Internet providers face risk of libel

[BJCooperIT]

See:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/13/MNGPU30H811.DTL

Should ISPs be responsible for editing messages if someone reports them to be libelous? Whose word do they take, the author's or the "victim's"?

While this case is specifically about spreading the statements to news agencies, its impact is far wider. Out of curiosity I recently did a search on

http://www.ask.com

for my username here at Tek-Tips. To my surprise there were many pages of hits. These were links to threads here at Tek-Tips. Interestingly, not all of them were threads in which I had posted - apparently my username had been on the Top Expert list at the time. What if that thread contained a perceived insult to someone? "The answer provided by XXX is incorrect...".

Who was it was that submitted the thread's link to

http://www.ask.com

and thus propagated the "libel"?

Would all of the usernames listed in the thread be suspect?

Would I continue to actively to participate at TT?

This issue could change message boards as we know them. Is there a responsibility on the ISPs part to have someone whose sole function is to read messages and edit out any post that might be deemed offensive? Will it expand to include sites like Tek-Tips who will need to read every post to insure they do not get sued?

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[jrbarnett]

Although this document relates purely to internet postings, if it were to be used elsewhere, in order to maintain the status quo between electronic and manual systems, the following services would also have to be monitored:
* The postal service
* Book/magazine/newspaper publishers
* Telephone services, including mobile networks.

This is a phenomenal undertaking and I wouldn't like to be on the advisory panel of those who have to implement a solution to satisfy the legal requirements on any sort of large scale.

Out of curiosity I tried the same thing as BJCooperIT - searching for my tek-tips username, but with google, and got the top 4 hits were related; 2 were tek-tips postings and 2 were links on my personal web site.

John

 

[sleipnir214]

I think this ruling, if allowed to stand, will be interpreted in the strictest sense -- that an entity who intentionally spreads lies will be held responsible for the spread of those lies. No ISP in this case has been considered responsible.

The interesting opinion to me is the opinion of the USF law professor who seems to want to open a floodgate of defamation lawsuits against ISPs. But then, that lawyer who advocates for fewer lawsuits is a rare thing.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[lullysing]

Man, i work abusemail and i would not even touch this kinda thing with a ten foot pole. Personally, i don't think the ISP has the resonsability to change it, the end user has to if summoned to do so.

To go thru the ISP to silence opposition is like pulling a scientology on people, and personally i think that's despicable.


_____________________________
when someone asks for your username and password, and much *clickely clickely* is happening in the background, know enough that you should be worried.

 

[mattKnight]

I am told that in the UK, abuse is "in the eye of the beholder" That is the "victim" does not have to prove abuse, it is up to the "abuser" to prove innocence! So it is easy to fall foul of someone with a sensitive disposition.

Is this true? Do ISPs take action in these cases to prevent costly lawsuits?

Take Care

Matt
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

 

[jsteph]

<<in a 3-0 ruling said that if an ISP knew, or had reason to know>>

That is the key point in the ruling--IF AOL was notified by the 'victim' that he felt it was libelous, then I can see that AOL might be under some obligation to remove the post--but not be guilty of anthing--at that point. AFTER such notification (in writing or email, something provable) then this is where it sounds like that the case is actionable.

Here at TT, a Red-Flag is the notification, (for many reasons, libel included) that a post should be considered for removal.
--jsteph

 

[CajunCenturion]

The interesting aspect of this, is that the ISP is not one who has presented the opinion, but rather can be considered as the one who maintains the medium upon which the opinion has been expressed.

It would seem that if the ISP were to have a disclaimer along the lines of &quot;The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of the ISP.&quot; would be all that is required. Such disclaimers to exist in other mediums (ie, the opinions page of a newspaper, or of a TV station, or radio talk shows, etc), and I think these have withstood legal challenges. I, at this point, don't see why this is not any different from those.

As such, I think it's quite wrong to expect AOL, or any of the ISP, or medium provided to responsible for censorship.

There may be more to this than is being presented in the article, or the appelate judges are not fully aware of the interplay between the various parties, and how the technology is used nor being applied. Probably the latter.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Tarwn]

So does this mean the next time somone insults me over the phone I can sue bell, I mean clearly they would be at fault...

