posted by Metropolitan99 @ 07/02/2003 01:45 PM NY
There's a caveat here... In order for the provider or publisher of the information to receive immunity from liability, the publisher reasonably must have determined that the author meant for his communication to be published.
In cases where a user directly posts his own comments, this is obvious. But when a user sends an email to a publisher (read weblog) and does not intend for it to be published, the immunity issue gets murky. The Ninth Circuit determined in this decision that the test should not be the intent of the author, but rather, whether the provider (publisher) reasonably could assume that the information was sent with the intent for it to be published.
Now you know why so many weblogs have a caveat that all emails will be assumed to be for publication unless they say otherwise.
Posted by TalkLeft @ 07/02/2003 11:59 PM NY
