If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired)   Court rules bloggers can't be sued for libel   ( wired.com) divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

7918 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jul 2003 at 9:34 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

78 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-07-01 10:42:56 AM  

binnster - How do you know George Bush is 'homosexual' and not 'homsexual,' I bet you don't even know what a homsexual is.

'cause I've still got a sore hoop from my last encounter with the great one. I'm not sure what a homsexual is but I'll ask George to explain it.
2003-07-01 10:46:49 AM  

2003-07-01 10:41:18 AM NathanAllen
Yeah turns out LTM was a corporate shill just like the rest of us.

At least he joined a group that has a MMOG that is somewhat enjoyable to some people. I think it's about the only one. I'm still fighting with EB to get my money back on SWG. Jesus what a pile of shiz. No wonder they didn't do an open beta.
2003-07-01 10:50:56 AM  
This should teach people a lesson not to believe everything they read on the Internet.
2003-07-01 10:52:46 AM  
So if this chick isn't Himmler's granddaughter, who the hell is?

Is she single?
2003-07-01 10:53:48 AM  
First of all, before you get your panties in a twist, try reading the article before you start whining about it. It makes you look like idiots (not that you needed any help making yourselves look foolish)...and props to the Se7en references.

I dated a girl once who I thought was perfectly normal, till I read her poetry..."OH MY GOD!!! BURN IT!! SEND IT TO HELL!!!"

Anyway, I keep a couple blogs for personal amusement...I tend to think the things are stupid and annoying, but if you have a problem with em, don't read them. Whining isn't going to do anything about it, and you just waste time and space with your complaining.
2003-07-01 11:00:44 AM  
I'm probably in the minority here but I think this sets a dangerous precedent. The decision draws a distinction between commercial and non-commercial republishers and grants CDA immunities to non-commercial republishers. The issue that I have with this decision is that it seems to legalize slander (or at least, subject to CDA, removes the liabities) so long as that slander originated from someone other than yourself and that you did not reap financial benefits from its publication. That seems to me to be a loophole that begs for exploitation.

Does the CDA provide a requirement for republishers to publish a public retraction in exchange for immunity?
2003-07-01 11:03:41 AM  
huh? This makes no sense... some explain how this makes any logical sense?

If someone libels or slanders someone, they libel/slander them. How can one person or form of media be protected and not another?

To me, unless I am missing something, this is no different than saying "Bloggers no longer can be sued for petty theft."
2003-07-01 11:05:31 AM  
Locke and Demosthenes approve
2003-07-01 11:09:39 AM  
Don't like blogs? Stop reading them, then!
2003-07-01 11:09:43 AM  
what the hell is a blog?
2003-07-01 11:19:26 AM  

Nice ref.
2003-07-01 11:24:03 AM  
i think the tardblog is the best i've ever read.
2003-07-01 11:32:38 AM  
Fark is a Blog of sorts.
2003-07-01 11:33:20 AM  
Then again, technically, so is CNN.com and FoxNews.com.
2003-07-01 11:35:22 AM  
Still, the lady in the story got pretty royally screwed in the process.

Oh, wait, she's a lawyer? In that case it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. Live by the sword, die by the sword...
2003-07-01 11:38:20 AM  
Amen eskobar/GrandstandFoolosopher. We should all be so lucky to exercise our free will. I know that if I don't like a blog, I don't read it, just like if I don't like a TV show or song, I don't pay attention to it unless it can help me to expose even more lies and hypocrisy which I then write about. I think they're a good outlet for that in particular, giving a voice to someone who may have something to say that could be of benefit to someone else. You never know what it can lead to (good or bad). I can't help wondering when there will be a reality show about blogging. Crap -- I hope no Fox suits saw that...

I have noticed that some people from Fark are spending 22+ minutes on MY blog. Hm.

Not all "bloggers" (I personally detest that term) are 14-year-old gothic fake angsty braindead teen girls with nothing to say. It's so nice to see that the generalizations are still alive and well here, I was worried for a minute.
2003-07-01 11:39:31 AM  
Downstairs, as I read it, the PERSON who says sometime libelous can still be sued, but you can't go after the moderators, the ISP, the host, etc if someone posts something in a forum that is libelous.

