News-Record.com

So how would a publication answer to that? Create a full-time, real time comment moderator to preview anything going online?

Would this usher in a world where rogue blogs are created and then taken down in a day?

And wouldn't that bill, at some point, bump into a free assembly, free speech area?

It seems one could circimvent the libel law by just saying you are passing on something that was heard on the street or from some third party.

For instance, (in keeping with JR's Law that all subjects eventually return to David Wray) if I say or print; "David Wray is a stinking, rotten racist" then, baring proof, that would be libelous. But if I say or print " I heard from an attorney and other parties that David Wray is a stinking, rotten racist who keeps a "black book" targeting certain individuals" then that would not be libelous. So essentially all you would have to do is say you heard it somewhere else.

The bottom line seems to be a libel ban would be unenforceable that would limit blog entries to incontrovertible, first-person truths only.

Actually, I think you've got that backwards. Saying, "In my opinion, so-and-so is a jerk" is opinion and easier to protect from libel. Implying that you know something from real-world sources opens you up to more liability because it's asserting facts.

— RTB

Ryan, thanks for reporting on this.

Good points, Gerald. There are enormous challenges presented here.

Savage, in your case, the safest thing for a blog manager to do would be to ban you.

Doug, banning somebody from a blog is pretty drastic and curtails free speech, and, depending on what has been said, probably says more about the quirks and biases and insecurities of the blogmeister than the banished one. (provided the people aren't outright psychotic, libelous, rude, obscene, or even worse...boring.

Maybe the people running the blogs should be subject to a screening psych exam also, although I don't think anybody, even at $200.00 per hr., would want to open up JR's can of worms. I am currently banned from JR's blog for unclear reasons, but I guess that's his perogative, although I suspect it had to do with impersonating a Vietnamese message-parlor worker in response to JR's request that people who wanted to work at the N&R present a resume' featuring competence in "digital" skills. Anyway it was really filthy, and, like most attempts at humor; was funnier to me that it may have been to him.

In the end all one can do is laugh. Almost all these arguments are circular anyway. Does anybody think you can change anybody's opinion about things. Most of the time, as with the Wray issue, the Rubicon's have been crossed.

The point is there has to be some responsibility. This is a public forum, and certain rules of behavior are expected. One is, let's try not to libel anyone.

Since I'm likely one of those bloggers that the idiot (my opinion/he's a public figure) Steve Goss (a good NC Democrat) would like to silence, let me add my two cents (I would appreciate it if you did not delete the comment -as I've signed my name and stand by everything I say):

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It's only Amendment Number One. And I have news for Mr. Goss: The Constitution is NOT just "a goddamned piece of paper". The Dems in Raleigh would like to shut some of us up or down - NOT because we are lying - but because we are telling the truth about the way they've conducted the people's business.

For instance, here: http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2009/02/change-progressive-blogosphere-nc-state.html

And Doug, if our newspapers would stop fretting over their futures long enough to get off their lazy/agendized butts to actually do some investigative reporting, they might (1) save themselves, and (2) know what is true and what is false.

Skeet, I too have been banned at JR's (in my case, for questioning his job performance . . . never mind that any anonymous, threat-spewing cretin can libel mine - over and over again - at Cone's). And I've got to tell you, I wear it as a badge of honor.

I've also been sued for "libel". The thing about that was the people who sued me had to run from the Courtroom with their tails tucked because I was telling the truth - and had the proof. The supreme irony in their retreat (so far, well-covered-up by all the local newspapers) is that THEY REPEATEDLY LIED UNDER OATH - A CRIMINAL OFFENSE - in order save money in the deal.

I've been in the GSO blogs, jumping up and down screaming about it for four years (after being invited here by JR) . . . signing my damned name to everything I post. And for my trouble, I've been publicly eviscerated over and over again.

Yet the people I openly accuse ("non-profit" executives, no less - propped up by tax dollars and charged with the public welfare) can get by taking the Fifth - nobody asks them a single question. And OBTW, they have not sued me.

