Blogger beware: Postings can lead to lawsuits

[savalez]

Source: LA Times

The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

"It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet," said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.

Although bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blogger-suits-20100823,0,5604043.story?track=rss

---

I found this to be very interesting story. It not only affects bloggers but those who leave comments as well.

[Pavulon]

1. SSL Proxy.

may be worth the trouble. You can add defamation insurance to your policy for nothing (75 a year), I do.

[Radical Activist]

2. It happens.

[onehandle]

3. Karl Rove molests sheep.

Come and get me.

[jgraz]

6. That's defamatory to sheep.

[onehandle]

10. That's where I expect the lawsuit to come from.

I wouldn't want anyone to know that Karl Rove touched my tender sheep privates.

[jgraz]

11. Be careful you don't get fleeced.

[onehandle]

12. I'll get a good bah-rrister. nt

[cosmicone]

22. You're just pulling the wool over your eyes .. n/t

[Javaman]

25. Ewe think you're so funny. nt

[dkf]

4. Why do we think we have free speech again?

It's a joke.

[depakid]

5. Don't lie and defame people and you won't have a problem

America's trouble is just the opposite- it has far too few accountability mechanisms in place- which has left its 10's of millions of its citizens unable to distinguish basic objective facts from outright falsehoods (or opinion).

[jgraz]

8. That works until BP sues you for saying they're responsible for the oil in the Gulf.

Say they claim they only spilled 8,000 barrels in the Gulf. You put up a post calling bullshit. They sue you. What's your next move?

[depakid]

9. SLAPP suits have been a problem no doubt

but truth is an absolute defense (falsehood + scienter has to be affirmatively proven in America) -and malicious prosecution and abuse of process are torts in their own right that could make a person quite wealthy under those circumstances.

Also: saying BP is responsible is an opinion. Claiming that they spilled more than 8,000 barrels isn't defamatory.

[Milo_Bloom]

15. If you assign a number to the spill amount, that would get into the fact zone...

The worse part is the cost of defending suits like this. Trying to file an abuse of process suit would be very difficult, especially if there is ANY triable fact.

If BP started suing people who made POTENTIALLY defamatory comments about it, they would likely gather tons of settlements and not have much problems fending off lawsuits.

DirectTV went on a campaign some time ago suing EVERYONE who purchased a piece of equiptment that COULD be used to descramble their access cards. This same equipment could be used to program security access cards. A friend of mine, who owns a networking company, get sued by them and offered to show them exactly how he used the device to program security access cards for smart homes and high end networking. The message was simple... tell us in court. Cost of a lawyer $5,000. Cost of settlement offered $2,500. Since he barely had the $2500, he went the settlement option.

[depakid]

16. It's not a defamatory fact however- and therefore doesn't even state a cause of action

and like I said, with a BP type defamation plaintiff, I see $$$ settlements/judgments on countersuits.

No idea what the DirectTV cases were all about. Probably not all that different than the download cases brought to us by corrupt corporate Dems and Republicans alike.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. Why would they settle on a countersuit?

They have lawyers on retainer and it costs them very little to defend, whereby it would cost the plaintiff TONS to fight.

This was the essence of the DTV action (and yes, the download cases and recent blogger cases are based on that model)... all they needed was ANY triable question of fact to avoid the countersuit. My friend considered countersuing b/c he was in the right, but multiple lawyers told him he should be prepared to spend 20K on that case and likely wouldn't win, b/c it was a triable question as to whether he used the device to unscramble their cards.

There is currently a company in Nevada with a business model based on NOTHING but suing bloggers for quoting newpapers. The company buys up the copyrights for newpaper articles and then sues the bloggers for violating the copyright. This company isn't even folliwing the clear procedures in the DMCA (which require certain notices to be sent before suit can be filed). They just file the lawsuit and then offer to settle for less than the cost of defending the suit. If they get countersued, they have enough to stave off malicious prosecution charges and will just bog you down in discovery and force you to spend all your money on a case you likely won't win.

[Downwinder]

20. That Nevada LLC is going to run into more than they expect.

They have been cherry picking and have some legal problems if someone wants to fight.

edit to add: Meanwhile their actions are costing them subscribers all the way down the chain.

[depakid]

21. Intellectual property cases are different from defamation matters

which revolve around reputation (or in the corporate case, good or bad PR).

McLiable did a LOT of damage to the golden arches- and it happened in Britain with some of the harshest defamation laws in the world.

Most companies don't want that sort of crap on their hands over some gadflies. They save it for bigger fish like Consumer Reports, etc.

[jberryhill]

7. You obviously have never met a victim of defamation

Civil suits are not about government suppression of free speech.

[LisaL]

13. If you have to pay for your speech, then clearly it isn't free.

[jberryhill]

18. So you should be able to damage reputations of private citizens for free?

I seem to remember quite the lynch mob here when a parent posing as a child on MySpace drove another child to suicide.

But you are okay with someone telling all of your coworkers about your venereal diseases, drug use, and child molestation then?

[stray cat]

24. Making rape allegations that are unfounded should be protected?

[Downwinder]

14. There are advantages to having no assets.

I don't recommend it, but sometimes thats the way it goes.

[MsPithy]

17. RUH ROH

[stray cat]

23. Slander has always been a source of law suits - of course online is no different