Site Owner's Responsibility For Comment Slander

[Ambrose]

Site Owner\'s Responsibility For Comment Slander

This is a highly disputed area in the legal arena right now. Do a google search for comment slander and you'll find plenty of articles. I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about the liability and responsbility of a blog author or forum host with regards to comments posted by site users which others consider to be slanderous.

Example: You write a post on your blog or forum, and someone comments that so-and-so is a heretic and a fraud. Another commenter says that the first commenter is a heretic and a fraud.

Then so-and-so and the first commenter both bring charges to your elders saying that as the owner of the blog/forum, you "published" slander against them and you need to make a retraction, apology, and pay restitution for lost book sales and emotional distress.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

An interesting question. I was listening recently to an NPR article about Craigslist.com. It's an online place where people go to buy and sell just about everything.

Apparently, some have found it a useful place to make sure that only people of a certain ethnic background can buy their house when they sell it by advertising as such on the list.

Some ACLU users have sued Craigslist.com for the violations of some law (I think it's the Equal Housing Opportunity Act but I might be wrong). Whatever it's called, the law makes it illegal for real estate sellers to discriminate against buyers on the basis of race.

Instead of going after the sellers (which is nigh impossble for them given the millions of users on Craigslist) they are going after the website. Of course, it is also impossible for Craigslist, which only has about 100 employees.

When it comes to litigation, I don't put anything past lawyers...

 

[beej6]

I know some discussion forums have explicitly stated a policy to the effect of "You own your own words." That is, the good folks at the Puritanboard are responsible for the technical aspects of running a forum, but they would *not* be responsible for yours or my postings. It's different from publishing in that there is oversight after the fact of posting one's thoughts but not before.

 

[Kevin]

Good question Chad!

I would tend to think that a forum or a comments section on-line is similar to a converstion among a group of people in a pub.

In no way is the person who started the thread/conversation ( how 'bout them yankees?) resposible for the opinions offered by the person who posts next/is two stools down (the only good yankee is a...) . Heck you don't even have a way to make them stay on topic.

 

[Ambrose]

Originally posted by Kevin
Good question Chad!

I would tend to think that a forum or a comments section on-line is similar to a converstion among a group of people in a pub.

In no way is the person who started the thread/conversation ( how 'bout them yankees?) resposible for the opinions offered by the person who posts next/is two stools down (the only good yankee is a...) . Heck you don't even have a way to make them stay on topic.

One of the legal arguments made is that the site owner is resposnsible if he moderates comments, which differentiates it from a "common carrier" type medium. In other words, the phone company is not liable for slander because they let all customers use the phone lines and don't monitor or moderate. But on the other hand, if you allow some comments but delete others, then it is argued that you bear responsibility for anything construed as slanderous.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess we better stop moderating comments on the Puritanboard then!

 

[VictorBravo]

It is indeed a murky area in practice. A few things to remember: A bare opinion is not defamation. So the statement "X is a heretic", by itself, will not support a cause of action.

But if the statement "X is a heretic" is supported by the statement, "I know he is because he specifically denied the divinity of Jesus Christ at a conference last November", than the person making that statement had better have the facts to prove it. It would be a good idea for the board moderators to challenge the person commenting to either support it factually or withdraw the comment.

If there is no moderation whatsoever, then there is no liability. If there is moderation, the issue then becomes whether the moderators owed a duty to check the factual basis of a defamatory statement and whether the moderators breached that duty. One approach that is favored lately is that if someone notifies the moderator of the allegedly defaming comment and the moderator removes it in a reasonable time, he has met the duty. It's a good idea, then, to report malicious or dematory comments to the moderators promptly.

There are other guidelines too. If one is quoting a previously reported story, then he is most likely considered a conduit and is not liable. But if one has reason to believe the story is false and damaging, then he can't rely on that defense. And then there are the traditional public figure defenses. If the person who claims to be defamed is a "public figure" (meaning he has introduced himself into a public controversy), then he will have to prove malice on the part of the defendant.

By the way, I think the moderators here do a good job in keeping this site clean. Even so, I have to do the lawyer caveat and say that what I write here is not legal advice but just a general comment on the law. As a locally famous radio lawyer routinely says: "My liability for your mistake is equal to the price paid for the advice.":bigsmile:

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Originally posted by victorbravo
One approach that is favored lately is that if someone notifies the moderator of the allegedly defaming comment and the moderator removes it in a reasonable time, he has met the duty. It's a good idea, then, to report malicious or dematory comments to the moderators promptly.

Maybe a rule or notice should be added to the sign up page, FAQ and Board Rules to the effect that members should report malicious or dematory comments to the moderators immediately?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That's a good idea.

 

[Kevin]

How would you define it (malicious & defaming coments) ?

It seems to me to be an 'eye of the beholder' issue most of the time.

 

[VictorBravo]

Originally posted by Kevin
How would you define it (malicious & defaming coments) ?

It seems to me to be an 'eye of the beholder' issue most of the time.

Kevin, although it can get picky, the general rule is if you are stating facts that may or may not be true with an intent to harm, it is malicious. The malice element only applies if the target is a public figure.

Some examples, imagine one of my "friends" says:

"Vic is an idiot." It might be malicious, but it is not defamation because there are no underlying facts. It's an opinion.

"Vic eats puppies for fun." Malicious and alleging facts, but still probably not actionable because reasonable people would consider it hyperbole.

"No, I mean it, I saw Vic eating puppies last night while drinking opium and dancing to the moon." Malicious, not intended to be hyperbole, not true. Actionable? Still may not be if I haven't suffered any damage.

Finally: "Vic is dishonest in everthing he does. He lied to a court three times last week." This one is actionable per se because the damages are presumed (I'm a lawyer and it would hurt my business reputation).

All of this applies to actionable defamation. I think the way the moderators work on this board reflects a higher standard. They are doing a good job of maintaining the integrity of the board, and in so doing, are fulfilling their duty to avoid publication of defamatory comments.

 

[py3ak]

I didn't know you ate puppies, Vic. Would you care to invite Zack over some time?

[Edited on 10-4-2006 by py3ak]

 

[VictorBravo]

Ruben, I didn't know Zack was a cannibal.

 

[py3ak]

Vic, there are no limits to his depravity. I was actually thinking that you could put a stop to it, however.