Bloggers Immune From Suits Against Commenters 142
An anonymous reader writes "Suppose a commenter posts a libelous comment here at Slashdot. Can Slashdot and its owners be sued for defamation? A federal appeals court just held that no, they cannot. The court noted that a federal law was designed to ensure that 'within broad limits, message board operators would not be held responsible for the postings made by others on that board,' adding that, were the law otherwise, it would have an 'obvious chilling effect' on blogger speech."
Re:will they then (Score:3, Informative)
Who is "they"? If the comment is linked to a [possible] crime, then sure, they will go after the poster. Which involves your access logs, your ISP's access logs, and possibly your database (if it will be helpful.)
If someone should post copyrighted material in a comment, then the first thing they do is send you a takedown notice. Then they can come after you if you are not responsive.
P.S. "file suit", not "follow suit".
How About Other Content? (Score:3, Informative)
So, would this imply that a site is protected from such harrassments should a user post a trade secret into the forums without the knowledge of the forum owner?
Re:Hall of fame story (Score:4, Informative)
The scientology text in question was copyrighted, and to copy without permission is a violation of copyright law. In TFA, the situation is different. The plantif alledges that several people ( mostly John Does ) bought options to sell the stock at a certain price, defamed it on the forum, then after the price dropped, cashed their options for a profit. Apparently some people did defame it, and some people did profit from the drop in vale. But the court found that the plantiff was unable to prove that any of them were the same people. So, now law was proven to have been broken.
Re:Hall of fame story (Score:3, Informative)
I think it still would have happened. From the story you linked to (emphasis mine):
So in that case, the issue was copyright infringement and issuance of the DMCA. Nothing about defamation, which is what this new case is about (note: I cannot RTFA, because it is slashdotted. But going by the summary, I believe this is correct.)
Re:Scientology (Score:3, Informative)
This case just affects libel, in which you falsely allege wrongdoing against someone for the purpose of destroying their reputation.
That was DMCA Takedown (Score:1, Informative)
In my biased opinion, they're a rather insidious bunch. From what I've read of them online, it appears that they slowly isolate and condition people psychologically (which is why they hate psychologists--such people would recognize what they're doing). Once they get people to the point where they have pretty much everything they own invested in the organization, only then do they let them see the space opera stuff so they can complete their self-delusion. That is, unless they're the cynical type who was only pretending the whole time, who is willing to lie about having psychic powers and... Well, let's just say they might become someone rather like L. Ron Hubbard
Re:Let's test it out.... (Score:3, Informative)
What makes you think that? It depends on your jurisdiction, of course, since defamation laws can vary quite a lot, but at least with regard to federal defamation law, opinions can indeed be libelous. Also, merely using a preface like 'my opinion is' is not a magic incantation that is going to protect you no matter what follows it; simply saying that something is an opinion doesn't make it an opinion, and no court is stupid enough to be tricked in that manner.
You should read a very on-point Supreme Court case: Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. [cornell.edu], in which the Court clearly stated that as a matter of First Amendment law, there is no categorical opinion defense.