You're In The Agora
Welcome to the Net's best new source for commentary on current events, culture, faith, science and much more.
Faith
Confessing Evangelical Evangelical Outpost He Lives Mere Comments Mirror of Justice Religion Clause Three Hierarchies Science Dispatches from the Culture Wars In the Pipeline New Scientist Tierney Lab Liberty A Constrained Vision Asymmetrical Information Becker-Posner Blog Hit & Run Instapundit Positive Liberty The Agitator Volokh Conspiracy Economics Café Hayek EconLog Environmental Economics Freakonomics Free Exchange Greg Mankiw J. Bradfor DeLong Marginal Revolution The Right Andrew Sullivan Best of the Web Eunomia Hugh Hewitt Michelle Malkin Power Line The American Scene The Corner The Left After the Future Ezra Klein Matthew Yglesias Political Animal Talking Points Memo Errata Daniel Drezner Democracy in America Dilbert Blog Lilek's Bleat Overcoming Bias The Sartorialist Hoosiers Daily Contentions Indiana Barrister Masson's Blog Matthew Stevenson |
|
« Conservative Hypocrisy in the U.S. Senate | Main | The Show Mustn't Go On » February 02, 2005Bloggers take heartIn a state court ruling that strengthens free speech online, NJ Appellate Judge Joseph Lisa ruled that the operator of a Web site cannot be sued for "vile and derogatory" comments posted anonymously by others. While some of the comments were serious enough that a newspaper publishing them could be sued, the court found that the website was protected by the "broad immunity" Congress granted to website operators in 1996 in an effort "to maintain the robust nature of Internet communications." Click here to read the ruling in pdf format. Here's an AP report, an article by Declan McCullagh of c|net News.Com, and an article in The Newark Star-Ledger. Remember that this is only a state appeals court. Nevertheless, the legal arguments and persuasive authority of the case will be helpful to other site operators. Posted by Joshua Claybourn at February 2, 2005 01:27 PM CommentsI would hate to see a broadly-based immunity, without some serious conditions. It seems to me that if a website, such as a blog or forum, is heavily monitored or facilitated, that the operator should bear some responsibility if: 1) the website owner knows or has reason to believe that material posted is libelous, and 2) refuses reasonable requests to delete the libelous material. So, if someone makes a comment that "John" or "Jane" is a child molester and the operator knows or has reason to believe the claim to be false AND refuses reasonable requests from "John" or "Jane" to remove the comments, then I'm not sure immunity is a good idea. If absolute immunity becomes the course, expect everyone's reputation to be challenged online in ways far beyond what is already happening. I don't have time to read the case right now, so maybe I'll find I've commented prematurely. Posted by: Joel Thomas at February 2, 2005 02:44 PM | permalink |
|
---- ADVERTISEMENTS ----
|