So anonymous web forums are entitled to free speech, but news sites are not?
The less control Jim exerts, the less liability he has.
I wonder if Jim Robinson thinks that it is a victory for free speech that John Gibson is suing the Huffington post for a doctored video posted on their site?
Jim, you care to chime in on this? It seems I am the only one on this thread that sees John Gibson's proposed lawsuit as a threat to Internet free speech.
I don't believe the 1st Amendment intended slander to be protected.
If I called you an idiot, would that be slander?
If Gibson wins this lawsuit, then every time we say anything that is disputable about a public figure, they could sue us into bankruptcy.
They were kind of serious about slights to one's honor back then (just ask Alexander Hamilton).
Those kinds of insults were not dealt with in court. They were dealt with in an open field.
Besides, this would be a civil issue, not a government prosecution.
The right to sue for slander is a statutory right. The courts act as agents of the Government in resolving Civil Disputes. If the courts allow these kind of lawsuits to be prosecuted, then the courts become the agents of the government in suppressing free speech.
I have pinged Jim Robinson. I'd really appreciate his take on this threatened lawsuit against the Huffington Post.
Shrugging shoulders. Which is probably what huff post will do. We’ve been sued for less (beat the rap). Lawyers got to eat too, y’know. /sarc
In an anonymous web forum the poster would have to be discovered and sued for libel. For the most part, the forum itself is protected by law. A news site controls content and can thus itself be sued.
If I called you an idiot, would that be slander?
I would call that opinion.
They were dealt with in an open field.
Illegally, I might add. It was basically a summary version of a slander suit.
If the courts allow these kind of lawsuits to be prosecuted, then the courts become the agents of the government in suppressing free speech.
What do you mean if they allow? It's already been happening for a long time. Luckily the courts have been pretty good recently, refusing to allow the outing of an anonymous poster based on a simple suit and subpoena. But newspapers have been getting hit with successful libel suits for a while.
Defamation law in this country is pretty good compared to other countries, especially the UK. The defendant has to have known it was false or showed blatant disregard over whether it was true, and over-the-top claims that wouldn't really be believed don't count. Also, the truth is an absolute defense. Beyond that, claims of opinion and fair criticism are strong defenses.
Basically, it's hard to get nailed for libel unless you were purposely trying to hurt a person's reputation by publishing what you knew were lies, and he can prove it.
IMHO Gibson doesn't have much of a chance due to the retraction, but he might be able to make some headway. We know the HP has motive to make him look bad, we know it was false, we know it wasn't presented as opinion or criticism. All we need to do is find out whether they knew it was false when they posted it.
HP could use the "it was so outlandish nobody would believe it" defense if their message boards back that up. Or the jury could decide HP acted with reckless disregard for the truth even if they didn't know it was a fake.
It's not about who has free speech, but who has responsibility for defamatory remarks. In an anonymous forum, the forum itself doesn't have responsibility. A newspaper does because they make the remarks. With free speech comes responsibility, such as not to damage others with lies. Abuse it, and you owe the person you damaged. Same applies to guns. I don't expect the 2nd Amendment to let me shoot innocent people with malice. That's murder.
I wonder if Jim Robinson thinks that it is a victory for free speech that John Gibson is suing the Huffington post for a doctored video posted on their site?
The question is whether they or one of their editors posted it. Just like FR, they don't have responsibility for anonymous posts made in the comments section.
If Gibson wins this lawsuit, then every time we say anything that is disputable about a public figure, they could sue us into bankruptcy.
Anybody can already sue over anything.
If I called you an idiot, would that be slander?
"Idiot" is opinion. Opinion cannot be slander.
Those kinds of insults were not dealt with in court. They were dealt with in an open field.
Would you rather people have to go to the open field over slander?
If the courts allow these kind of lawsuits to be prosecuted, then the courts become the agents of the government in suppressing free speech.
As I said, what you foresee already started happening long ago. On the other side, don't you think you should have recourse if a web site printed lies about you that hurt your career and/or standing in the community? Are people immune from the consequences of their actions just because they are online?
I already told you how much US defamation law protects the speaker more than other countries. It is like that because of the 1st Amendment. In the UK a statement is assumed to be false and defamatory, and at least negligent in publication. You have to prove your innocence. Here the plaintiff has to prove it was false and overcome many other hurdles (opinion, parody, etc.) to win a defamation case, and at least prove reckless disregard for the truth (a pretty high hurdle).
State laws do vary, but they can't go further than what the Supreme Court has said is protected under the 1st Amendment. Larry Flynt of Hustler got it established that parody is protected. Another precedent said statements of opinion are protected. Same for the "reckless disregard" standard.
A 1996 law and two subsequent circuit court rulings established that services such as Free Republic are not responsible for postings of third parties (that would be us) even if FR is notified of the offending material. Specific to FR, the California Supreme Court ruled that sites like FR cannot be sued for our comments.
IMHO Jim has no worries on the defamation front about our posts. I'd of course advise Jim to get advice from a real attorney, but I'm sure he already has.