digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at abcnews.go.com

Lawsuits Against Bloggers Seen Rising

abcnews.go.com — The blogging community increasingly is subject to lawsuits and threats of legal action running the gamut from subpoenas to cease-and-desist notices. Bloggers faced with legal threats often deem it easier to remove potentially offensive content rather than undertake the difficulty and expense of defending themselves

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • nuentendu, on 07/20/2008, -5/+35I'm starting to get confused on what free speech in America is nowadays.
    • palewook, on 07/21/2008, -3/+8Like Ice-T said years back:

      Freedom of Speech...Just Watch What You Say

      Freedom of Speech that's some motherf**kin' bulls**t
      You say the wrong thing they'll lock your a** up quick
      • bratterscain, on 07/21/2008, -2/+11There is no free speech. Standard law, as we know, is based on natural law. In nature, say something offensive to one party and you could risk your life, the same reflects in this age. The law protects those that could be offended for the civility of society. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you should.

        And you may claim you can say it because it's the truth. Well, there's more layers of truth that you don't see. Things that really happen in society need not be seen or heard to certain parties. That's why we protect our kids against seeing violent and/or racy acts, lest it cause unneeded complication in their lives before they really need to know. Do not tease those which aren't ready. A kid need not be around a gun because he doesn't know how to use it. The truth can hurt if it's too blatant. We are sexual and violent in nature, hypothetically, does it mean I should masturbate and yell obscenities in front of someone. It's the truth, the way I really feel, right? Does it mean it should be expressed? There's laws for common decency and the way most of society sees it, they are there legitimately.

        I am all for freedom but true freedom means laws to protect those that want freedom from inciteful acts. Freedom is a mixture of the general concensus' views of what it should be so it won't appeal to everyone in every aspect. If you don't like it, you're free to do what you legally can to change it but so many people just act ignorant of why we even have those laws. One thing you'll learn when you get older is freedom in life is a fallacy. You're bound to laws of man and nature no matter where you are. One man's freedom creates another man's fence, if that makes any sense.

        tl;dr - life's a bitch
      • lysdexia, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4Bratterscain - that was a case beautifully put.
      • ubuwalker31, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4@bratterscain: Free Speech is a natural right and our founders wrote the 1st Amendment with Locke, Cato, and Blackstone in mind. It is a self-evident right. A natural right is a universal right inherent in the nature of living beings, one that is not contingent upon laws or beliefs.

        Your observation that "[t]hings that really happen in society need not be seen or heard [by] certain parties" is a weird sentiment, because it goes against the the view that MORE SPEECH is better than less speech, since free speech promotes a marketplace of ideas. Whether this marketplace will discover the truth is up to debate...but I don't think that it justifies restrictions on speech.

        The cries of protect the children shouldn't be used to restrict the speech of law abiding adults. I think kids should be around guns and taught how to shoot safely. I think kids should be taught about human sexuality and about safe sex. Freedom of speech should not just be for adults.

        Restrictions on speech in our society are made when rights collide. So, if a statement you make will harm my emotional and communal well-being, such as destroying my image or reputation or inciting a riot, then it is unlawful.

        Otherwise, well said. All of our rights have limits. Having unlimited freedom leads to anarchy.
    • Orchid64, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4If you read the article, it says many more cases have happened overseas. Few of them are in the U.S., but the source is ABC so they talk about the U.S. more.
    • Spanktacular, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12Libel is not protected speech. You might want to actually read the article...
      • lajaw, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4That's right. Always state, "In my opinion". They can't sue on an opinion. But they can if you are stating unprovable BS as fact.
    • markgl, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7Libel and slander. look it up.
    • Zuggy, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3The hard part about libel and slander in the blogging world is that bloggers are subject to the same penalties as print editors. In other words, a blogger is also subject to libel and slander printed by community members, and while a print editor has more direct control over what gets printed, a blogger can't always keep up on what commenters are posting. That seems to be a big issue is that bloggers don't quite realize that they are responsible for what others sy on their site
    • TheCamino, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2 Pretty much everything in America can be labeled as free speech.
      Knowingly lying through a mass medium without confirmation or proof is libel or slander.
      Bloggers are becoming more legit, therefore they're being held to the same standards as other media.
      If you're a blogger, and knowingly spreading false truths, you might be sued.