I wonder why?

If only we had some journalists around here to ask.

I wonder if a blog manager is responsible for material on links.

Meanwhile, Meck Deck's Jeff Taylor says the bill as written might apply to text messages.

http://charlotte.johnlocke.org/blog/?p=3275

Good grief!

We all might consider relaxing just a little bit. U.S. courts have been skeptical of aggressive libel/slander laws since practically the beginning. Court decisions have allowed reasonable restrictions of press freedom over the years, libel laws being one example. But the hurdles are high for the prosecutor, thanks to the legal tradition established in the Constitution.

Andrew, with all due respect, since I'm pretty sure I'm the only one in this bunch who has actually borne the cost of sucessfully defending a "libel" action (and that was hard/expensive/traumatizing enough), you'll forgive me if I'm not inclined to relax.

A lawyer moment re RTB's comment: If you say "I heard" or "rumor has it" or make similar attributions, there is actually a lesser chance of committing libel, even though you appear to be trying to bolster a claim. The reason is that the statement you are making for purposes of the libel analysis is that you heard something; the underlying assertion sort of drops out of the picture because you are not stating it as a fact -- it's just something you heard. I believe that this would be true even if you were lying about having heard something, since you were still not asserting the underlying "fact" as a fact. Or so I've heard.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm skeptical of LG's legal opinion. I very much doubt that one can immunize oneself from a charge of libel simply by saying "Well, that's what I heard."

Now, there is the doctrine of absence of malice. A good-faith belief that the rumor (or any injurious statement) is true can be used as a defense. But spreading an injurious rumor that one knows to be false is libel, even if the rumor was started by someone else.

As I say, I'm no lawyer, and perhaps someone out there can confirm the above.

Dr. Mary, with all due respect, regardless of your particular experience, the American legal tradition is actually quite respectful of free and open speech. It's a lot easier to be found guilty of libel and slander in other countries, including Britain. I don't know if your trial was civil or criminal, but if you were actually taken to court for libel, you probably wrote something pretty bad. People don't go to court unless they feel they have a good chance of winning.

There you go. Now you can say something mean about me. Have at it! I won't sue.

There's a different standard for libeling public figures as opposed to ordinary people. Public figures have to establish actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth, if I remember my libel law basics.

There's plenty of stuff on the internet that would meet that standard, in my opinion.

Right you are, Doug: Sullivan v. NY Times is the big case there, if I remember correctly from long-ago dinnertime conversations with my dad the journalism professor.

wtw

Andrew, there's no need to say something bad about you. You just need to be corrected/educated. And, as Doug no doubt rolls his eyes, I'm happy to do it;)

I was sued because I answered a request for feedback, and filed a confidential complaint with USDHHS (i.e. it was not publicly distributed) . . . about the way I was treated by Randolph Hospital . . . for blowing the whistle on (and intervening to stop) bad things going on there.

So yeah, what I said was pretty bad.

But it was all true . . . as two colleagues who read the complaint before I sent it were willing to attest . . . in writing and on the stand if need be. I also had considerable documentation. Still have it, in fact.

That's the thing about "libel" and "slander". Truth is absolute protection in a court of law.

Randolph Hospital executives thought they could win because no one would have the stones to stand up for me (those mill-town kings are big on bully tactics). But two other very brave "dime-a-dozen" (no slander there) lady doctors did.

As a point of reference, I had sued the practice a year earlier (filing several claims - including breach of contract & slander). None of the local newspapers reported it. But as soon as the hospital filed suit for "libel", it was front page news that I was a "liar" (no damage to my reputation there - and certainly no journalistic bias).

The hospital's lawsuit was what is commonly called a "SLAPP" suit - designed to initimidate people into dropping a lawsuit and into silence. It did not work. It only made me angrier. This is a damned "non-profit" hospital - charged with the public good. They don't get to pull this kind of stunt as long as I am breathing.

