Comments on: Libel suits, blogs, and comments http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/ Notes from the classroom and observations about professional practices for sharing the news on digital platforms. Wed, 23 May 2012 02:53:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Online Laws « Dan Bastian’s Blog http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-18008 Online Laws « Dan Bastian’s Blog Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:50:47 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-18008 [...] that are made after blog posts. It’s a difficult question to answer. The reading about Libel Suits, blogs and comments really gets you thinking. I don’t know where I stand; I think I need to seemore develop before [...] [...] that are made after blog posts. It’s a difficult question to answer. The reading about Libel Suits, blogs and comments really gets you thinking. I don’t know where I stand; I think I need to seemore develop before [...]

]]> By: Online Journalism Ethics « Keelynewcomb’s Blog http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-18007 Online Journalism Ethics « Keelynewcomb’s Blog Mon, 27 Apr 2009 03:37:09 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-18007 [...] McAdams’ blog post about blog comment suits brought up something I had never even considered. I was aware that I would be held responsible for [...] [...] McAdams’ blog post about blog comment suits brought up something I had never even considered. I was aware that I would be held responsible for [...]

]]> By: Martin Samson http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-6619 Martin Samson Wed, 02 Jan 2008 16:52:57 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-6619 Happy to help. Happy to help.

]]> By: Mindy http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-6389 Mindy Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:01:40 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-6389 Thanks, Martin. Those look very useful. Thanks, Martin. Those look very useful.

]]> By: Martin Samson http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-6372 Martin Samson Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:08:38 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-6372 You can find additional case law addressing: Blogs http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=80 Online Defamation/Communications Decency Act http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=71 Complaint and Gripe Sites http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=13 SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) Suits http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=67 Subpoenas http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=47 at the provided links to my website, the Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions. Martin Samson You can find additional case law addressing:

Blogs

http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=80

Online Defamation/Communications Decency Act

http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=71

Complaint and Gripe Sites

http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=13

SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) Suits

http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=67

Subpoenas

http://www.internetlibrary.com/internetlib_subject.cfm?TopicID=47

at the provided links to my website, the Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions.

Martin Samson

]]> By: JohnofScribblesheet http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-5830 JohnofScribblesheet Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:11:00 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-5830 In America, you have better defences for journalists and bloggers in terms of defamation. In the UK the law is quite harsh on journalists and bloggers. We walk a tight rope. In America, you have better defences for journalists and bloggers in terms of defamation. In the UK the law is quite harsh on journalists and bloggers. We walk a tight rope.

]]> By: Mindy http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-5819 Mindy Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:51:30 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-5819 "Actual malice" applies only if the plaintiff is a public figure. Either way, it has to be actually false. NYT v. Sullivan involves public figures. “Actual malice” applies only if the plaintiff is a public figure. Either way, it has to be actually false. NYT v. Sullivan involves public figures.

]]> By: Ryan Sholin http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/comment-page-1/#comment-5818 Ryan Sholin Tue, 04 Dec 2007 04:24:13 +0000 http://mindymcadams.com/tojou/2007/libel-suits-blogs-and-comments/#comment-5818 <em>"Under U.S. law, truth is an absolute defense. That is, if you can prove that what you wrote is true, you are not at fault. However, as the EFF guide says, 'the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.'"</em> If I remember my Media Law class with relative accuracy, it's easier than that. Generally speaking, the plaintiff in a libel case must prove that the, shall we say, blogger, acted with actual malice, meaning that he or she knowingly published something false or with a reckless disregard for whether it was true or false. The chain of cases that decide when this is a good enough standard starts with NYT v. Sullivan in 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan “Under U.S. law, truth is an absolute defense. That is, if you can prove that what you wrote is true, you are not at fault. However, as the EFF guide says, ‘the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.’”

If I remember my Media Law class with relative accuracy, it’s easier than that.

Generally speaking, the plaintiff in a libel case must prove that the, shall we say, blogger, acted with actual malice, meaning that he or she knowingly published something false or with a reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

The chain of cases that decide when this is a good enough standard starts with NYT v. Sullivan in 1964: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

]]>