      The First Amendment is fine. If you tell the truth, and can back up your claims, you're AUTOMATICALLY protected.
      The law is extremely specific about the evidence side of things.
      You can call a person a bastard, and do it all you want. If you accuse, back it up.
      In other words, play fair and the law is ironclad to protect you.

      If you wonder why we have these laws, wiki "Richard Jewell."
    • sporg, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4You can be sued for anything and whether or not it is indeed slander or libel will be decided in court, the point is just to shut you up for as long as possible.

      If you want to criticize powerful people I suggest you use an alias and post from public wifi using a clean laptop. If you don't know what a "clean" laptop is its an old beater laptop that you paid for with cash at a flea market 200 miles from where you live. Perform a low level format on the drive and install a fresh OS. You do not ever use your real name or reveal any information which could lead to you being identified from a clean machine and you don't ever use it to log in to your normal accounts used from home on any website. Also do not use the wifi of any library or business which requires you to sign in or register. Overkill for most people but in some cases you just cant be to careful.




  • paradexes, on 07/21/2008, -6/+26Well there goes free speech. This is pretty much the loophole. Corporations or well heeled individuals just have to sue since they now that most bloggers are not going to have the kind of money to fight this.OTOH, the EFF could be stepping up and defending these guys.But I am guessing they already are and are somehow losing....The constitution is a joke to politicians these days. I suppose it will be a joke, until there is a civil uprising. They keep pushing this and there will be a civil uprising, History shows they cannot win this no matter how much power they have.

    As it stands I imagine there are other nations ready to plot against our Govt should the ***** hit the fan. These incidents are not such a big deal individually but when viewed collectivly it is a huge issue. And our current administration is in large part to blame. I expect the next one to be pretty much the same thing. Or at least trying to fix it and finding that it is too f-ed up to fix. Which will lead to a mess anyway.

    Every time I see something like this I lose a little more hope that things will get better. I think they will get allot worse before they start to get better.
    • stagmire, on 07/21/2008, -3/+4"Well there goes free speech."

      Sure. Whatever happened to the good old days when there was no such thing as libel laws?
    • TheCamino, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3 "Well there goes free speech. This is pretty much the loophole. Corporations or well heeled individuals just have to sue since they now that most bloggers are not going to have the kind of money to fight this.OTOH, the EFF could be stepping up and defending these guys."

      I am a professional journalist, and I have been trained on this extensively.
      The constitution is not trashed. The truth is, these are slander and libel cases.
      The reason why we have slander and libel laws are there to keep people from LYING.
      You'll never be sued if you TELL THE TRUTH, AND CAN BACK IT UP IN ANY WAY.

      "You've defamed my character, I never did that!"
      (Stack of papers hitting the table)
      (OFF CAMERA) "Case dismissed!"

      The problem is, people think that in America, speech is consequence free, and for the most part it is, and that is a beautiful thing. If you and I get in a screaming match on the street or at a protest or under almost any other circumstance, there is no foul there. However, if you use a mass medium to spread what is obvious, known lies in a non-parody or mockery sense, and is not a public figure or servant, then you're lying through a mass medium and may be open to defamation, libel, and slander laws.

      Bloggers are, for the most part, enthusiasts or causeheads. The causeheads are the problem, not the enthusiasts.
      It's not just the bloggers, it's the MSM, too. Still, they just know how to use the word "allegedly" in a sentence.

      If you think that all of these lawsuits against bloggers or free speech is a bad thing, go to google and type in the name 'Richard Jewell.'
      To this day, it's amazing to me how the Fox News Channel doesn't get sued to high heaven.

      Intentional lying through a mass medium is going to get you sued.
      • Midtowner, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Well said.

        The tort of libel can be traced back almost 1,000 years through the Ecclesiastical courts in England, later through the Common Law courts, and throughout the history of the American court system. If you write false and defamatory things about people, it's going to get you sued.

        If bloggers want to have the sort of respect the MSM receives, they have to play by the same set of rules.
    • paradexes, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Fair enough, but there are other instances where the legal system is being abused.

      I agree with:
      "The causeheads are the problem, not the enthusiasts.
      It's not just the bloggers, it's the MSM, too. Still, they just know how to use the word "allegedly" in a sentence."

