Bloggers can be nailed for views

NEW DELHI: A 19-year-old blogger's case could forever change the ground rules of blogging. Bloggers may no longer express their uninhibited views on everything under the sun, for the Supreme Court said they may face libel and even prosecution for the blog content.

For the full story, see The Time of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Bloggers-can-be-nailed-for-views/articleshow/4178823.cms

Pakistan Lawyers Blog

A very helpful post appears on the Pakistan Lawyers Blog summarizing both sides of the Axact v SNR case.

http://pklawyers.wordpress.com/2008/11/19/case-study-1/

Colorado Man Charged With Criminal Libel For Comments on Craigslist

From the Citizen Media Law Project blog:

The Loveland Connection is reporting that a Colorado man has been charged with two counts of criminal libel after allegedly posting comments about a former girlfriend and her lawyer on Craigslist.com's "Rants and Raves" section:

The case in Loveland began when a woman approached the Loveland Police Department in December 2007 about multiple postings made about her between November and December 2007. At least one post suggests that she traded sexual acts for legal services from her attorney, according to court records. There's also mention about a child services visit made because of an injury found on her child.

Police obtained search warrants for records from Craigslist.com and other Web sites and identified J.P. Weichel as the suspect, the former boyfriend of the woman, who shares a child with her. In August, detectives confronted Weichel at his workplace, where police said he admitted to the postings because he was "just venting," according to the court file.

The full story and a link to The Loveland Connection is located here: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/colorado-man-charged-criminal-libel-comments-craigslist

Communication Decency Act Shields Wikipedia from Defamation Charge

According to an article by John Timmer, published to arstechnica, a judge has held against a publishing agent who filed a defamation lawsuit charging numerous people and entities, including Wikipedia with defamation. To save the day, the Communication Decency Act was brought into play by a New Jersey judge who "exempted Wikipedia from a defamation trial based on comments posted by its users." The Communication Decency Act contains provisions that protect websites from liability for user-generated content.

Timmer describes the case:

"The case was filed by a literary agent, Barbara Bauer, who apparently ran afoul of a small horde of Internet users . . . it seems likely her problems started when her name appeared on a list of the 20 Worst Literary Agents, hosted on the now-defunct site 20worstagents.com. According to accusations made there, Bauer was on the list because she'd inflated her credentials and never successfully closed a deal; she was also called a 'scam artist' and a 'con.'"

Other blogs picked up this discussion and exaggerated some of the terms used to describe Bauer. " Bauer quotes different blogs as referring to her as 'that lunatic.'" Eventually some of the statements about Bauer circulating on the web showed up in Wikipedia. This is how Wikipedia became a defendant in Bauer's lawsuit.

Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act says: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Judge Jamie S. Perri of New Jersey's Superior Court dismissed all charges against Wikipedia. Timmer's full coverage of the issue can be found here.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-judge-puts-defamation-lawsuit-against-wikipedia-to-the-sword.html

Understanding Your Legal Risks When You Blog or Publish Online

David Ardia of the Citizen's Media Law Project is going to be posting about the legal risks involved in publishing online. He's started out this posting series with an overview of the various legal risks that arise when writing in digital environments such as defamation, or unreasonably invading or exposing another's private matters. I recommend reading through these posts as they are published for anyone who writes blogs or webpages, or participates in social network sites.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/understanding-your-legal-risks-when-you-blog-or-publish-online

Ardia's posts are going to cover the material in the Citizen Media Legal Guide.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide