Jury Says Fictional Character Can Be Libelous

from the that-doesn't-seem-right dept

Plenty of fiction authors base their characters on real life people. But, perhaps they need to be more careful. A jury has ruled in favor of someone who claimed libel against an author for supposedly writing a character "inspired by" a former friend. That former friend was not happy about the portrayal, in which she was a "sexually promiscuous alcoholic." This seems like a really bad precedent. Fiction authors quite frequently take people from real life, but then exaggerate them to extremes. But if that opens them up to potential libel charges, that seems quite ridiculous.

For example, I once read a book that had a character that was based on my father, written by someone who knew him many, many years ago (in the copy the author sent my father, it was inscribed with my father's name, followed by the character's name in parentheses). It was entertaining, to me, to see such a character who certainly resembled the rather content, laid back, unflappable nature of my Dad... except at the end where the character went crazy and had to be locked up. That, clearly, did not happen in real life, but it never struck me as "libelous." It was obviously just a fictional story, where the author needed the character to do something and act in a certain way. That's why it's fiction. Besides, for it to be defamatory, you have to be able to show the harm caused, and that's only going to happen if a lot of people know that the character is supposed to be the real person, which seems unlikely in most cases. In the meantime, though, if you're writing a fictional story, be careful who you base your characters on.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK Libel Laws, Scientific Criticism, Chilling Effects, Bloggers And The Streisand Effect

from the enough-for-you? dept

Well, here's a story that's got a bunch of different points worth highlighting. Back in July, Ben Goldacre wrote up an excellent article on the libel lawsuit against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA), highlighting how a bunch of bloggers, rather than reporters, were doing much of the work exposing the BCA's questionable tactics. Why weren't those intrepid "only we can do investigative reporting" journalists taking on the issue? This week, the NY Times has an article by Olivia Judson explaining why: they're scared to death of being sued ,as well, thanks to draconian UK libel laws.

The background is that Singh, a well respected PhD. in physics, who has written a bunch of top selling "popular science" books, wrote an article for the Guardian, where he complained about some of the claims made by the BCA concerning what chiropractic care could help cure, noting that there was little (if any) evidence to support some of their claims. In response, the BCA has sued, and to date, the case has not gone well. It's already tough, because the UK laws greatly favor those who claim defamation (which is why there are worries about defamation tourism claims being made in the UK). Singh has had to spend quite a lot of money defending himself, and an early court ruling focused on the use of the word "bogus," which Singh clearly meant in the colloquial way, as meaning his opinion that there was no evidence in support of the claims. However, the court interpreted it to mean a factual statement accusing the BCA of deliberate dishonesty.

The case is still ongoing, but Judson highlights that many reporters are feeling the chilling effects, and are purposely avoiding certain scientific stories, for fear that their writing will lead them to a similar lawsuit. Both Judson and Goldacre note what a dangerous situation this is for basic scientific criticism, whereby it's a part of the process to question evidence and conclusions. In fact, it's good for everyone, because it leads to a more detailed exploration of the actual facts to come to a reasonable conclusion. But throwing libel law into the middle of that certainly has pretty massive chilling effects.

Except... for a bunch of bloggers who are more upset about those chilling effects than they are afraid of a libel charge. Goldacre covers how this group of "amateurs" have not only been picking apart (in great detail) certain claims by the BCA, they've also been able to pressure chiropractors to change some of their claims and start defending themselves on these issues. On top of that, they're helping to shine a lot more light on the whole situation, effectively using the "Streisand Effect" to call attention to the idea that the BCA is working to stifle criticism.

The whole story is quite fascinating for all of these reasons. There is a real problem with UK libel laws that needs to be dealt with. The chilling effects on reporting and scientific criticism -- especially in cases where people's health may actually be at stake -- are rather sickening. But, it's also illustrative of how an interested group of "amateurs" can certainly band together and take on a project, even in places where reporters fear to tread.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Borderless Internet And Jurisdictional Disputes: A Growing Problem

from the different-laws,-different-places dept

For many, many, many years, we've discussed how the fact that the internet easily reaches anywhere, despite different laws in different places, makes for some really screwed up legal situations, and little has been done to address this over the years. We recently wrote about a troubling decision in Belgium, whereby a Belgian court seemed to think that Yahoo -- despite no presence in Belgium -- needed to comply with Belgian laws. And, we're seeing similar situations again and again and again. Two new examples...

