When “a recent question about a preschool prompted a mother and shop owner to recount a bad business encounter with the school’s director, the husband of the school’s director threatened to sue the board’s moderators for defamation.” As “Mr. [Edward B.] Safran’s threats of a lawsuit continued, the moderators were scared into shutting down the message group’s entire archives this month.” (Mokoto Rich, New York Times, Nov. 13).
Posts Tagged ‘online speech’
“Gripe site” protected as opinion
Continuing a trend toward the protection of “gripe sites” as free speech, a Manhattan judge has ruled that a New Jersey man’s website assailing an auto warranty company did not constitute actionable defamation. Penn Warranty Corp. sued Ronald DiGiovanni over eight allegedly libelous statements posted on his site, including assertions that it is a “blatantly dishonest company” that has been “running scams,” “committing fraud on a grand scale,” and “ripping off its contract holders for quite a while.” The judge granted DiGiovanni’s request for a summary judgment dismissing the action, however, ruling that “the web site, when viewed in its full context, reveals that defendant is a disgruntled consumer and that his statements reflect his personal opinion based upon his personal dealings with plaintiff. They are subjective expressions of consumer dissatisfaction [and] are not actionable because they are defendant’s personal opinion.” (Mark Fass, “Court Finds ‘Gripe Site’ Is Protected Free Speech, Not Defamation”, New York Law Journal, Nov. 1).
“A cult named Sue”
Yes, it’s the Scientologists again (see Apr. 16, 2004; Mar. 25-26, 2002; Mar. 19-20, 2001; May 3, 2000). This time they’re threatening a New Zealand parody site named ScienTOMogy.info, which is thus named in honor of Scientology adherent Tom Cruise (via Matt Welch, Reason “Hit and Run”, Oct. 19, headline and all). More: Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion, Oct. 22.
Unmasking anonybloggers, cont’d
As one who’s filed such suits himself, Ron Coleman at Likelihood of Confusion (Oct. 10) has further observations on the Delaware high court’s recent ruling (see Oct. 7) curbing lawyers’ power to use defamation suits to unmask anonymous bloggers who criticize their clients (via Blawg Review #28).
Suing anonymous bloggers
The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that a defamation plaintiff is not automatically entitled to compel an internet service provider to lay bare the blogger’s identity, absent a showing of sufficient facts supporting the defamation case to defeat a motion for summary judgment. (J.L. Miller, “Del. court protects blogger’s identity”, WIlmington News-Journal, Oct. 6; Francis Pileggi, Oct. 6). Prof. Bainbridge (Oct. 6) calls it “a major win for bloggers and the First Amendment.”
Furniture from FedEx shipping boxes
Its documentation on the Web calls forth a nastygram from FedEx claiming violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (Kristen Philipkoski, “Furniture Causes FedEx Fits”, Wired News, Aug. 11)(via Nobody’s Business).
Kids’ do-not-email registries
New laws that went into effect in Michigan and Utah at the beginning of the month could open up substantial and surprising areas of civil and criminal liability for entities that put out email newsletters, critics say. The laws authorize parents, guardians and others to enroll minors’ email addresses in new do-not-mail registries; after 30 days’ listing, it becomes illegal for anyone to send material unsuitable to minors to such addresses even at the account holder’s request. Among material that has in various contexts been tagged as unsuitable to minors are sites such as Salon.com and discussions of various controversial public issues. (Declan McCullagh, “Why ribaldry could earn you prison time”, News.com, Jun. 27). According to one commentator, an email may be unlawful if it merely contains a link to a third party site (such as a newspaper’s or magazine’s website) which in turn displays advertising for beer, wine, betting or other products and services that are off limits to minors. (Paul Collins, “New Michigan and Utah Child Protection Registry Laws”, spamfo.co.uk, Jun. 29). Already, libertarian feminist author and FoxNews.com commentator Wendy McElroy has suspended publication of her email newsletter, citing fear of liability under the new laws (“Suspension of Emailed Ifeminist Newsletter”, History News Network/Liberty & Power, Jul. 13)(via Tom Palmer). It is contemplated that maintainers of email newsletters that wish to retain the right to discuss or link to liquor/gambling/off-color content will purchase match/purge services on a monthly basis from the registrars of the do-not-mail lists, but such cross-checking will require the payment of fees as well as raising troubling privacy questions. For details of how entrepreneurial Utah law firms have seized on earlier anti-spam legislation to generate mass litigation against legitimate businesses in that state, see my Reason Online article, “You May Already Be a Loser”, Dec. 8, 2003.
S.F.’s move to regulate bloggers
…is now officially dead, reports Bill Quick (May 16)(via Instapundit)(see Apr. 6). The Federal Election Commission, on the other hand, remains a threat, according to Redstate.org (May 20)(also via Instapundit)(see Mar. 17, Mar. 31). More on campaign finance law and free speech: Jonathan Rauch, “McCain-Feingold at Rest”, National Journal/Reason Online, May 9.
Wal-Mart vs. Kevin Brancato
Kevin Brancato, a Ph.D. candidate at George Mason who heads the masthead at the economics blog Truck and Barter, also publishes a weblog entirely devoted to following the fortunes (policy and otherwise) of the Wal-Mart Corporation, by the name of AlwaysLowPrices.net (see our cites to it on Apr. 13, 2004 and Apr. 6, 2005). In contrast to the Wal-Mart-bashing line taken by so many other sites, Brancato frequently, though not invariably, rises to the defense of the company and the efficiencies of its way of doing business. This has done nothing to prevent Wal-Mart’s lawyers from sending him a cease and desist letter ordering him to vacate the name and URL “AlwaysLowPrices”, a phrase which is of course Wal-Mart’s service mark. (T&B, Apr. 5). Kevin Heller at TechLawAdvisor (Apr. 6) doesn’t think he stands much of a chance if Wal-Mart goes to court.
San Francisco to vote on regulating blogging
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will vote April 5 on a proposed campaign finance regulation that would define “electioneering communication” to include weblogs that receive more than 500 hits from San Francisco voters. There would be a disclosure requirement (that must be made in a 14-point typeface) and potential reporting requirements. (via Southern California Law Blog and Personal Democracy Forum).