Who is "public", libel, and potential censorship on Boards.

[denquixote]

In Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. the U.S. Supreme Court held:

Absent clear evidence of general fame or notoriety in the community and pervasive involvement in ordering the affairs of society, an individual should not be deemed a public figure for all aspects of his life. Rather, the public figure question should be determined by reference to the individual’s participation in the particular controversy giving rise to the defamation.

The Court also stated: … A private figure is one who … has not voluntarily thrust himself in the public eye.

[Gfactor]

@DSeid

G-factor, like I said, IANAL, so could you summarize the upshot for us some vivavis internet boards.

It’s a big mess.

To me it makes sense that a MB would be in the position of publishing letter to the editor. The authors are not employees, the newspaper is not, I don’t think, responsible for any libel of the writer, is it? But my read of those links seem to suggest that the newspaper would be. Yes? No?

Both.

Question:

The newspaper has received a letter to the editor accusing a local business of bigotry. If the newspaper prints the letter will it be open to a libel suit?

Answer:

Yes. As the re-publisher of the libel the newspaper is open to litigation the same way it would be if the newspaper made the statement in a news article. In this circumstance the parties are probably private individuals, as opposed to public officials or public figures, and therefore the plaintiff would only have to prove the newspaper was negligent in publishing. For example, not investigating the facts may be sufficient for a jury to find negligence.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/supreme/1977/&invol=1977ok163 (newapapers liability for letter to editor about a public figure was a question for jury because defendant failed to establish that there was no issue on question of actual malice).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ok&vol=/appeals/1983/&invol=1983okcivapp54 (quoting with approval a case that found no difference between letter to the editor and newspaper produced content).

But see, http://www.gannett.com/go/newswatch/2005/may/nw0513-3.htm (newspaper not liable).

It’s additionally complicated because there is a statute that protects common carriers from some liability under certain circumstances. Most courts that have addressed the issue have held that it offers immunity. If that’s true, some message boards might have better protection from liability than a newspaper.

And how does this apply to things like accusations of conspiracy like those I mentioned?

Is the allegation that the AAP and the CDC are part of an international conspiracy with Pharma to cover-up vaccine toxicity “libel”?

Government agencies generally cannot sue for defamation.

Communications and Internet Law Center

Beyond that, it’s a bit complicated.

A lot may well depend on the jurisdiction in question (the courts of different states ore even different countries might adjudicate a dispute involving statements made on websites). And again, we aren’t just talking about defamation. I realize that’s all you are asking about, but while similar First Amendment limitations apply, there are other speech-based torts out there.

[foresam]

Upon learning that a discussion was taking place here that involved a subject on which I have blogged over 100 posts, I came in to shed some more light on the topic. This is extremely high stakes (physically and mentally, not financially) to my son and millions of others just like him. When the fraud that I discuss at my hating autism site has a net effect of causing harm to my son and other children, it’s in their best interest for those of us who have studied that fraud at length to expose it.
One person’s name was used while many others could have followed. Exposing the fraud of one person exposes the fraud of a movement and vice versa. It’s unfortunate that your site was invaded by myself and those who followed to defend their position that I have no qualms whatsoever in labelling fraudulent. Not knowing the whole story, sides were chosen by moderator(s). A lawyer’s interference should be a tip off that someone thinks they have something to lose. A lawyer is not looking to find truth.
I think you’d be doing the right thing by banning all discussion on the person I named. If not, it would only be fair to allow ALL discussion so that ALL pertinent information is presented so that this small corner of society becomes one more segment that understands the situation completely. Doing this would set you up for hundreds of pages of obfuscatory dialogue that I would have to counter with the truth.

[tomndebb]

foresam, go back and read my explicit comments and instruction in post #16. You are off topic for this thread.

Do not do this again.

All complaints or suggestions regarding board rules may be posted in The BBQ Pit

. . . the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB.

[ /Moderating ]

[DSeid]

Thank you Gfactor. I guess this is really more of a GQ than a GD afterall.

And … oy.