And they don't get to repeatedly lie in the settling of that claim (it's called perjury, contempt and fraud) and get away with it . . . that's why I am here in the blogosphere.

Again, before you blow off what I've been through . . . or the threat that Goss's proposed legislation presents to free speech . . . try defending one of these puppies.

As I recently explained at Cone's, in order to prevail in a "libel" or "slander" action, the PLAINTIFF has to prove (1) the defendant said something false, (2) he or she KNEW it was false, (3) and that it caused real damage. It's a high bar to clear in this land of free speech and opinions. Malice obviously factors into what the plaintiff might recover on the claim.

And yes, Sullivan is the big case that defines "libel" actions to this day.

For that matter, please don't write libelous comments here at all. Under this bill, the host could be found negligent for allowing it.* Doug

Does that include you and the Landmark Corporation when you libel political candiates under the political escape loophole opinion column in the name of Journalist Truth?

There you go. Now you can say something mean about me. Have at it! I won't sue.* Andrew

What for? You are young and very stupid for making that comment to a very brave person[Dr Mary] who stood up to the Law and won. You should be holding her up as a role model, instead of acting like myth riddle socalist democrat...

Dr. Mary: Thanks for the education.

Connie: Thanks for the name-calling.

Andrew, here's a clip from the headnotes from a case called MORRIS V. BRUNEY, 338 S.E.2d 561 (1986), which talks about repeating rumors not constituting defamation:

"Although defendant told plaintiff's daughter, at the daughter's request, that his wife had heard a rumor at work that plaintiff had gotten married because she was pregnant, this did not amount to an accusation that plaintiff committed a crime involving moral turpitude because defendant's remark did not assert as fact the substance of the false rumor."

That last comment was mine -- not trying to be misleading.

LG, fair enough. However (and noting again that I'm not a lawyer) isn't the basis of the decision you cite the fact that the defendant merely reported the rumor, i.e. that he didn't spread the rumor as true? With a different set of facts, I'll bet it's possible for someone to be guilty of libel for spreading a rumor. I believe intent matters, as does how the rumor is spread.

But with that, I'll stop opining about things about which I know only a little. I may not be stupid (as Connie so elegantly claimed), but I am certainly ignorant of the subtleties of libel law.

Actually since the concept of shame has left us.I doubt
libel will much longer be a issue for anyone..

I can tell you this for a fact. A man, paid for a news paper ad, slamming me and another person, I thought it was funny,the other person, got a lawyer, the lawyer told him he could not sue because it was hearsay*. Like I told my son, you need a lawyer in one pocket and a CPA in the other.
I never could figure out how a newspaper add was hearsay.

Mary please do not do that again, you almost made me have a heart attack. I misread your blog, it said posted by Doug Clark. My heart started jumping.

Doug (Johnson), I had to think for a minute about to what you were referring (since we're crossing blogs and threads).

My comment at the Dome (basically my first comment here) said, "This was posted AT Doug Clark's (The N&R)".

I'm glad you're heart is okay - and I won't sue you for libel for misrepresenting what I said;)

Andrew, your are welcome. But, as an observation, you've been very glib here. I (and apparently others) do no appreciate it.

Connie's point is well taken. We are talking about eleven years of my life. It is my position that a huge chunk of that time might have been trimmed off if local & state reporters had done ANY investigative reporting when I first brought my story to the blogosphere. Instead, the tactic (politically motivated, I believe, because I've never developed a taste for the Hunt/Easley/Perdue - or Clinton/Edwards/Obama - Koolaid) was to humiliate and destroy me . . . to make me "just go away".

If it was a plan, it was a bad plan. Believe me, I know more about libel . . . and have let more of it go . . . than anyone on this thread.

It is unfortunate that the pansy-assed (my opinion) journalists in this area and state are so concerned about getting sued for libel, that they don't report anything anymore. It's pathetic. They don't seem to get that their opinions do not matter . . . it's about the facts they won't report so other people can develop opinions.