      My statement may have been too much of a generalization in the matter, but sadly it can be easy to be sued for a mistake too. I agree that flat out lying is a problem and deserves the punishment that goes with it. But what about bloggers who did not lie but got sued because of falsified information? IE Blogger exposes corporate/govt practices that endanger or abuse public trust and they get sued for libel or something else as retaliation, even though there statement may have been true at the time the company govt changed the information and destroyed/eliminated previous instances of the info? That is the abuse I am worried about and the more likely scenario to be abused.
      • TheCamino, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0 "I agree that flat out lying is a problem and deserves the punishment that goes with it. But what about bloggers who did not lie but got sued because of falsified information? IE Blogger exposes corporate/govt practices that endanger or abuse public trust and they get sued for libel or something else as retaliation, even though there statement may have been true at the time the company govt changed the information and destroyed/eliminated previous instances of the info? That is the abuse I am worried about and the more likely scenario to be abused."

        Getting sued for bad information is usually highly dodge capable. It's not that common, but it is a danger, and I use restraint every day in what I say in the public, specifically because of that scenario.
        That danger of bad info is the danger that we all face with the spoken or printed medium.
        They can sue in retailiation, but then all the things that they're claiming become public records in the courts, where it is perfectly acceptable to outline, in tiny detail, what the allegations are on both sides, without major evidence, as they are now arguments legally entered into public discourse through the court system. Also, media covers both sides, and really, it's a losing battle.
        If you're a scumbag, and you have no reason to show your scumbagginess, then it's best to stay out of the courts, because that is a public spotlight.
        Court testimony is public. Bad inflections, dodging questions, and being cross exed by an attorney is not where a liar wants to sit.

        If I did a story on a mob capo, and he sued me, then his face would be all over the TV, with his lawyers claiming "my client is just a victim!"
        Dumb move.
        People who are scummy want to stay out of the courts on libel and slander.
        If you get a libel or slander case, chances are you REALLY REALLY screwed up; they're going to slam dunk on you.

  • lucy22, on 07/21/2008, -5/+7It is too bad these people's free speech is stifled by lawsuits. It will end up so no one will be brave enough to speak out anymore.
  • s0crates82, on 07/21/2008, -1/+5Interesting. Denton @ gawker media has the consumerist bashing corporations left and right, the main gawker blog itself has posted scientology stuff... and they seem to be fine.
  • KayRaid, on 07/21/2008, -3/+2Rediculous, especially since he didn't even make the comment.
  • jmpeagle, on 07/21/2008, -1/+3when was the last ruling the reduced the power of the ABA and its members? Anyone?
  • alcavit, on 07/21/2008, -7/+15Free speech in America ended a while ago. For all you that havent noticed.
    • Tr33fiddy, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1It used to be that a comment like that was a cry for help.
      Now it's just a statement of fact.
  • Kisama, on 07/21/2008, -3/+21Every comment before me is a moron. This is about libel, which free speech never protected. Yes, it touches on the lack of free speech in other countries, but we already knew they didn't have it.
    • stagmire, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2Yeah, but it concerns the internet, therefore ITSPOLICESTATETAKINGOURLIBERTIESRONPAUL
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1SO you don't mind if I call you ***** on the net and hand out your address?
      • Kisama, on 07/21/2008, -0/+3People who know me, know I'm an *****. And if you can find my address, you're welcome to it.
      • Midtowner, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Statements of opinion aren't libelous unless the statement of opinion implies factual allegations which are libelous.

    • yacks, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Be careful.. The comments may just find a lawyer and sue you..
  • sooperspook, on 07/21/2008, -2/+8Free speech huh? I didn't realise the right to free speech included the right to make up total rubbish and pass it off as truth.
    Kisama is the only one I see here who got it right.
    • str3ama, on 07/21/2008, -8/+3if that was true, Fox News wouldn't be around.
  • FlibGib, on 07/21/2008, -2/+8I agree with Kisama.
    The "Right to Free Speech" only protects against the government stifling your rights. It does not protect you against someone suing you for making unjustified or unproven negative claims about them.
  • jabberwolf, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6Good and bad.

