Careful Who You Are Rude To On The Internet

Remove all ads!

Court case breaks new ground.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/oct/22/news.blogging

Disgruntled fans of Sheffield Wednesday who vented their dissatisfaction with the football club's bigwigs in anonymous internet postings may face expensive libel claims after the chairman, chief executive and five directors won a high-court ruling last week forcing the owner of a website to reveal their identity.

The case, featuring the website owlstalk.co.uk, is the second within days to highlight the danger of assuming that the apparent cloak of anonymity gives users of internet forums and chatrooms carte blanche to say whatever they like

Should you be able to say what you like on the internet?

 

why should an internet chat room be any different than something said in public in RL? if your comments are libelous, you should have to accept responsibility for your actions

 

Considering the kind of BS that gets posted on forums, especially forums where sports fans gather, I can't in all honesty say that anything that someone saw there would impinge on someone's reputation.

 

As the club's bigwigs are considered public figures, wouldn't that exempt them from most libel suits? I thought you were given much more leeway when speaking of a public figure. Look at how much comedians make fun of politicians. For example, you couldn't be sued for libel for calling George Bush an idiot.... OK, that's a bad example. If a sports team loses a game, you can't be charged with libel for calling the coach an idiot.

And I don't see how it would be possible for the team's management to prove they were harmed because of the speech either. What, have people stopped showing up at the games? Put a better product on the field and the fans will return.

 

But could you be charged with slander of libel if you said Clinton butchered his 13-year-old twin as a child, or that Gore had 5 extra-marrital children. As far as I know, expressions of opinions, such as "That was stupid, you're stupid." or "This is the worst pasta I've ever tasted." aren't really subject to lawsuits. Slander and libel require that you say something you either know not to be true, or you made no reasonable effort to verify before saying it. At least, I think they do. I'm no lawyer.

All in all, though, the internet is as much a medium for expression as speech and print, so it should be open to the same laws.

 

In the Hague!

Seriously, I'd have to sigh disappointedly at myself and say 'me too' on this subject: when involving public figures, mere subjective statements like "<So&So> SUCKS!" can be disregarded, but propagating false and defaming objective statements would be actionable...IMO, of course. In simpler words, 'spreading lies' about someone would get you in trouble.

But then, I'd say that most notables pass over the majority of these public comments, based on the obviousness of the lie; William Jefferson Clinton would just chuckle and roll his eyes is someone were to say that he had murdered his teenage twin, since this is exceptionally out-of-character for him. However, he'd probably experience a moment's discomfort if a blogger made a post describing an event in Billy's youth where he seduced a married woman into leaving her husband - regardless if he knew the account was totally fictional - and would probably be getting legal counsel on the phone.


(Oh and can I just take a moment to say that this is my first edit on the new boards? )