Nov 28 2007
iBrattleboro blog sued for “libel”
Those of you that are blog addicts are well aware of the issue of a blog’s liability as well as “ownership” of comments, whether it be if a blog’s owner is legally responsible for the content in the comments section, or it be Bill O’Reilly bloviating about the worst comments in a section and trying to paint the whole blog as extreme as those comments. Apparently, the concept of trying to silence a blog by going after the owners is still a fresh one, as the owners of the community blog iBrattleboro (Brattleboro, VT) are now being sued for libel, over some comments that someone posted there. Go below the jump for more.
iBrattleboro is one of those great community blogs. It’s not just politics by any stretch of the imagination. It covers many aspects of the small city in southern Vermont: town news, arts and culture, business, education - the whole gamut of that vibrant community.
Apparently the libel hubbub stems from an allegation by a former executive director of Rescue, Inc. and organization that provides rescue services to the area’s communities. As the Brattleboro Reformer is reporting:
In the suit, which was filed in Windham County Superior Court Nov. 16, Rescue volunteer Effie Mayhew alleges that David Dunn, who served as executive director until resigning earlier this month, and ibrattleboro owners Chris Grotke and Lise LePage committed libel and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
The suit pertains to a Sept. 30 comment posted to the site by Dunn, who was responding both to a previous anonymous critique of his leadership style and a column Mayhew wrote in the Reformer. In the comment, Dunn accused Mayhew of conducting an adulterous affair on Rescue premises and said that others who had signed a petition requesting his resignation had engaged in similar behavior.
Did you get that? “The suit pertains to a Sept. 30 comment posted to the site by Dunn, who was responding both to a previous anonymous critique of his leadership style and a column Mayhew wrote in the Reformer.” So based on one man’s comment on the blog, the owners, Chris Grotke and Lise LePage now have to spend their time and money fighting off this lawsuit. Perhaps Dunn’s comments could indeed make him responsible for libel. But to hold the blog’s owners responsible is absolutely ridiculous.
It’s really maddening, especially because at the bottom of the iBrattleboro site, there’s this…
All information and opinions expressed on these pages are the responsibility of their respective owners, and not of iBrattleboro.com. iBrattleboro.com reserves the right to refuse publication of any story and to remove posted comments, as we see fit.
Apparently, that last part wasn’t read by Mayhew. Her lawyer somehow thinks that Grotke and Page should have known better and taken the comments down on their own.
“They should have edited it out or e-mailed (Dunn) and said ‘we can’t publish it as it stands,’” Stone said. “I think their defense will be that they don’t read prior to publishing, but I’m not sure that will be enough to avoid some degree of liability.”
Smells funny to me. How about you? One thing that complicates this matter is that the legal matters regarding “new media and journalism” are still wading into uncharted territory in regards to liability, but the Communications Decency Act of 1996 seems to be pretty clear on this: “No 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.”
Regardless of how the suit goes against Dunn, the one against iBrattleboro is the essence of vindictive frivolity. Please stop by iBrattleboro and offer some kind words of support to Grotke and Page, should you feel so inclined.
UPDATE: Caoimhin Laochdha over at GMD delves into the legal matters and makes the compelling case as to why suit aginast iBrattleboro is without merit. You can read the legal papers filed here.
crossposted at Daily Kos and five before chaos.
Posts
why is it OK for a blog (and in particular a community blog like iBrattleboro) to leave a post up that is slanderous (assuming this definition of slander: "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another")? I can accept that a post may GO up without being reviewed, and thus the blog owner should not be held responsible for a brief appearance of slander, but what, aside from a declaration of privilege (which in certain instances could be construed as more akin to an abdication of responsibility), justifies LEAVING a slanderous post up to be disseminated? While it is clear that the slanderer him/herself should be liable, there seems on the face of things, an argument to be made for some liability (not primary responsibility, but some) for the parties responsible for providing a [continuous] platform for the slander. Why, in theory, is this premise faulty?
Well, first off, you’re assuming that the owners read every single comment posted on there. Second, you’re assuming they had knowledge as to whether or not Dunn’s assertion was true. People talk shit about people all of the time on blogs why is this any different? They removed it when they were alerted to the situation. And the disclaimer says upfront that the people posting the comments are responsible for them.
Precisely!
…you’re assuming they had knowledge as to whether or not Dunn’s assertion was true. People talk shit about people all of the time on blogs why is this any different?
Well, regarding libel, I think it’s one thing to call someone bad names in print, another to allege significant improprieties.
I think we can come up with hypothetical examples where we might agree that a little court intervention would be welcome. Say I post a libelous comment about you in the comments section of a blog, you can’t get the blog owner to remove it, and it worsens your chances for future employment (because all prospective employers will certainly Google your name before hiring, right?). In this scenario, what other recourse would you have other than to try to get a judge to enjoin the blog owner to remove it?
In fact, with the advent of search engine results caching and Archive.org’s Wayback Machine, even getting it yanked from the offending blog may not be enough to keep the libel from continuing to hurt you. (Who said web publishing was simple? [;-)] )
hey Nato, long time, no read…
Let me be clear on something. The guy who actually posted the comment may indeed be guilty of libel. The blog in question removed the comment when they were contacted about it. If one can’t “get the blog owner to remove it” that’s a different scenario altogether. So that’ snot the point of this lawsuit, becuse the offending comment is no longer there. I think the blog part of the lawsuit is completely frivolous and without merit, as do several lawyers I’ve talked to about this.
Yeah, definitely, the suit seems way over the line of frivolity. I just wanted to put two cents in to emphasize the notion that pursuing a libel case isn’t automatically a bad idea, all other things being equal…
Speaking of all other things being equal, yesterday I went on record as putting you in the same league as Bill Simmon, Cathy Resmer, Jack Beatty, and William Langewiesche. No pressure. [;-)]
Actually, as I read the CDA, it might not just get iBrattleboro off the libel hook, as it classifies such sites as non-publishers, but could get the guy who wrote the piece off the hook for libel, as, according to the statute, it was never published, which is a critical element of a libel case… Maybe slander, but that’s a higher bar… The whole suit is without merit for so many reasons…