|
General Tanning Industry Discussions Tanning Salon Owners and Professionals in The Tanning Industry Discuss a wide Variety of Topics. |
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
01-04-2006, 08:35 PM | #1 (permalink) |
Libel, Public Figures, and the Net Libel, Public Figures, and the Net By Mike Godwin Article for Internet World About 2100 words June 1994 issue If you've ever expressed strong opinions online, the chances are you've been flamed. And the more fervent the flamer, the more likely it is that he or she has said something defamatory about you--something that, if taken as a factual statement, would tend to injure your reputation or good name. Which leaves us to wonder: Why hasn't the Net seen more libel lawsuits? As we all know by now, "flaming" (defined in Eric Raymond's HACKER'S DICTIONARY as posting e-mail or public messages "intended to insult and provoke" is an occupational hazard of net.surfers. Yet in spite of the millions of U.S. citizens engaged in online conversations (a population whose growth has accelerated rapidly in recent years), the number of libel lawsuits related to online media remains in the low single digits. In a previous INTERNET WORLD column ("Internet Libel: Is The Provider Responsible?" Nov./Dec. 1993), I suggested that there may be a reason for the lack of defamation suits on the Net. And explaining this phenomenon (or, rather, absence of a phenomenon) points us in the direction of an important aspect of libel--the definition of "public figure." You may already know that libel law (in the United States at any rate) distinguishes between "public figures" and private individuals. The reason for this distinction lies in a Supreme Court case that will be three decades old this year: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This case, decided by a 9-0 vote of the Court, was the first case to attempt to integrate the common law of libel with the First Amendment. Read the entire article by Mike Godwin | |
01-05-2006, 08:09 AM | #4 (permalink) |
Join Date: Jan 3 2002 Location: USA
Posts: 1,686
Rep Power: 23 | Re: Libel, Public Figures, and the Net Funny thing.... I'm sure most never go anywhere because of the TRUTH and other (indiscretions) that would indeed become public knowlege in the meantime.... The very nature of Online DISCUSSION sites is to voice all sorts of opinions and experiences.... it goes without saying - that the reader understands it is up to them to research MORE and not take each post as cannon law.... Also - - when a thread is started with the words - - this is my opinion - - - This is my view on things...etc One cannot take portions of the post - - - - and then later claim it was stated as FACT..... I think that even the comment about being the Bill Clinton of Tanning could be justifiably dissected in a courtroom and found to burn as smooth as a Havanna.... But Mike.... you are BETTER not getting your feet wet on this one..... REALLY. Unless you can state you have zero financial interests in Business Dealings with Cal Tan and the New Goo Line rumored to be coming ~ (and based on the past 6 years.... I think you do).... then WHY attempt to help a Man who could use his millions to help himself? Reputation....... Some are earned..... Some are wrong... And some get dirty just from hanging out with the wrong crowd :) |
01-05-2006, 11:07 AM | #6 (permalink) |
Join Date: Jan 3 2002 Location: USA
Posts: 1,686
Rep Power: 23 | Re: Libel, Public Figures, and the Net LOL ~ ~ There have been quite a few folks that tell me they for some reason cannot give me ANY points..... How odd ~ eh??? ;) But it's the thought that counts Brat ~ thanks for the thought! |
01-05-2006, 01:35 PM | #7 (permalink) | |
Re: Libel, Public Figures, and the Net Quote:
| ||
01-05-2006, 01:35 PM | #8 (permalink) | |
Re: Libel, Public Figures, and the Net Quote:
| ||
Bookmarks |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
| |