    This is bad if anything is being surpressed.

    But bloggers regularly do post things that are flat out untrue.

    Sad that people think that the freedom of speech is the right to say anything they want, no matter what. Well we have other laws too, and being LIBEL is one of them. If you are going to lie about something or someone and benefit someone else or yourself, you might want to look up this up.
  • brstilson, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6When newspapers became popular in colonial America, it was a wild new frontier. All of the newspapers were independent, and small print shops were humming. Radio was the same way. It used to be that anyone could set up their own radio station about pretty much anything they wanted. Now, broadcasting requires a license, and is controlled by a few media conglomerates. Newspapers are controlled by a few large corporations. If we're not careful, the internet could end up the same way. Right now anyone with a few dollars can set up a website and just go off about whatever they wish.

    In 20 years, a new government agency may require a special license to have a website, and not long after, all content on the internet will be put out by a handful of very, very rich and powerful men. Big media corporations have been trying to stifle user-generated content for decades.
    • tomis, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Minus the part about government licenses, it's already true. Internet squatters are buying up domains faster than actual websites are being created. The only way to curb this behavior would be for some regulating body to step in.
      • lajaw, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Why regulate? I've seen little where regulation actually helps. Problem with regulation is that it always gets applied selectively.
  • crowbarred, on 07/21/2008, -3/+1What a load of cod wobblers, there is no way ......... hang on theres a knock on the do ...
  • grimfandango, on 07/21/2008, -2/+5free speech != libel

    just because you can publish whatever you feel like on the web, doesn't mean it's right.
  • grneye53, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2to grimfandango at least you get to put your 2cents in right or wrong !
  • nastronomical, on 07/21/2008, -3/+6Libel is not protected speech. You might want to actually read the article...!




    Next Pay attention in civics class or better go read a book. It teaches you wonders.
  • tao52nyc, on 07/21/2008, -4/+1The fact that this is even happening suggests that blogs and bloggers are finally having an impact on public discourse, and their reach is much broader than the MSM would like you to believe. But a previous poster is right: libel is libel, no matter what form of media it takes. I'm surprised it didn't happen a lot sooner.
  • liuite, on 07/21/2008, -2/+2Elite Corporatism will shut you up with lawsuits. No free speech allowed.
    • stagmire, on 07/21/2008, -3/+0Libel has never been allowed, *****. And the people filing these suits are individuals, not corporations.

      Thanks for playing!
  • Amiga501, on 07/21/2008, -3/+1Most of you nitwits aren't putting together the whole puzzle. It's not liable if what you are saying is true. Any limp dick lawyer can send out a cease and desist order. I've gotten two myself. What do you do? Throw it in the garbage and move on. Most people don't have the ***** money to file a lawsuit anyway, and bank on you getting scared by the threat of legal action. That's it.
  • morningmatters, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1I am not sure how the court could handle this really other than going case by case. On one hand you don't want people to publish lies on the internet which would harm someone's reputation. On the other hand harming a shady businessman's reputation is a public service which would benefit all.
    • Midtowner, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1The courts have been doing just fine with this for the last 1000 years or so.

  • timsline, on 07/21/2008, -1/+2I've seen a lot of blogs rip stuff off other sites, or posted copyrighted video clips from someone else. There are too many blogs that just act like glorified RSS readers with witty comments instead of actually offering something new and useful.
  • markgl, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1yeah well don't forget you can't yell fire in a movie theater. There are limits and boundries. even to the freedom of speech there is.
  • david5t, on 07/21/2008, -1/+1Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects publishers against people suing because of libel comments; the case will likely be thrown out IMHO. ""No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider"."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decenc ...
    • Midtowner, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1The way I read that, if I was to say "david5t is a liar and a thief," a clearly defamatory and false statement, you'd still have a cause of action against me, just not the site I posted it on, the ISP, etc.
  • logosx1, on 07/21/2008, -1/+4As I lawyer, I can offer some pointers for avoiding trouble.

    First, you have the most leeway if you're commenting about someone who is a well-known public figure. For that person to successfully sue you, he would have to show that you made a damaging, false statement of fact about him with "actual malice" -- you knew that what you said was false, or you acted with "reckless disregard" for the statement's truth or falsity.