First, we already wrote about how London's National Portrait Gallery was threatening someone in the US for copying photos of public domain paintings from the Gallery's website and putting them on Wikimedia's servers. The problem is that this is entirely legal in the US, and the guy was in the US, the computer he used was in the US, and Wikimedia's servers are in the US. But the threat of a lawsuit is in the UK. Luckily, the EFF has taken on the case and is trying to stress this point:

It's quite clear under U.S. law that Mr. Coetzee did nothing wrong -- as far as U.S. law is concerned, the photos are not copyrightable, the NPG website's "browsewrap" contract is unenforceable, there is no "database right," and using Zoomify on public domain images doesn't get you a DMCA claim. It's also clear that everything he's alleged to have done took place on his computer and Wikipedia's computers, none of which are in the UK.

In the offline world, that would certainly be the end of the matter. If Mr. Coetzee had flown to London, purchased posters of the same paintings at the museum store, brought them home, and started making copies for his friends, it's clear he would be well within his rights in doing so.

Why should the answer be different simply because he posted the photos to Wikipedia? NPG seems to think that UK law should apply everywhere on the Internet. If that's right, then the same could be said for other, more restrictive copyright laws, as well (see, e.g., Mexico's copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years and France's copyright over fashion designs). That would leave the online world at the mercy of the worst that foreign copyright laws have to offer, an outcome no U.S. court has ever endorsed.

In a separate case involving people in the US and a lawsuit in the UK, Mike Arrington, who runs TechCrunch, was recently sued for libel in the UK. The standards for proving libel in the UK are significantly lower than in the US, and considering that TechCrunch is a US site, based in the US on US servers, Arrington (reasonably) felt that responding to the lawsuit itself made little practical sense. Even if he could have won the case (and from the details, the case seems patently ridiculous, more a case of sour grapes than anything else), it would have been way too costly to defend. So he refused to respond... leading to the inevitable summary judgment (which is what happens by default when the other side doesn't appear). This is a bad result for everyone, as it means Arrignton can no longer travel to the UK (and, in fact, canceled planned travel there), for no good reason at all, other than not wanting to spend an incredible sum of money to defend himself in a country he doesn't live in or operate in. It's hard to see what's reasonable or fair about that at all.

Issues like these have been going on for many, many years, and at some point this is going to need to be addressed. You can't have a situation where the lowest common denominator of laws applies across the board in every country. And you can't have a situation where people would have to bankrupt themselves to defend themselves in a foreign country. It still seems like the most reasonable solution is to default such lawsuits to the country where the action has actually taken place and/or where the servers reside. Now, some might say that you can place the servers elsewhere, but for such situations you could just default to where the person resides.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Two Separate Rulings In France Split Over Whether Google's Suggestion Algorithm Can Be Libelous

from the confusion-abounds dept

Reader Yann alerts us to an interesting set of lawsuits and decisions in France, both concerning the Google Suggest feature. One case involved a company named Direct Energie and the other with a company named CNFDI (both links to the Google translation of the news).

In both cases, the companies were upset that when people started searching on their company names, the first suggestion was their company name followed by the word "arnaque," which means "scam." Of course, as you probably know, Google Suggest works by finding the most common searches on what you've typed and letting you know. So, all this really meant was that an awful lot of people were doing searches questioning whether or not these two companies were scams. But, is Google liable for its algorithm accurately suggesting the most common searches associated with those company names? It appears the courts split on that decision (it's worth noting that there was one major difference between the lawsuits: Direct Energie sued under civil code, while CNFDI sued for libel -- which apparently makes it a criminal case in France.

With Direct Energie, the judge seemed to not really understand Google Suggest or how it worked, declaring that no algorithm could justify the prejudice caused by Google. He then got confused, saying that it was clearly Google's fault because the search on "direct energie arnaque" was not the first alphabetically in the list, nor did it have the highest number of results. Despite it being explained by Google, the judge seems to have totally ignored the reason why it was at the top of the list (the number of people searching for it). Because of this, he said it's no limit on free speech to force Google to change the results, and ordered Google to do so (though, did not allow for any damages to be awarded). This seems to get the basic facts backwards, and it seems quite ridiculous to find Google guilty of such a charge when all its actually doing is accurately counting up what people are legitimately searching for.

