Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!pyramid!decwrl!sun!chuq From: chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: net.news,net.legal Subject: Re: Libel? Message-ID: <3411@sun.uucp> Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 00:28:38 EST Article-I.D.: sun.3411 Posted: Thu Mar 27 00:28:38 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 05:08:17 EST Organization: Third Person, Omniscient Lines: 89 Xref: watmath net.news:4710 net.legal:3183 > I would like to ask the legal experts if the following would be grounds > for libel/slander or the like out in the real world. (I am aware that > electronic bulletin boards are questionable as evidence.) Well, not to ruin a good argument, but I happen to have some facts and referneces on libel sitting around (just happened to pick them up as some background reading for my work on OtherRealms). Unless other stated, all of these are references fro "The Elements of Editing: A modern Guide for editors and Journalists" which has a large sections on libel for the various print media. Defamation: An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in comtempt, or lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Libel: Published material -- text, headlines, photos, drawings, or any other representation -- meeting three conditions: (1) the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; (2) the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and (3) the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party. Slander: Spoken, as opposed to written, defamation. Defenses Truth: If truth of the defamatory material can be proved, it is not defamatory. Consent: If proof can be given that permission to publish the material was given, it is not defamatory. Fair Comment and Criticism (Opinion): so as not to inhibit critical, opinionated discourse on matters of public interest, the courts have protected what is called "fair comment and criticism". Criteria: The statement must be an evaluation, appraisal, opinon, and not a statement of fact. The facts on which the opinion was based must be stated. The opinion must be stated without malice (i.e. ill will) and it must not ascribe to sordid or corrupt motives. Right to Privacy (This is long and complicated, I'm now paraphrasing): People have the right not to have their private lives dragged through the mud in public. There are mitigating factors, the most important being the concept of a public figure -- someone who has put himself before the public must show actual malice (intent to cause slander) -- in other words, if you stand up in front of a crowd of people, you're asking for the tomatoes, but you're protected from the rocks. == Analysis == As far as the privacy issue goes, it is my feeling that anyone who spends any time posting to a net would qualify as a public figure IN THAT GROUP. Therefore, this is not a valid protection as long as the subject doesn't wander into character assasination. My opinion based on these definitions and a little common sense says that the statements are not libelous. It looks to me as if rosen and wiener are engaged in some childish namecalling, nothing more -- baseball bats at dawn is a better place to settle this than court of law. From looking at the articles excerpts (which are terribly one-sided) and glancing through the discussion shows me that Wiener has made the same sorts of comments to Rosen as well -- if they are libelous on one end, they are libelous on both. To me, they simply sound like immature ramblings, but that is a personal opinion... Frankly, as far as I know, there are NO PRECEDENTS for an electronic network like USENET. The closest cousin would probably be the newspaper, and while I think that works as a good first approximation, there are wrinkles in the electronic format that would give most judges grey hairs. Now, the above is the opinion of a lay person with an interest in the subject -- I am not trained in law. Based on my researches this looks to be reasonable -- which means that it may not have anything to do with the reality of court rulings. I'd appreciated intelligent comment from better trained people on this (keep uninformed emotionalism to yourself, please) as it affects some of the stuff I'm doing as well. Sorry to dampen a good argument -- I should know better than than to use facts. chuq -- :From catacombs of a past participle: Chuq Von Rospach chuqi%plaid@sun.ARPA FidoNet: 125/84 CompuServe: 73317,635 {decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq I used to really worry about splitting my infinitives until I realized that most people had never heard of them.