    Second, you have to be a lot more careful when commenting about an ordinary person who is not well-known, because then you can be sued for a damaging, false statement of fact that you made with mere "negligence" -- you should have known or found out that what you said was false. Here, the plaintiff does not have to show "actual malice," so it's much more difficult to defend.

    Third, as some other commenters have noted, you cannot be held liable for expressing an opinion (e.g., "He's a real jerk"). It's when you erroneously state something as fact that you get into trouble (e.g., "He has AIDS"). If what you say is true, then that will be a valid defense, although that will not stop an angry person from suing you.

    Last, if you simply must make a factual comment about someone, stay away from these serious accusations that constitute defamation "per se," meaning that their mere utterance is sufficient proof of their damaging effect: 1) criminal conduct; 2) dishonest or incompetent business practices; 3) having a loathsome disease; 4) a woman's unchastity. Some of these seem pretty quaint in modern society, especially the last one, but they're still subjects to be avoided.

    • Midtowner, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1As a law student, I couldn't have put it any better than that. Well done.
  • sapphire9488, on 07/21/2008, -1/+0So pretty soon, posting an article that mocks or bashes a politician could be considered libel? Sounds crazy now, but I can see it happening someday.
  • Tomboys, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4Slander and libel are illegal. I'm actually kind of surprised ho few civil cases there have been since 2004.
  • AlextheK, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2I've got mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm a journalist. I know how easily a large concern --such as Scientology, for example-- can use lawsuit threats to close down critical comment. On the other, I've been on the internet for a long time, close to three decades, back when we still referred to the ARPAnet. I also know how easily some jackasses use their presumed anonymity to smear innocents and ruin reputations, secure in the knowledge that damn few people will go to the trouble of tracking them down and filing an expensive suit.

    There's got to be a middle ground. Damned if I know where to find it.
  • meshman, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2"Since 2003, 64 bloggers have been arrested around the world "

    Oh yeah, the lawsuits are just flying, aren't they? If this does away with the blog post that's stolen from someone else's blog that is actually a ripoff and direct link to an original article then I'm all for it.
  • mogebier, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Most people on the Internet think they can say anything they want, because it's mostly anonymous. There are still libel laws, and they do apply to internet postings too. So you can't just say any old lies you feel like about people without being help responsible for it.
    This is what I don't understand about how most people's brains work. They think they can just say anything at any time and it's "Free Speech". If you read the Constitution, the Free Speech right was meant to protect us from a Government if we said anything bad about them, it's not meant to protect us from just saying anything we want.
    People grow up thinking that they can run down the street naked, screaming, and they will be protected under Free Speech.
    It doesn't work that way.
    • JQP123, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2"People grow up thinking that they can run down the street naked, screaming, and they will be protected under Free Speech."

      It's a declining education system that doesn't teach them any better.
  • josh42042, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1that means you're doing it right
  • blatantninja, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1It's a touch situation. In one respect, blogging has become what the newspapers of the colonial periods were, unrestricted avenues for people to express their views and report current events. At the same time, they must be held to some standard to prevent abuse and malicious intent. Bloggers are an important part of the media chain, but few have any real training in journalism or journalistic ethics (I know a seemingly contradiction in terms, but there actually are ethics and standards that are taught in the schools and adhered to, in some respects, in the profession), and thus often cross the bounds of what is ethically acceptable.
  • jabiggs3, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1I am a proud supporter of free speech, but this is not really news. Anybody can sue you for any reason. And while I detest litigation as a form of intimidation, certainly the victims of libelous posts are entitled to some form of protection.
  • serendipitously, on 07/26/2008, -0/+1There is nothing new about intermediary liability and it dates back to the earliest days of the internet in the form of posts on bulletin boards. The Communications Decency Act in the form of S230 creates a safe harbour as long as you comply with the safe harbour provisions. There is a flawed assumption as someone pointed out that each cease and desist letter arises from a valid case of libel. Take down provisions are the safest and quickest way to have content which offends someone removed.
  • cipals15, on 07/26/2008, -0/+0Where should the file be filed? On the complainants country or the suspects country? what if there is no rule in the suspects country? There are alot of questions i wanna ask because i as a blogger myself is definitely a great target for this one.

    Charles
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.