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