Which makes sense.

By the way, I am not Heinrich Himmler's granddaughter, and my real name is Samuel Longhorn Clemens.
2003-07-01 11:51:09 AM  
Not all "bloggers" (I personally detest that term) are 14-year-old gothic fake angsty braindead teen girls with nothing to say. It's so nice to see that the generalizations are still alive and well here, I was worried for a minute.

True true.

Don't forget the "Farker" stereotype: Middle aged, over weight white men (or men pretending to be women) who work dead end jobs but all seem to have master's degrees in what ever topic they choose to honor with their enlightenment.
2003-07-01 12:02:48 PM  
farkers can nail women bloggers.
2003-07-01 12:10:52 PM  
So wait...

If I want to slander someone on my weblog, I can just quote the slander from somewhere else and be a-okay?

Time to get the google search going...
2003-07-01 01:04:05 PM  
take that, Bill O'Reily!
2003-07-01 01:42:31 PM  
"One-way news publications have editors and fact-checkers, and they're not just selling information -- they're selling reliability," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Since when has the news media been giving us "reliability"? I guess Cindy hasn't been watching the news lately.
2003-07-01 03:10:12 PM  
See, when I saw this headline, I thought for sure it was in reference to the whole Tucker Max/Miss Vermont thing. FWIW, Tucker has updated his page, put the story back up, and a boatload of other stuff supporting his case.
2003-07-01 04:42:43 PM  

George Bush is a prolific homsexual.
   Public Figure. Can't be sued unless it's malicious. ("fag" or "child molester" might work?)

Bill Gate [has] made most of his money in the slave trade.
   Bill Gate? If you identified which Bill Gate, he could sue.

Michael Jackson does it with children
   This is probably a provable truth. Can Jackson actually prove that he doesn't do it with children?

Michael Jackson does it with Monkies
   See above.

Hillary Clinton paid Monica Lewinsky, to suck Bill
   Public figure. Is there malice?

The Queen is a Nazi sympathiser
   Identification. Which queen?

Mc Donalds use minced pensioners in their Big Mac's
   Congratulations! This is (potentially) libelous. You made a malicious statement about a public figure, McDonalds, that could have been easily disproven with a little research.

The Ford Explorer has potentially fatal design floors and Ford knew it
   Provably truth? Ford would need to prove that there is no flaw whatsoever that could conceivably lead to death. You'd only need a single example. Might be libelous.

AOL is rubbish
   Fair Comment. Opinions can't be libel.

They never landed on the moon
   Lacks clear identification. You need to name an individual or group entity, and be malicious about it.

So, we've got one definite libel and a few uncertainties. Most don't come close. But nice list.

My own attempts: [false statements - wimp alert]
-The groundskeeping staff at Oxford is a front for a slave-trading organization.
-Sam Donaldson owns that slave-trading organization.
-Condoleeza Rice slept her way to the top.
-Maureen Dowd intentionally lies in her columns.
-You could take a job with IBM, but they don't fire employees, they castrate and execute them.
-Ron Jeremy, a porn star with AIDS, bragged to me about his 10,000th infectee.
[/false statements]

These, if untrue, are all strong candidates for a libel suit.
2003-07-01 06:17:04 PM  
Thank you for pointing that out, CitizenjaQ.
You saved me the time.
2003-07-01 07:58:54 PM  
It's not news, it's LIBEL.com!
2003-07-02 12:28:40 AM  
I know I'm late, but that sould read, "Child molesting Judge rules bloggers can't be sued for libel"
2003-07-02 03:51:04 AM  
The problem I see is it would be nearly impossible to prove that you didn't make up the "smack". It also allows individuals to libel each other behind the idea that maybe perhaps they didnt make it up and that its all someone elses fault. The same standards should apply to bloggers as news orgs. Both provide "news". Some are just more (or) less biased than others.
Displayed 28 of 78 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.