Bit of backstory: A local city councilman was caught drunk driving. People in his party say he was set up and people not in his party say not only was he drunk driving but so was another councilman on another day (both in the same party of course).
During his trial, this councilman talked about how the local newspaper’s message board was used to libel him. He said that the members of his opposing party were the ones doing it and yeah, frankly, they did get a little out of hand with the accusations. Now the newspaper has shut the board down because they are worried about a libel suit and the councilman is saying that this is ‘too little too late.’
Does he have a case? Is the newspaper responsible for libel when it was the users of its message board doing the libelling?
The first amendment doesn’t protect libel. However, as a public figure, the councilman would have to prove that the newspaper knowingly published untrue statements that were likely to defame the councilman. It’s arguable whether the newspaper even “published” the statements, given that they are automatically entered on a message board; the message board’s content is not created or controlled by the newspaper. However, I believe it’s true that the publisher of a libel is equally liable with the creator of the libel.
It certainly is in the UK. Godfrey vs Demon Internet established a precedent in Britain (well, England) that ISPs can be held liable for message board and newsgroup postings under certain conditions.
Godfrey, however, was not a simple case of libel. It involved a spoofed address that made it appear that Godfrey was the author of a nasty posting. (Sort of a reverse sock-puppet.) Demon was sued when Godfrey provided evidence to Demon that he was not the author and Demon did not bother to remove the offending post.
I suspect that the exact nature of the relationship between libel and newsgroups has yet to be worked out in law. Message Boards are probably more at risk for action, since there is a presumption of moderating and direct ownership (of the software to accept and display the messages), as opposed to newsgroups where there is no moderating and the only thing provided is a host computer to route the e-mails.
Since the law is not yet clear on the issue, corporations that may be sued are more leery of incurring such lawsuits. (Even if they win, the suits are expensive.) So the paper’s decision to fold the messafe board is understandable–just as the SDMB discourages discussion of unlawful activities to avoid future costly entanglements.
Crusoe there are also differences in libel and slander laws in the U.S. and the U.K.
In the U.S., the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the allegations are false.
In the U.K., the onus is on the defendant to prove the allegations are true.
So you’ll see differences in the way libel cases are handled. In part, the difference in the U.S. it’s due to balancing First Amendment rights with the rights of an individual to protect himself from defamation of character. As Nametag pointed out, libel is not protect by the First Amendment, but defamation laws have to be set up so as not to be in conflict with it either.
Thanks, tomndebb, it’s been a while since I’d looked at that one - obviously I forgot some rather important parts of it. Apologies for misleading anyone.
Cheers for the information, Eats_Crayons. I knew there were substantial differences, but had never seen an easily digestible explanation of what they were.
Im in Claifornia & one time I got a call once from a local non-american business guy who saw someone write something about him on my message board that I knew was true. But he got all huffy & puffy & threatened to sue me for $1M. So, I took it off & I wrote a letter to him that sounded like an apology, but wasn’t really & that was that. In short, they certainly can threaten to sue. Whether they can sue or not, you’d have to ask Bricker.
Of course they can sue. The question is “Can they win?” With facts like these, the answer is usually “No.” However, sometimes they can win, and sometimes they can make your life hell without bringing the case to trial.
The Jim Ellis VolksWagen dealership sued over a “libelous” post on a VW owner message board (causing the thread to go forever as the dealer was submitted to world-wide ridicule on the same thread after the defendant mentioned the suit in a later post).* Unfortunately, my memory is that either the dealership got a brain or VWoA leaned on the dealership to stop stirring up the bad press and I believe there was an out-of-court settlement, so it did not lead to a clear declaration of U.S. principles.
*We featured commentary and links to the other MB’s thread in the Pit, at the time, but that is not pertinent to this thread.
On second thought, the Jim Ellis case would not have been pertinent to the OP in any event. The dealer went after the poster, but, as far as I know, left the message board owner (who may have been VW) alone.
and similar disclaimers appear on most/all other message boards I’ve seen or frequent. If the newspaper in question asserts ownership/copyright over the material in question then it is also assuming responsibility for the contect. Just as the paper couldn’t make the argument that it isn’t responsible for publishing a libelous letter to the editor, it can’t make the argument that it’s not responsible for legal violations on its message board, especially if the newspaper has been notified of the content and takes no action.
That was sort of my thought although since no one really knows of an actual case like this, the councilman’s suit, if he goes through with it, could be setting a precedent and if he wins, that precedent will not be good for any message board.
Well, I would think that the newspaper might just stop asserting copyright and let things fall where they may. There’s a question: can a copyright claim, once made, be renounced on the action of the asserted copyright holder? The more likely solution, also frequently raised on this board, is that the newspaper will simply shut down the boards to avoid any possibility of liability.
Copyright and libel are two different things, and I doubt the copyright notice would have any bearing on libel.
The councilman is a public figure and thus he has to go to great lengths to prove libel in the U.S. Not only does he have to show the allegations were false, but he has to indicate that the publisher knew they were false and published them anyway.
The newspaper and the poster could probably both be held liable, but it would be very difficult for the councilman to prove it. Even so, the threat of a lawsuit tends to make people shy away, and the newspaper lawyers probably advised them to remove the posts or the board.
The case refers to someone who posted on an AOL message board that an individual was selling offensive T-shirts about the OKC bombing. The person in question wasn’t, and he complained to AOL. AOL deleted the postings, but wouldn’t run a retraction.
Basically, the court said that it was too heavy a burden to place on ISPs to be responsible for monitoring all content they host for possible libel.
But before anyone tries to complain about the Chicago Reader stifling anything on the SDMB, let me just remind everyone that although the courts would likely absolve the Reader in any lawsuit, the Reader would have to spend money on going to court in the first place. Lawsuits you win still cost money.
Do common carrier theories apply here at all? I seem to recall some rumblings to that effect a while ago, and it would pretty well clear up most issues here.
In a nutshell, the common carrier doctrine states that if a carrier, be it a bus line or an ISP or a message board service, doesn’t discriminate against anyone able to pay for its service, it cannot be held accountable for illegal actions that make use of its services. For example, Ma Bell couldn’t be held accountable for Capone’s racketeering-related phone calls, and Greyhound can’t be liable for an escaped felon who buys a bus pass.
Maybe it’s moot here, as we not only don’t charge fees, but exercise editorial control over the content of posts here (in the form of editing, deletion, and bannings). But I can see a place like Slashdot, which is largely unregulated and pretty much provides a place for anything that can get by its automated filters (simple scripts that compare the punctuation/text ratios of incoming posts to `normal’ ratios).