The CNFDI ruling, seems much more reasonable. There was one oddity (though it's probably got more to do with French law than with the judge), and that is that the judge ruled that Google could be liable for libel because the company had been informed by CNFDI of the issue, thereby removing any safe harbors. In the US, Section 230 safe harbors on libel thankfully do not get waived if you've been informed. Instead, they take the much more logical position that a third party service provider should never be blamed for actions of its users. Thus, it would be flat-out ridiculous to blame Google for the phrases people are searching for. But, even having lost its local "safe harbor" protections, the judge properly recognized that the suggestion came from the algorithm looking at what people were searching for, and noted that the suggestion was based on "a valid observation." On top of that, he pointed out that search engines are "important tools for the free circulation of ideas and information," and the fact that many people were questioning whether CNFDI was a scam was, in fact, important and potentially useful information, and thus not libelous by itself. Finally, the court also noted that forcing Google to remove such a suggestion would be too big a burden on free speech and citizens' rights.

It should be no surprise that I think the second ruling is much more sensible, while the first ruling makes little sense, and appears to have been decided without a full understanding of what Google's Suggest feature is or how it works. Still, I imagine we'll be seeing similar cases around the world... and hopefully they'll find themselves in front of judges more like the one that dealt with the CNFDI case...

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why Is It So Difficult To Understand The Difference Between A Platform And A User?

from the head-scratcher dept

In the US, thanks to safe harbor rules in the DMCA and the CDA, courts will often toss out misdirected lawsuits that go after a service provider for the actions of a user. To be honest, I've always questioned why we need such safe harbors in the first place, since it should just be basic common sense that a service provider shouldn't be liable for the actions of a user. But, of course, common sense just isn't that common. This can be seen, first, in all the lawsuits that require incantations of the safe harbors to get them tossed out, but even worse, in foreign countries that have no such safe harbor laws. Take for example, a case in India, where Google India is being blamed for content written by bloggers on Blogger. First, Blogger is run by Google, not Google India, so the lawsuit is doubly misdirected -- but, more importantly, Google itself cannot be responsible for what someone writes using its tool. That's like suggesting that Bic is responsible for what you write with its pens. The case involves a guy who was upset about what some bloggers wrote about him -- so of course, he had to sue Google. What's amazing is that the judge seems to have initially bought this as reasonable. It barred Google from hosting any blog that "defamed" this guy. Google has responded by trying to explain the basics of the internet to the judge and how it's impossible for Google to figure out if someone is defaming someone else using its software.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

A Guide To Libel For Bloggers

from the useful-resource dept

There's a belief out there among some bloggers that they're immune to libel laws. That is simply untrue. While they are likely immune from libel in their comments made by others, things they write themselves are likely to still be open to potential libel lawsuits. Many bloggers don't realize this at all, assuming that "free speech" rights means they can say pretty much whatever they want. And, to some extent, some courts may take into account the nature of the "forum" in which the comments are made -- but by that point (in front of a judge) it's definitely way too late for many people. That's why it's great that the folks over at Public Citizen have put together a nice Guide for Bloggers and Non-Profit Organizations About Writing With Libel in Mind. It's a worthwhile read if you write online.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright And Libel Questions Hit The Twitterverse

from the you-knew-this-was-coming... dept

A few weeks back, someone pointed me to a Twitter message where one Twitter user was (jokingly) accusing another of copyright infringement for repeating a message. While the situation was amusing, you knew it was only a matter of time until the question became more serious. Mark Cuban put up a blog post this weekend asking about the copyrightability of Twitter messages. His question revolves around whether or not it's copyright infringement for someone like ESPN to repeat what he wrote in a Twitter message, which he would have preferred they didn't quote.

I'm certainly no copyright lawyer -- so perhaps some could chime in in the comments -- but it seems like there would be two issues here. The first is whether or not the content is covered by copyright -- and, for most messages the answer would probably be yes (there would need to be some sort of creative element to the messages to make that happen, so a simple "hi" or "thanks" or whatever might not cut it). But, the more important question then would be whether or not ESPN could quote the Twitter message. And, there, the answer is almost certainly, yes, they could, just as they could quote something you wrote in a blog post.