_{01000111 01101111 01110100 00100000 01000011 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100101 01100101 00111111}
The never-completed website:

http://www.tiernok.com/

 

[Georgi1chuikov]

no, that means then next time someone insults you over the phone you can sue Bell because THEY HAVE THE DEEPEST POCKETS. when you think of suing someone the bottom line is not victim/abuser, it is how much money the lawyer that parlayed this into a case can earn for themselves. This may not be the official &quot;leqalese&quot; needed to back any decision up, but it is surley the most common reasoning I have seen.

 

[Onyxpurr]

Almost sounds like Napster <grin>

It'd be like suing Ford for someone killed because of a drunk driver.

Or suing Smith & Wesson because they made th gun that a murderer used.

 

[jsteph]

...or suing tobacco companies because someone died from smoking their cigarettes...
--jsteph

 

[CajunCenturion]

There are several other issues with the tobacco companies besides being a disinterested service provider. But this is neither the time nor the place.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Onyxpurr]

Granted this country is by far much better than some others. I do appreciate my freedoms and rights here.

But what happened to free speech, right to assemble, freedom of religion? It's seems lately that either you can't do it unless it's okayed by the govt, you keep it in your own home, or run the risk of being sued.

We're such a scared nation. I mean, what happened to logic people?!?! YOU DON'T BEAT UP THE MESSENGER!!! And you don't kick the dog!

(Whew, okay, I'm okay, I'll get off my soapbox now, thank you very much)

 

[sleipnir214]

Onyxpurr:

You have to keep in mind that nowhere on the planet does free speech give one the right to say absolutely anything without consequences.

In most places, the U.S. included, if you meet at least one of the following criteria:[ul][li] You knowingling promulgate a lie[/li][li]You spoke the statement with the intent to harm[/li][/ul](some places require you to meet both) then you can be held responsible for your speech.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[kiddpete]

Onyxpurr said:

'It'd be like ...

... suing Smith & Wesson because they made th gun that a murderer used.'

Isn't that what is being done in several places?

 

[BJCooperIT]

Part of the question that bothers me is the use of the internet to propagate libel.

Hypothetical situation:
Suppose I buy a car. Over the next few months the car has a host of problems that the dealership refuses to correct. I am furious. I post on a message board on say, Yahoo, that this is the worst dealership ever, don't buy from them, and call the salesman a crook. I have might have crossed the magic &quot;slander&quot; line. Is Yahoo responsible? That answer is murky.

Now someone submits the link to my post to multiple search engines. They are guilty of distributing the post. Where does it end?

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[sleipnir214]

Here's a better-written article on the case in question:

http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case331.cfm

The first paragraph seems to summarize the courts decision in a way that makes perfect sense to me: &quot;Rejecting Zeran v. America Online, (4th Cir. 1997) and its progeny, an intermediate California Appellate court holds that the Communications Decency Act (&quot;CDA&quot does not immunize a user of interactive computer services from a defamation claim arising out of her republication of statements authored by a third party, when the user knew or had reason to know of the falsity of those statements.&quot;

It sounds to me like the lower court declared that since Ms. Rosenthal got her information from someone else rather than inventing it on her own, she's an ISP and thus immune to libel under the CDA.

And now the state appellate court has stated that she's not an ISP, and because she is not an ISP, can be held responsible for her publication of information she had been told was false.

Now, what gunshot victim is suing Smith & Wesson over his injuries?

Who is suing any ISP in this case?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[BJCooperIT]

In the article I found the first paragraph is:
&quot;A state appellate court in San Francisco has sent shock waves through cyberspace by ruling that in some instances, Internet service providers like America Online and Yahoo can be held legally responsible for an online smear by someone using their service. &quot;

sleipnir214,
You are right. The article you provided is more concise regarding the case at hand. One of the most telling statements is:
&quot;According to the Appellate Court, under the common law, those who publicize another's libel may be treated as primary publishers, conduits or distributors. &quot;

Guilt by association?

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000

 

[sleipnir214]

What guilt by association?


Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[rosieb]

As I read it the key statement is:

According to the Appellate Court, under the common law, those who publicize another's libel may be treated as primary publishers, conduits or distributors. &quot;Because they cooperate actively in the publication, primary publishers … are generally held to a strict standard of liability comparable to that of authors. Conduits, which lack the ability to screen and control defamatory speech … are ordinarily immune from liability. … Distributors (sometimes known as 'secondary publishers') … are subject to an intermediate standard of responsibility and may only be held liable as publishers if they know or have reason to know of the defamatory nature of matter they disseminate.&quot;

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that if an organisation knows or has reason to know of the defamatory nature of matter they disseminate they should be held, at least, partially responsible.