PDA

View Full Version : Issues of Liability for Libel, Slander and Publication of Private Facts and the Net.



Socrtease
12-12-2013, 07:24 PM
FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.

slander

n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages.

Publication of Private Facts

In most states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. For example, writing about a person's HIV status, sexual orientation, or financial troubles could lead to liability for publication of private facts.

All of these things are legally actionable. The first two I am sure most of you are familiar with, but many people do not know that the publication of a private fact in a public forum is also legally actionable and unlike the other two truth is not a defense. If you make a statement that falls into one of these categories on a website YOU, the person who generated the CONTENT can be sued in a court of law. What court is up to legal arguments which bring about more legal fees. With internet cases, some courts have relied on long established definitions of personal jurisdiction requiring that the person committing the act have purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum state. Others have said that in making statements directed at a person makes you subject to that jurisdiction. So, If someone in Maine libels someone in Southern California they MIGHT find themselves having to travel to California for hearings and trials, if California finds they have personal jurisdiction.

WEBSITE LIABILITY FOR THIRD PARTY GENERATED CONDUCT

The Communications Decency Act provides protection against liability for torts (including libel, slander and other forms of defamation) for website operators for third-party content posted on their site. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides protection against copyright infringement claims for the user-generated content, if the site owner observes certain "safe harbor" provisions set out by the law. The Communications Decency Act has been very broadly applied to protect the operator of a website from liability for the content of the postings of third parties. Only recently have courts begun to chip away at those protections, finding liability in cases where it appeared that the website operator in effect asked for the offending content – as in a case where the owner of a roommate-finder site gave users a questionnaire that specifically prompted them to indicate a racial preference for a roommate – something which offends the Fair Housing Act. Absent such a specific prompt for offending information, the protections afforded by this statute still appear quite broad. (Thanks to http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/ for a succinct explanation of this area of the law).

So what does this all mean? It means that if you are a nasty mean individual who wants to post falsehoods about people or even post the truth when there was no public interest in what you posted, you can get your ass sued. Posting about someone's financial hardships or specific health problems are most often found to be violations per se and all that happens after that is getting out the adding machine and determining a fgure.

It also means that if someone offends you on a website, you cannot, with some very narrowly tailored exceptions, sue the owner of the website for bullshit (the preceding was a legal term of art) someone else generated.

/MSG/
12-12-2013, 08:40 PM
Sticky for posterity.

Damocles
12-12-2013, 10:08 PM
Basically, be careful what you say... I have warned you that you are responsible for your posts. I have even taken some action to warn and to change the activity of some people who may be running foul of this. You can be sued for what you say here.

BRUTALITOPS
12-13-2013, 04:07 AM
It also means that if someone offends you on a website, you cannot, with some very narrowly tailored exceptions, sue the owner of the website for bullshit (the preceding was a legal term of art) someone else generated.


most important part :p

JPP has counsel.