If you ran down the fair use test, it's difficult to see how a public Twitter message wouldn't easily qualify. If it's ESPN, it would be for commercial use, but not in the sense of "selling" the content. Plus, it's for journalistic reasons, which is often given a fair use pass. Second is the nature of the copyrighted work -- which, being a Twitter message, I would guess most judges would assume it's expected that the content can (or even should) be repeated. The third test fails, since it would be the entire message, but the fourth test, on "the effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work" would almost certainly point towards fair use. Since the four factors aren't weighted equally, I think the only clear "failure" is the weakest and least important of the four tests (how much of the content was used -- which is way outweighed by the other factors), it's hard to see how this isn't a perfectly reasonable use.

But, of course, with copyright designed for a world before everyone had a printing press, we're going to come across more such questions in the future -- and I'm sure there will be a few lawsuits along the way.

For example... while it's not a copyright lawsuit, Courtney Love has been sued for libel due to her Twitter messages. Apparently, she's been Tweeting in anger against her former fashion designer -- Dawn Simorangkir -- and Simorangkir is now suing for defamation. The messages themselves may prove to be defamatory (assuming they're not true), calling the woman:

a "nasty, lying, hosebag thief"; having "a history of dealing cocaine"; having "lost all custody of her child"; and, being guilty of "assault and burglary"

There's also the message claiming that the designer would be "hunted til your [sic] dead," which seems more like a threat than libelous. Of course, one could argue that the legal filing by the designer is also potentially libelous, stating:

"Whether caused by drug-induced psychosis, a warped understanding of reality, or the belief that money and fame allow her to disregard the law, Love has embarked on what is nothing short of an obsessive and delusional crusade to destroy Simorangkir's reputation and her livelihood."

I would imagine that, if Courtney Love were not in a drug-induced psychosis, she might find that claim objectionable.

Still, you have to wonder if there were a better way to handle this. For example, filing the lawsuit seems to call more attention to the falling out between the two, perhaps leading many more people who might be interested in Simorangkir's work to think twice. While Love, as a celebrity, does have a certain reach, it seems like Simorangkir could better respond just by laying out the facts of the situation and telling her side of the story in a calm and clear manner, which compared to some rantings on Twitter would probably give people a good counterbalance without needing to involve the courts.

Either way, as these two stories demonstrate, we're in for a long series of lawsuits and legal threats having to do with Twitter messages.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Courts Around The World Dealing With The Fact That There Are Mean People Online

from the but-is-it-illegal? dept

Here are two separate lawsuits, halfway around the world from each other that seem to be touching on quite similar issues: whether or not it's illegal to be a jerk online. The first, described by Eric Goldman, is about a student who has sued a bunch of high school classmates, their parents and Facebook, because those students created a private group on Facebook where they made fun of the girl. Goldman points out all the problems with the lawsuit: suing Facebook makes no sense and will get thrown out pretty quickly. The group was private, and limited to six students, so the total "audience" for any defamation was a grand total of five people -- and, while the comments were mean, they were also pretty obviously not true. Also, suing the parents for "negligence" in supervising their kids isn't likely to get very far. All in all, it seems like the case probably won't last very long.

However, the results on the other side of the planet were a bit different. VivekM points us to the news of a teen in India who started an Orkut group against a certain political party. Many people left anonymous comments as a part of the group, but the party sued the teenager who created the group, claiming he violated a local law against "hurting public sentiment." Rather than realizing the the kid starting the group should have no liability for the statements made by others, the Supreme Court in India has said that he can be charged, noting: "You are a computer student and you know how many people access internet portals. Hence, if someone files a criminal action on the basis of the content, then you will have to face the case. You have to go before the court and explain your conduct."

At some point, people and courts will recognize that there will always be jerks online, and it makes little sense to go around filing lawsuits against anyone in any way connected to those being jerky (even the jerky folks themselves), but until that time, the court systems around the world are going to be quite busy with similar cases.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Truth Is No Longer An Absolute Defense Against Libel?!?

from the um...-that's-not-good dept

Thanks to Jon, for pointing to us a very scary recent court ruling that appears to have done away with one of the most basic free speech rights: that truth is an absolute defense against libel. Apparently, a federal appeals court in Boston feels that there are exceptions to this rule, and that even the truth can be libelous. If that seems incredibly problematic, you're right.

