Online freedom of speech victory
p2pnet.net News:- In a victory for online freedom of speech in the US, the California Supreme Court has ruled bloggers and bulletin board posters can’t be sued for putting up defamatory statements made by others.
“In deciding a case closely watched by free speech groups, the court said a federal law gives immunity from libel suits not only to Internet service providers, like AOL, but also to bloggers and other users of their services,” says NBC News.
“Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech,” the unanimous ruling said.
Also See:
NBC News – Calif. court says bloggers can’t be sued, November 20, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
November 21st, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Have the courts ruled for Canadian “bloggers” ?
November 21st, 2006 at 3:28 pm
No. Ask jon about that.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
The decision is right. But not enough.
But now it must be extended so that the owners of the blogs are also protected from being sued. The reasons are simple to see:
a. Wether we like it or not, the Internet is a global operation, a good thing. A blogger cannot possibly know all the defamation laws of the entire world. As a matter of fact the blogger cannot possibly know the defamation laws of his/her own country, unless he/she is a lawyer whose specialty is defamation lawsuits and even then there is this confusing and contradictory jurisprudence. then there are the variations in the laws from region to region (states in the USA) within a country.
c. Forum shopping is esier with Internet related lawsuits. This shopping will be for the best laws to sue under and for the more strict or corrupt judges.
d. Defamation lawsuits ae too easy to file in court when the real purpose is to harrass or to silence someone.
e. All defamation is based on an untrue statement. So all defamation is done by people who lie, thus cannot be credible. Liers have no credibility, so what a lier says cannot cause any real damage. Only imagined damages.
f. Fear of being sued will only bring silence and the death of democracy.
g. If exceptions are to be made (and maybe none are preferable) only businesses, politicians and their representatives should be sued for difamation and the lawsuit should prevail only if it is proven that there the purpose was a competitive or money or political advantage to be gained by defaming a person or if the defamation was a work for hire and the defamation alleged that the person committed prosecutable crimes and was allegedly found guilty (but was not true).
h. Only lawyers win in defamation lawsuits. It’s about time to end the defamation business.
i. Good old fashion denials are the best antidote to defamation, not costly court decisions.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 21st, 2006 at 6:26 pm
Not YET.
Write to your MP and ask why we trail behind the US in freedom of online speech and when does Canada plan on catching up.