Good news Cal, "Web Sites Not Liable for Posts by Others"

bad_ptc's picture

Somebody call Westmoreland's PR guy and tell him the good news.

"Web sites that publish inflammatory information written by other parties cannot be sued for libel, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday."

Article

bad_ptc's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
i got a feeling that Brother Cal...
Submitted by beauvighn on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 4:18pm.

would tell 'em to bring it on.... I need the publicity. Cal's not afraid of no stinkin' lawsuit. way to go Cal... keep'em on the edge of their seats

login to post comments
California . . . not Georgia
Submitted by swmbo on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 12:35pm.

First, be careful about relying on a California decision; we're still in Georgia and our courts may have a different opinion on that issue. That being said, one reason I didn't let Westmoron's threat bother me is that it is inordinately difficult (albeit not impossible) for a politician to sue for defamation. If you put yourself in the public domain, you open yourself up to all types of criticim. Of course, I wouldn't be upset if he crawled back under the moss-covered rock from which he emerged. Eye-wink

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

login to post comments
I agree about "California...not Georgia", but...
bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 6:21pm.

It's not just California. They are the first to rule on the issue but this question is pending is several other states and country's.

Do you agree with the ruling, just asking?


login to post comments
bad_ptc, I do
Submitted by swmbo on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:19pm.

Although I have not read the decision, I have read the article you linked. Generally, I agree with the outcome. After all, I don't see how it could be possible for a web site owner to check every fact posted by a visitor to their site. As a matter of fair play, the site owner should allow the affected/offended party to post a response that includes corrections. But, the article suggests that the web site owner was warned that the information was "false and defamatory." A web site owner should not have to get in the middle of a battle of the facts between 2 parties with which he/she has no relationship or bear the weight and the cost of a law suit for something that did not originate with them.

Moreover, consider that people can draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts. If I see A and B go into a hotel at the same time, I might infer than they went to the hotel together. Another person may see them arrive at the same time and draw no conclusion about whether they were there "together." In fact they may have arrived at the same time with intent of going to separate rooms for wholly independent purposes. Would I be wrong to post that they went to the same hotel? And, if the truth is that they went to separate rooms, should the site owner be liable for my assumption? I just don't see a good reason to tag the site owner for that -- not to mention that defamation and slander require knowledge that the facts were wrong and an intent to communicate incorrect information. Where is a web site owner's intent with regard to a poster's content?

That being said, it's important for people to be careful when they mix fact, inference and criticism. Even if you're absolutely in the right, defending a law suit by an allegely offended party (whose only real object is to silence their critics by economic strangulation) is incredibly expensive.

-------------------------------
If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is likely armed and dangerous.

login to post comments
You covered my talking points well
bad_ptc's picture
Submitted by bad_ptc on Tue, 11/21/2006 - 8:53pm.

We agree for many of the same reasons.


login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.