The case involved the office supply company Staples, who had fired an employee for abusing the company's travel and expense reporting system. After letting the guy, Alan S. Noonan, go, the company sent an email to many employees letting them know why Noonan was fired: "A thorough investigation determined that Alan was not in compliance with our [travel and expenses] policies." Noonan sued for libel, but Staples pointed out that since it was entirely accurate, there was no case.

However, the appeals court noted a century old Massachusetts law that suggests that truth is a defense against libel except if the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the defendant in publishing the statement. Even though an earlier ruling had ruled that particular law was unconstitutional, the appeals court said that earlier ruling didn't apply. Instead, it said that since Staples had never named an employee fired for similar reasons, there was "malice" in sending out the email it sent. This may only apply in Massachusetts and it's highly likely to eventually be overturned (either in a rehearing by the entire appeals court, or eventually the Supreme Court), but in the meantime, it represents a very troubling change in the commonly accepted understanding that true statements can't be found as libelous.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Texas Judge Forces Topix To Unveil Info About Anonymous Commenters

from the so-much-for-protecting-anonymity dept

While plenty of other countries don't provide very much protection to anonymous commenters online, US courts have time and time and time and time again found that it's important to protect the rights of anonymous speech online. That doesn't mean that you can say anything you want -- but it does mean that a court should be quite clearly convinced that the speech violates the law before allowing any progress in an attempt to unmask an anonymous participant.

Unfortunately, it looks like a judge in Texas has ignored all of that. Topix, the online news aggregation and local community site, has apparently been told by a judge to cough up identifying information on 178 formerly anonymous commenters on the site. The details are still a little unclear from the article linked here -- but it looks like the commenters were discussing a sexual harassment case that was happening in Texas. In that case, the defendants were found not guilty, but apparently the online comments on Topix got somewhat nasty. So the couple, fresh off being acquitted of sexual assault charges, sued 178 different anonymous commenters -- and the judge seemed to have no problem ordering Topix to turn over any identifying information it had on those commenters.

This is troubling for a variety of reasons, as it does not appear that the court spent much time in determining whether or not actual libelous statements were made -- it just ordered Topix to hand over the info. Previous courts have found that even if the commenters were being jerks and totally obnoxious, that doesn't take away their right to anonymity. So why is this judge so willing to wipe away anonymity? If there are truly libelous comments, then it could make sense to go through a careful process of trying to identify who they came from. But to give a blanket order to hand over the names seems to go against what so many other US courts have done in similar situations, and raises serious questions about the right to anonymity online.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Spoof Elton John Diary Not Libelous

from the get-a-sense-of-humor dept

The UK has much stricter libel laws than in the US, but at least there are some reasonable limitations. Elton John has lost a libel case against the Guardian newspaper for publishing a spoof diary from John that mocked his White Tie and Tiara Ball fundraiser. The whole thing was clearly a spoof -- and it's a feature that the Guardian does on a regular basis. Yet, John still was apparently offended and felt that it was libelous. The judge, though, pointed out that no reasonable person would take the obviously fake diary entry as serious news. Who knew we now needed judges to tell people they need to get a better sense of humor.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Does It Make Sense To Have Libel Be A Criminal Offense?

from the watch-out-what-state-you're-in dept

For the most part, libel is a civil issue between the person who made the libelous statements and the person harmed by those statements. However, there are some states that do have criminal libel laws on the books -- though they're rarely enforced. The state of Colorado, however, apparently is willing to use the law, and the law itself seems fairly broad. It was written over a century ago and says that "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule" counts as libel. Libel should be about making materially false statements about someone. If you're exposing the real natural defects of someone, it's difficult to see how that should be considered libel.

Either way, that law is being tested once again, as a man is being charged with criminal libel for posting disparaging messages about his ex-girlfriend (and mother of his child) and her lawyer on Craigslist. The guy says he was only venting -- but it certainly does sound like he was libelous in what he posted. The question, though, remains whether it makes sense for the lawsuit to be criminal, or a civil issue to be taken up directly between the libeled parties and the guy who posted the remarks. Making it a criminal charge seems like a waste of gov't and taxpayer resources concerning a dispute between parties who should be able to settle things via a civil lawsuit.

39 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Suing Over Being Called A Douchebag Might Just Get More People To Think You're A Douchebag

from the just-saying... dept

There's a somewhat popular (and quite amusing) blog called Hot Chicks with Douchebags. It is... well, pretty much what you'd expect (and might not be a link you want to click-through while at work) -- a bunch of photos of attractive women in the company of guys who, well, you can figure it out. Anyway, I had no idea that they had come out with a book recently, but apparently some of the folks included in the book are none too happy about it. Three of the alleged "hot chicks" in the book have sued the book's author and publisher, and now one of the alleged "douchebags" has also sued, claiming libel. Of course, once again, it seems like this is the sort of thing where suing only puts a lot more attention on the fact that some folks consider the guy to be a douchebag in the first place. Besides, considering that douchebag, in this context, is pretty clearly a statement of opinion rather than fact (no one actually thinks he's literally a bag for douches), it's difficult to see where the libel is. In fact, I'd say that suing over being included in a book like this seems, well... ah, well, you can figure it out.

36 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Reminder: It's Still Not Illegal For Someone To Criticize You

from the but-it-won't-stop-the-lawsuits dept

We've written about similar stories plenty of times in the past, but Adam writes in to let us know about a new article highlighting companies who sue those who leave negative reviews of their business online. The businesses complain that the negative reviews can have a serious impact on business -- which no one doubts. But, assuming that the review is truthful or just an opinion, there's really not much that can be done about it. Most companies would be better served responding to the criticism, rather than busting out the lawyers. Even if they feel the criticism is unjustified, it makes more sense to address the points, rather than pulling out the blunt threat of a lawsuit.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian Court Rules That Linking To Defamatory Articles Isn't Defamatory

from the victory-for-free-speech-online dept

You may recall the story of Wayne Crookes, a Canadian businessman who is active in the Green Party in Canada. In 2007, he sued Google, Yahoo, Myspace, Wikipedia and some other sites, claiming that all were liable for content that he found defamatory. It's somewhat interesting to try to follow the trail of what the actual libel is -- as many of the lawsuits for libel are focused on stories about (you guessed it) him filing for libel lawsuits (which certainly appears to be true, rather than libelous). With at least some of those lawsuits, the Canadian Supreme Court tossed them out, though over jurisdiction issues, rather than on the merits of the case.

In one case, Crookes sued the website P2PNet for just linking to the material that Crookes found libelous. It seemed like a huge stretch to say that merely linking to content (even if you grant that it was libelous) is also libel. And, the good news is that a court has now agreed. It has sided with Jon Newton, the operator of P2PNet in noting that simply linking to libelous material is not, in itself, libelous. The ruling does note that if the link text had been libelous, that might be a different story -- but just linking to the text as part of a discussion about the lawsuits is hardly libelous. This is definitely a huge win for free speech in Canada -- though, Canada could take a big step forward in updating its defamation laws to make it clear that the liability for libel should be on those who actually were libelous, rather than those who host it or point to it.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sued For Libel Over eBay Feedback

from the truth-is-a-defense-against-libel... dept

There's been plenty of criticism over eBay's feedback system over the years, and recently the company famously stopped allowing sellers to give feedback, since many sellers were using it as a weapon to force buyers to give good feedback, or risk getting bad feedback themselves. However, the latest outrage over eBay's feedback system seems a bit silly. A seller in the UK is suing a buyer for libel for his eBay feedback.

In this case, the buyer bought a mobile phone, but was disappointed that the phone was beat up and not the model that was advertised. He complained to the seller, sent it back and asked for a refund -- which was given. However, he then posted feedback saying: "Item was scratched, chipped and not the model advertised on Mr Jones's eBay account." From the sound of things, this was accurate. The seller, unfortunately, seemed to think that because he refunded the purchase, that the feedback was now libelous. It's hard to see how he has much of a case (even in the UK where libel laws are much stricter). The feedback was accurate. The fact that the seller agreed to take back the phone and refund the difference doesn't change that.

25 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Reminder: Defamation Still Applies To Bloggers

from the in-case-you-thought-otherwise dept

There's this odd belief among some bloggers that defamation and libel laws don't actually apply to bloggers. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. Some of the confusion may stem from court rulings about comment liability, suggesting that a blogger is not liable for defamatory statements made by others in their comments. Unfortunately, many have taken this to mean that there is no liability for blogging defamatory statements. Others believe that since it's their personal blog, they can say what they want and there shouldn't be any liability, because it's not like a newspaper. While I tend to think the entire concept of defamation laws should be rethought in an era when everyone is a publisher, that doesn't change the fact that they do exist and they do apply to bloggers. At least, that's what one set of bloggers is finding out after a court refused to dismiss a defamation suit against them, when the bloggers insisted their statements weren't defamatory because they were just their opinions. But the claim was pretty seriously undermined by the fact that many of the potentially defamatory statements weren't just made as statements of fact, but were posted on a blog that exclaimed across the site: "OUR STORIES ARE TRUE." Oops.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

UK High Court Recognizes That Defamation Standard Should Be Lowered For Online Forums

from the a-step-in-the-right-direction dept

UK libel law is incredibly strict. It's much stricter than in the US, which is why there have been a few cases over the years where someone tried to sue for libel in the UK despite the fact that the content had nothing to do with the UK. However, there's a small bit of good news coming out of the UK, where the High Court has ruled that online chat rooms and message boards should be treated more like spoken conversations (slander) than written ones (libel). This is a basic (but important) recognition that these parts of the internet are about communication rather than broadcast content (which is what libel laws target), noting that content posted to a message board is quite different than content in a newspaper:

"[Bulletin board posts] are rather like contributions to a casual conversation (the analogy sometimes being drawn with people chatting in a bar) which people simply note before moving on; they are often uninhibited, casual and ill thought out. Those who participate know this and expect a certain amount of repartee or 'give and take'."

"When considered in the context of defamation law, therefore, communications of this kind are much more akin to slanders (this cause of action being nowadays relatively rare) than to the usual, more permanent kind of communications found in libel actions. People do not often take a 'thread' and go through it as a whole like a newspaper article. They tend to read the remarks, make their own contributions if they feel inclined, and think no more about it."

This is definitely a step in the right direction.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Creating A Fake News Story Libel Or Copyright Infringement?

from the seems-a-bit-questionable dept

Creating fake news stories has a long history on the web. People do it all the time, usually for fun as something of a hoax. Many of these stories pretend to be from respected news publications -- but to anyone beyond the most casual observer, it should be obvious that they're fakes, based on the fact that they're not hosted on the actual publications' website. However, that's apparently not enough for some. Romenesko points out that the Oklahoma Publishing Company (publishers of The Oklahoman) and sports writer Jake Trotter are suing a guy who wrote up a fake article (using Trotter's byline) and posted it on his own website. The news report covering this is in the Oklahoman's own paper, so it doesn't share the guy's side. However, a look around various blogs shows what you'd expect: he did it as a silly hoax because he's a fan of Nebraska's football team over Oklahoma's. So he created a silly fake news story about some Oklahoma players. Yes, it was stupid, but sports fans do plenty of stupid things against opposing teams.

There isn't any indication that anyone actually believed this fake story was true. It was only posted on a site whose domain was clearly someone rooting for the Nebraska Cornhuskers, rather than on the Oklahoman's actual website. It's difficult to see what sort of "damages" this story could have had on anyone. Yes, it was a stupid hoax stunt from an overly passionate fan, but suing him for libel, copyright infringement and trademark infringement seems like an even bigger overreaction in response.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Head Of Canadian Post Offices Says Satirical Top 10 List Is Libel

from the oh-please dept

Rob Hyndman writes in to let us know about yet another person trying to use libel laws to get content taken down that isn't libelous at all. Apparently, the head of the Canadian postal service, Moya Greene, got upset at a satirical blog post on the blog of the postal workers' union making fun of Greene for joining the board of directors of Tim Hortons, the well-known doughnut shop. The union blog post put together a mildly amusing "Top 10" list of reasons why Greene had joined the board, including such things as "So she (or her driver) doesn’t have to get in line to get her morning coffee." Har har. So, it's not all that funny. But, it's difficult to see how it's libel. And, of course, by invoking The Streisand Effect, it seems like all Greene has done is suggest that she doesn't have much of a sense of humor.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..