(Fwd) Libel in cyberspace: can anything you post be used again

[Jules Siegel]

The following message was recently forwarded to pynchon-l at waste.org by Tom
Stanton and has been placed in other major lists on the Internet. I received
the version below on the Compter Assisted Research and Reporting List, which
is, I believe, one of the largest journalism lists on the Internet, with
approximately 3,000 members. I am posting it here again.

With respect to the observations by <traveler at afn.org> about his six years'
experience online, maybe it was fun while it lasted, but, well, those days
are over. That's the point of the article. Moreover, there have not only
been threats of lawsuits, there have been actual lawsuits, especially on
spamming and, I believe, trademark violation, among other matters.

Peter Giordano has sent me repeated threats to sue me and has also
threatened to sue Dale. The reason I informed Giordano's employer is that in
the event of a lawsuit, they will be sued as well, and I think they have a
right to know about this before it comes to that.

This isn't a silly children's game. My reputation does have an economic
value. I don't think that by subscribing and contributing to this list
anyone here surrenders any right to protect himself or herself from unfair,
irresponsible and malicious attacks that damage his or her professional
reputation.

I don't feel like unsubscribing. I do feel like making a very firm statement
that there are limits. Peter Giordano can respect the conventions of
scholarly discourse. He can also call me any vile name he chooses or make
any personal insult. But neither he or anyone else can use this forum to
defame my reputation by calling me a liar, a fraud and a plagiarist (among
other libels).

I will have nothing further to say on the matter and I will not respond
further to any comments that others might wish to make.

