Holding Bloggers Accountable Through Laws

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:40:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Both Balkanization and Beltway Blogroll today discuss a rash of proposed state bills that would hold bloggers liable for defamatory content posted by others on their website -- and why they seemed doomed to fail.

Note that there is nothing wrong with holding bloggers responsible for defamatory content that they themselves produce, as long as the states' rules are consistent with the constitutional rules of New York Times v. Sullivan and later cases. Section 230 only affects state laws that try to hold a blogger liable for content posted by someone else.

I try to delete what I consider defamatory content once it's called to my attention. But sometimes, people don't tell me about it, they e-mail me when I'm too busy to read e-mail and I don't see it in the comments because I can't read every comment on this site. And TalkLeft isn't one of the highest-trafficked blogs out there -- certainly not in the sense of a Daily Kos, Atrios or their right-wing counterparts.

There's no question it's a drag to read something disgusting about yourself on the Internet. But the remedy it seems to me is to go after the person who wrote it or who further disseminates it, not the person whose site it got posted on. And I think we already have laws on the books for that.

< Cully Stimson Resigns Over Guantanamo Comments | Why is Gavin Newsom's Affair Considered Newsworthy? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Holding Bloggers Accountable Through Laws | 11 comments (11 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Deflamatory (none / 0) (#1)
by wlgriffi on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 04:57:57 PM EST

" I can't read every comment on this site. And TalkLeft isn't one of the highest-trafficked blogs out there ..."

Well if Bloggers claim the right to view comments before they are posted it doesn't seem that they can refuse to be responsible for what they allow to be posted. You can't have it both ways. You want to censor what you oppose but ok what agrees with you. So you should take responsibility for what you permit to be posted on your blog.

Jeralyn does not censor comments (none / 0) (#2)
by Edger on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:12:33 PM EST

in my experience of years of commenting here, wlgriffi. She does occassionally delete a comment that is a direct insult to or name calling of another commenter, and very infrequently bans or limits commenters who violate her policies. It is her house, not a public square. Think of it as her living room, as your living room is yours.


I don't see comments before they are posted (none / 0) (#3)
by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 05:37:44 PM EST

I'm not sure what you are referring to. I am not able to view comments before they are posted. I also can't edit comments since the move to Scoop several months ago, I can only delete them.


: No need (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by LarryE on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:40:28 AM EST

Jeralyn, you have no need to defend yourself against that kind of claptrap. Your record defends you better than any words could.

: deleting (none / 0) (#11)
by wlgriffi on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 12:27:49 PM EST

"I try to delete what I consider defamatory content once it's called to my attention"
I'm not singling you out personnaly. But if you haven't noticed most blogs have the standard limitation on posting usually using "trolling" as a cover but include as you do;
"....Any comment may be deleted by a site admin....."
Someone posted something about you considering the blog as your living room and I should respect it as I would MY living room. Well MY living room is open to all conversation. I don't tell anyone that they can express their opinion only if I approve of it first. I'm sorry if you take my critique as an attack. I just have a basic belief in the freedom of speech.

Slippery slope (none / 0) (#4)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 08:27:51 PM EST

So you should take responsibility for what you permit to be posted on your blog.

So who decides what is permitted? The host? The government? You? How about the Bill of Rights?

I know I've held my fingers back many times, mostly in deference to the host's wishes, and sometimes with the thought that a visit from the SS would not be in my best interests. On occaision I have crossed that line. I have learned from those times (though some may disagree). That's why they should leave us alone. They want to stifle progress. They want to control us.

A Blogger is Editor in Chief (none / 0) (#5)
by Stewieeeee on Fri Feb 02, 2007 at 09:12:23 PM EST

Ombudsman if you will.

Impossible (none / 0) (#7)
by HK on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:48:49 AM EST

For a blog owner to be completely in control of all that is displayed on their blog, they would not simply have to commit time to reading every comment posted, they would have to sit in front of their computer 24/7 incessantly hitting the refresh button in order to catch any new defamatory new posts immediately. Given that there are several threads, this would require multiple computers. This is impossible for any human being. Those who have other committments, such as Jeralyn, cannot even come close to this level of scrutiny and nor should they be expected to. Individuals are responsible for what they say and write. If this bill were to come to pass, the next logical step would be to say that newspapers cannot quote anyone if the remarks they made were defamatory. The whole concept of this bill is complete nonsense and a waste of everyone's time.

: It can be done (none / 0) (#8)
by roy on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 02:59:58 AM EST

The Dilbert blog is the only example I know. It gets a few hundred comments each day. Each comment is reviewed before appearing to the public.

hmmmmmmmmmmm (none / 0) (#9)
by cpinva on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 06:11:00 AM EST

che said, in part:

last time i checked (and i could be wrong) the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with this site, at all. as it has nothing to do with any other private entity.

with respect to the issue of defamatory items, posted on blogs, or bulletin boards, forums, etc., the responsibility lies with the poster.

however, once the owner has been notified, and chooses to do nothing (perhaps not seeing the same defamatory nature of the item as the complainent?), then the owner has assumed some of the burden of responsibility, just as the publisher of a newspaper or book does.

of course, insulting isn't the same as defamatory. defamatory is a statement of fact, known to be wrong by the defamer: you are a liar. insulting can be a matter of opinion: i think you're a liar.

both are clearly insulting, but only one is defamatory. perhaps, this is the source of confusion for our state legislative bodies: they've been called liars so often, the line between fact and opinion has been blurred. :)

It's more complex than that (none / 0) (#10)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Feb 03, 2007 at 09:37:27 AM EST

The 1st amendment IS implicated.

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

The issue is not that Congress (or the States throught the 14th) is directly censoring speech or the press, but the issue is the extent to which the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and press curtail one private actor from using the governmental processes against a second private actor for what the latter stated (or allowed to be stated in a forum under his control).

In other words, how far does the First Amendment extend to prohibiting a person from obtaining damages or injunctive relief from another person when to do so requires use of the courts? Governmental enforcement of statutes or common law can impicate the First Amendment even when the publication is by one private actor and the attempt at restraint of publication or damages for publication is by another private actor-- because the government's authority is invoked by the person seeking redress.