Thanks to Warren Shaw for his efforts to spearhead the reformation of unscupulous practices used by many bloggers and posters. Hopefully, his case goes viral, as its time to get the discussion going in earnest.
Many blogs and comments sections allow unidentified individuals a forum to discredit people with real names and lives, and ruin their reputations for unknown and in most cases hidden agendas.
People who blog using their real names are aware that snippets of negative comments can be picked up by the search engines, risking tarnishing their good reputations. The offenders know full well that they can do so without anyone knowing who they are.
Case in point is a person who when asked to identify himself or herself replies “Everyone knows me.” Not true, especially if you consider the context of the request.
Consider this a wake up call … Anyone who wants to follow a reputable blog that sets the standard can visit RichardHowe.com.
George DeLuca produces ComeToLowell.com
Jeanne Balkas
January 28, 2012 at 11:18 am
There has to be a sense of balance between the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, (free speech rights), and someone making untruthful and hurtful statements, posting anything they want, including rumor, innuendo and gossip. No one has the right to LIBEL another person they post about and subject them to hatred, humiliation, dishonor and disrespect, as well as ruining their reputation and their livelihood. Translation, LIBEL LAW is where freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment meet the requirements of personal responsibility and accountability.
I once was told public officials and public people have a tougher time winning libel lawsuits than private individuals because public officials must not only prove that an article or posting was libelous, they must also prove it was published or posted with something called “actual malice.”
Actual malice means that the narrative was published/posted with the knowledge that it was false, and that it was published with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false, with no facts to back up what was posted.
This interpretation of libel law comes from the “1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Times vs. Sullivan. In Times vs. Sullivan the court said that making it too easy for government officials to win libel suits would have a chilling effect on the press and its ability to aggressively report on the important issues of the day”.
Since Times vs. Sullivan, the use of the “actual malice” standard to prove libel has been expanded from just public officials to public figures, which, basically means anyone who is in the public eye. Politicians, celebrities, sports stars, high-profile executives and the like all must meet the “actual malice” requirement in order to win a libel suit, meaning “the statement is false, the statement has a defamatory meaning, the allegedly injured party is clearly identified in the statement, and the statement has been posted/published”.
Also, if it can be shown that taken as a whole, the content of the statement gives a false impression, libel may be found to exist even if everything is technically factual. In other words, you need to be able to prove the accuracy of the writings/postings.
Expressing an opinion cannot be subject to an accusation of libel because it is not a statement of fact. Unfortunately, you can articulate the most insulting opinion imaginable about someone and not be sued for libel. However, do not presume that merely by prefacing your statement with something like, “In my opinion,” you can safeguard yourself from a libel suit. If your statement implies opinions that are libelous, you could be held responsible for “libel per quod”, meaning libel by implication.
I was also made aware that individuals who post on blogs do not enjoy the same First Amendment rights as reporters who work for traditional print or broadcast media. As a result, unlike a newspaper, they are much more liable for such things as libel.