>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Priority: normal
>Date:         Mon, 5 May 1997 08:09:24 -0600
>Reply-To:     Computer-assisted Reporting & Research
>              <CARR-L at ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
>Sender:       Computer-assisted Reporting & Research
>              <CARR-L at ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
>From:         Donna Wair <wair at LIBRARY.VANDERBILT.EDU>
>Organization: Vanderbilt University Library
>Subject:      (Fwd) Libel in cyberspace: can anything you post be used again
>To:           CARR-L at ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU
>X-Info: http://www.caribe.net.mx
>
>------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
>Date:          Sun, 04 May 1997 15:02:43 +0000
>From:          John Walker <jwalker at tor.hookup.net>
>Subject:       Libel in cyberspace: can anything you post be used against you?
>To:            gsunet-l at bgu.edu
>Reply-to:      gsunet-l at ecnet.net
>
>Libel in cyberspace: can anything you post be used against you?
>
>http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/050497/info5_13497.html
>
>Copyright c 1997 Nando.net
>Copyright c 1997 The Associated Press
>
>(May 4, 1997 1:03 p.m. EDT) -- When the Founding Fathers wrote the
>First Amendment protecting freedom of the press, they never imagined
>millions of Americans would someday have their own version of one
>sitting in their back rooms.
>
>But with the advent of the World Wide Web, that's exactly what has
>happened. And from this revolution has emerged a new legal quandary:
>Just what standards are private individuals to be held to when it
>comes to what they "publish" on the millions of Web pages and other
>online forums that serve as the world's soapbox?
>
>To a great extent, the answer thus far is this: No one knows. With
>the Web revolution less than 3 years old, a body of case law hasn't
>yet been built up. But lawyers who study online issues do have some
>observations -- and advice.
>
>First off, they note, the line between slander, once the realm of
>individuals, and libel, the bane of publishers, has been blurred. It
>used to be that spreading malicious gossip about someone down at the
>barbershop could lead to charges of slander. But slander, by
>definition spoken, was hard to prove and generally didn't reach
>enough people to do any major harm.
>
>Post that same information where it can be read by millions online,
>however, and you've suddenly entered the realm of libel -- governed
>by stricter laws originally written to cover print publications.
>
>"Let's face it," says Mark Rasch, director of information security
>law and policy at the Center for Information Protection at Science
>Applications International Corp. in McLean, Va. "If I were to print
>up a handbill saying bad things about my neighbor that were false, at
>most I could distribute a couple of hundred of them. With the Web, I
>can now damage his reputation worldwide."
>
>The law is clear: Libel consists of publishing a false and
>defamatory statement about an identifiable person, causing injury to
>the subject's reputation. Often tied to it is the legal notion of
>defamation, defined as that which exposes a person to hatred,
>ridicule or contempt, causing them to be shunned or injuring their
>business or calling.
>
>Truth is always a defense against libel, so if your Web page says
>someone has two heads and they do, you're fine. But say they're a
>murderer and you can expect someone to come asking for some proof --
>and possibly a bill for damages if you don't have any.
>
>Then, there's invasion of privacy. It's one thing to pass along a
>juicy bit of gossip to a friend. It's quite another to post it to
>the Web.
>
>"Let's say, for instance, you disclose some private fact about
>somebody -- say, their medical records. Or you snuck into their
>house and took a nudie photo of them and put it up on the Net. That
>would be a no-no under civil law and they could sue for damages,"
>says David Banisar, staff counsel for the Electronic Privacy
>Information Center in Washington, D.C.
>
>Although few of these cases have actually gone to court, lawyers
>often are called in when things get ugly.
>
>"I know of a few cases where the ex-husband and ex-wife have gone
>after each other on the Net," Banisar says. "In one instance, the
>ex-wife put up a diatribe page on what a scumbag he was and how he
>wasn't paying his child support -- and gave out his phone number so
>suitably angry women could take it up with him."
>
>Remember, too, that the Internet's reach magnifies everything in the
>eyes of the law.
>
>Shouting "You jerk, I'm gonna belt you one!" at a careless driver
>who runs over your mailbox won't get you into trouble. But posting
>the threat on the Internet is dangerous. It's all a question of
>reach: Anything done over a telecommunications device is
>automatically an interstate communication.
>
>"This suddenly makes it a federal issue if you e-mail," Banisar
>warns.
>
>State statutes vary, but when federal laws come into effect, any
>communication containing a threat to kidnap or injure a person
>carries with it the possibility of imprisonment up to five years or a
>fine of up to $1,000.
>
>And an entirely different level of concern pops up when the object
>of the threat is an elected official. Like the "no jokes" signs
>posted by airport metal detectors, the FBI has no sense of humor when
>it comes to threatening officeholders.
>
>"We can't forget all those idiots arrested for sending threats to
>the president. So don't send threats to the president over e-mail.
>It's a federal crime," Banisar says.
>
>Fraud is another sticking point. It's illegal everywhere, of course.
>But the Federal Trade Commission has taken an especially hard line
>against fraud on the Net. Send a snail-mail chain letter asking for
>money and you might get a call from postal authorities. Try it on
>the Web, however, and you'll be investigated by the FTC forces who
>track online scammers.
>
>But in the end, the biggest vulnerability of any self-publisher on
>the Web is probably the wrath of large corporations.
>
>You can say their logos are ugly and their presidents are jerks and
>they don't flinch. But try using any variety of a heavily
>trademarked name or image on your site and watch the injunctions
>flow.
>
>Generally speaking, it's other businesses who get into trouble. But,
>once in a while, an individual will set out to make a point -- and
>get a legally phrased e-mail in response. Several cases have resulted
>in Web sites' being taken down, including individuals who posted
>statements against Kmart and McDonald's.
>
>Overall, remember that putting words or pictures up on your Web page
>is just like publishing them in the newspaper.
>
>Use Rasch's simple test: "What you should avoid putting on the Web
>is the same stuff you'd avoid putting on leaflets and handing out on
>the street."
>
>-- By ELIZABETH WEISE, AP Cyberspace Writer

>-------------------------------
>
>Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm)  ,-~~-.____
>For subscription details email      / |  '     \
>jwalker at tor.hookup.net with        (   )        0
>SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the             \_/-, ,----'
>subject line.                          ====           //
>                                       /  \-'~;    /~~~(O)
>"On the Internet no one               /  __/~|   /       |
>knows you're a dog"                 =(  _____| (_________|
>
>-------------------------------
>
>
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>donna wair
>     wair at library.vanderbilt.edu
>          http://free.websight.com/Wair4/
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
>J.W. Eagan: "Never judge a book by its movie."
>

--
Professional English-Language Editorial Services
Jules Siegel http://www.caribe.net.mx/siegel/jsiegel.htm
>From US: http://www.yucatanweb.com/siegel/jsiegel.htm
Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501 Tel 011-52-98 87-49-18 Fax 87-49-13