05.09.08
Blogs and Comments - an addition
There has been a lot of talk about Blogs, comments and posting rules on the Montana Blog-o-sphere lately. Without going into a complete history of the various discussions, I will simply supply some links and go from there.
Craig, over at MTpolitics posted a letter from Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg discussing the Blogger Protection Act of 2008. While I will not go into my take on this piece of legislation here, it is a must read if you are a Montana Blogger - regardless of how you feel about Congressman Rehberg.
Following that post, Craig also posted a link to a podcast done by Jeff Mangan and Gregg Smith discussing various issues pertaining to Blogs, libal and comments. It is very informative and touches on a number of issues facing those that choose to Blog - especially in the political arena.
Wulfgar, over at A Chicken is Not Pillage! posted his “rules” again yesterday, and he brings up some very important points that anyone commenting on Blogs should be aware of - First and Foremost is that the blog you are commenting on is the private property of the Blogger and you - as a commentor have NO rights to it.
All of these posts are important and should be read by anyone reading or writing to blogs. There is one area, though, that I would like to address because of the confusion expressed in the various discussions about blogs and comments.
Bloggers cannot be hit with libel suits on the basis of anonymous postings on their Web sites
Read that line again, so that it sinks in. I cannot be sued for Libel based on the comments made to this site. Next time you are tempted to write a blog owner and threaten them with suits based on someone’s comments to their site, STOP. You simply have no leg to stand on.
In a decision made in 2006, US District Judge Dalzell answered that question. In his decision of the case DiMeo v. Max, he ruled that bloggers cannot be sued for libel based on anonymous postings on thier site. You can, of course, attempt to sue the site owner for his own comments or a commentor based on thier comments, but you can’t sue the owner of a blog for someone else’s comments.
Blogs are recognised as valid “publications” and as such, enjoy a great deal of state and federal protection under the law. Instead of throwing threats of libel (or worse - slander) suits back and forth, spend some time actually learning about the rules that do apply to blogs and internet publications. It will help you understand why blog owners tend to laugh at you when you do threaten them…
Moorcat
Addendum - Blogs and Elected Officials
I always find it amusing when an elected official stands up and publicly denounces blogs as “invalid” or “unofficial”. Not only does it show thier complete ignorance of both the law and fact, it is also usually in responce to the blog owner publishing something they disagree with - making thier statement petty as well as ignorant. Dillon Mayor Malesich has - on many occations - stated in no uncertain terms that he views Pragmatic Revolt as an “invalid” publication. It puts him in an interesting position (as well as showing his pettiness and ignorance). He can’t sue me for libel - not that I have ever given him the oppurtunity - because you can only claim libel against a publication. He can’t sue me for slander because the law recognises blogs as valid publications - again, not that I have ever given him the oppurtunity. Denny Rehberg was smart enough to recognise the ignorance he was displaying against blogs in the last election cycle and has since educated himself on what a blog or internet publication is. It is too bad that the Dillon Mayor wasn’t as smart….