November 20, 2006
Bloggers can't be sued
The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that bloggers and participants in Internet bulletin board groups cannot be sued for posting defamatory statements made by others.
-
Mathowie is a poopie head.
-
"...people who contend they were defamed on the Internet can seek recovery only from the original source of the statement, not from those who re-post it." In other words, I can now safely say, "MonkeyFlitter says Mathowie is a poopie head." You, however, are screwed.
-
Yeow!
-
I wonder if this thinking goes beyond libel/slander? I recall an image posted to MoFi within the past year that might have been considered bordeline child porn, and I worried aloud that mofi might be held accountable for redistributing same. However, it was a link to web content hosted elsewhere, so does that relieve that tricycle man of legal responsibility?
-
Um, it's not defamation if it's true.
-
Ralph, if it wasn't hosted with MoFi, it's probably not our problem, as such. Of course, you have to weigh in the factor of whether or not it was actually CP or not. It could merely have been a model who looked younger than her/his stated age, which is still legal in some parts. It also depends on whether or not the image is still available for access. Having a link to something that no longer exists isn't illegal, just kinda pointless.
-
Um, it's not defamation if it's true. That depends entirely on where you live.
-
No, pretty much anywhere there is a western-style court system, if you can prove the truth of your statements, they are not defamation.
-
So if Mathowie really is a poopie head, then no worries.
-
No, pretty much anywhere there is a western-style court system, if you can prove the truth of your statements, they are not defamation. The crux is in the proving, isn't it? I can say that so-and-so has had plastic surgery, and it's obvious that she has plastic surgery, but doctor-patient confidentiality makes it impossible for me to get her plastic surgeon to admit he operated on her, so I still get sued for defamation, even if the whole world can see that so-and-so suddenly has chipmunk cheeks or her cup size had ballooned from a B cup to a DD cup?
-
From here: Recognition of truth as a defence in defamation varies across the Australian jurisdictions. In New South Wales, the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania the defendant must show that the material was published for the 'public benefit' or in the 'public interest'. In the other jurisdictions truth is a complete defence regardless of the intent of the publisher, although that truth concerns the imputations of the statement.