1
   

Web loggers, website operators can't be held responsible....

 
 
Reply Tue 1 Jul, 2003 12:14 am
Xeni Jardin wrote:
Bloggers Gain Libel Protection


02:00 AM Jun. 30, 2003 PT

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Tuesday that Web loggers, website operators and e-mail list editors can't be held responsible for libel for information they republish, extending crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers.

Online free speech advocates praised the decision as a victory. The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists. One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers cannot be sued as easily.


Bloggers Gain Libel Protection

opinion :: PDF
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,393 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2003 11:46 pm
Wonder if this ruling will be the final nail on the coffin of newsprint media. If I were a publisher of a newsprint newspaper or magazine and could save a bundle on legal fees just by moving my operations exclusively to the internet, I would certainly give it consideration.

If that happens, what does that mean for the folks who can't afford computers and accessibility to the internet? It doesn't leave many options other then the three/four major networks and radio.

Seems to make mass corporate ownership of news media outlets even more important if a group wants to influence the content of the news disseminated to the computer-challenged folks.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 12:34 am
Er, does that decision include normal newsmedia?

!
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 01:07 am
Judging from this line in the quotation, I would say it doesn't sound like it does. That's what sent up red flags to me.

"The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 01:10 am
Hmm - sounds reasonable to me - presumably journalists have a code of ethics and professional newsmedia have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their reporting. I understand accuracy is a defence in the USA?
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 01:20 am
Unless you are the President or CIA.... :::nod::: Smile
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 01:25 am
Question is, can those professional newsmedia and journalists witht he code of ethics avoid any legal ramifications by moving their operations exclusively to the internet. A good example of this is the Drudge Report at www.drudgereport.com. This guy, from what I've observed, operates strictly on the internet. He contributes his own original stories as well as tracks breaking news from around the world from other sources.

If his original stories fall under the libel laws, does his operating exclusively on the internet protect him from such laws?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 02:49 am
That link did not work for me, Butrflynet.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2003 02:55 am
Try this. http://www.drudgereport.com/

or Drudge Report
0 Replies
 
fishness
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2004 08:23 am
Ethics on the Internet - especially with relation to journalism has been a cause for major consideration since the net became such a huge reporting tool - but the question I pose is if the Internet has been detrimental to journalists and their codes of ethics?
Are we any worse off for Matt Drudge's report - esp the Zippergate affair?

It is most definitely cause for thought....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Web loggers, website operators can't be held responsible....
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/14/2021 at 02:39:21