Sticky: All Libel Ends with the Author
ra...@myrealbox.com
With US law truth remains the only defense to slander or libel in, so
without evidence of the defamation being fact, beware that plaintiff's
attempt to subpoena anonymous identities and prosecute may succeed.
Moderators Can't Touch You Here.
While US case law shows operators of online communities are repeatedly
protected from member speech, private-forum operators still allow
moderators to injure people in the process of censoring them.
What makes moderated forums superior in attracting qualified
expertise, also mixes moderator bias with forum rules.
Too often, the free exchange of idea's becomes impossible as
moderators become insatiably amused with banning, deleting, and
humiliating the most talented people with minority opinions.
There is no reward for extraordinary effort, literacy and grace, when
moderators becomes territorial, with ignorance possessing the high
ground. The charity of experts does not follow such treatment
indefinitely.
Invite the Forum Nazi's to Take the Gloves Off, Outside.
If moderators are deleting both your posts and separate links from
their private forum, feel free to reproduce the entire thread on the
DeModerated Zone. You can privately (PM) invite the participants to
take it to a real forum, after you have reproduced it here.
Abridged from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_11.php#005017
The California Supreme Court is one of the last states to rule that no
provider or user of an interactive computer service may be held liable
for putting material on the Internet that was written by someone else.
(The speaker is not protected)
These rulings affirm that blogs, websites, listservs, and ISPs like
Yahoo!, as well as individuals are protected under Section 230 of the
federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which explicitly states that
"[n]o 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." (The speaker is responsible,
not the host)
"The Court has ensured that the Internet will remain a vibrant forum
for debate and the free exchange of ideas," said Ann Brick, staff
attorney at the ACLU of Northern California.
Abridged from the Electronic Frontier Foundation
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_12.php#005052
This doesn't mean that plaintiffs can't pursue defamation cases. They
can sue the person who made the statement, but not the person who
created the forum where it was made.
Nearly every court that has considered Section 230 has recognized the
intent of the law and shielded website operators from liability.
"Section 230 is key to fostering vital debate and discussion across
the Internet. Craigslist and other online communities are thriving
because of its protection," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl.
-----------------
The most comprehensive authority I found dealing with internet libel &
defamation is titled;
Online Defamation in US, UK, Hong Kong and China
Created by Anissa Cheng and Denise Chu
http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberlaw/gp18/intro.html
You should familiarize yourself with the entire document, but these
excerpts below provide a summary:
Conclusions
Though there is not yet any global treaties or policies that regulate
online defamation, there are laws in different countries that prohibit
online defamation just as "offline" defamations. The laws of
defamation work the same way for each communication medium and every
defamatory material on the Internet is governed by the same principles
from the law of tort (Canham, 2002).
Definition
Defamation in the Internet can be classified as libel in view of that
material communicated on the Internet is published e.g. bulletin
boards, emails, chat rooms etc.
Elements of Proof
In order to proof defamation, one has to prove that what was said or
written or published was false. The false and defamatory statement,
usually of act and not opinion, must be made about another's
reputation or business. Direct evidence, innuendo, insinuation or
reference may establish this. And the statement must be referring to
the plaintiff.
If the defamation is libel, damages are presumed to exist. The
permanent nature of a libelous statement has led courts to allow
recovery for libel without proof of actual or special damages in
considering the ability, especially via the Internet, to distribute
widely, and the fact that written words generally require more
premeditation than those spoken.
In order to avoid long and costly trial procedures, US law reformers
produced legislation named Uniform Defamation Act..
It is believed that the correction or clarification of a published
defamation may restore the victim's reputation more quickly and
thoroughly than a victorious conclusion to a lawsuit. Thus the Uniform
Correction or Clarification of Defamation Act seeks to provide strong
incentives for individuals promptly to correct or clarify an alleged
defamation as an alternative to litigation, which is a more simplified
resolution.
The Act not only applies to the traditional media, but also the
digital ones. In the Section 2 "Scope", it stated that this Act
"applies to all publications, including writings, broadcasts, oral
communications, electronic transmissions, or other forms of
transmitting information." Unless a good faith attempt to obtain a
correction or clarification is made within 90 days of knowledge of the
publication, the plaintiff will be limited in any defamation action to
recovery of provable economic loss. The 90-day period runs from
knowledge of the publication by the requesting party, not from the
date of publication (NCCUSL, 1993).
Cases
Cubby, Inc. vs. CompuServe, Inc.
..Compuserve won, because they did not act as an editor.
Stratton Oakmont, Inc. vs. Prodigy Services Company
The rule of court was not in favor of Prodigy. Though Prodigy argued
that it was infeasible to review every 60,000 messages posted in their
bulletin board everyday, the court indicated that even such review
control cannot be complete, it did not minimize the fact that Prodigy
did publicly arrogate itself to the role of determining what is proper
to post and be read in its bulletin boards. Therefore, the court
summarized Prodigy as a publisher rather than a distributor.
Furthermore, the court affirmed that Prodigy had directed and
controlled the actions of board leader, thus held that the board
leader as an agent of Prodigy.
-------------------------
Enjoy your freedom. The Nazis can't delete you here, but beware some
countries find ways to arrest anonymouse users for political speech.
Roger Ramjet
Fullerton, CA.