some relies to the Libel on the Net mailing

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

Posted-Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 12:45:56 -0400
From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic () eff org>




Dave reposts:


> from a reader of Interesting People:
>
> "This raises an interesting question.  How large does your mailing list
> have to be before you may be subject to libel laws--10, 100, 1000.


You're subject to libel laws whenever you show a defamatory communication
to a third party. So, to answer this specific question: "fewer than 10."


> Since I would argue that a libelous comment on the Net can be even more
> damaging that a similar comment in a newspaper, I would support extension
> of libel laws to cyberspace--but only for "publishers".  But how to
> define that term?"


Libel laws already apply to cyberspace, both presumptively and actually.
Given that net.communications blur or erase the distinction between
"publisher" and "writer," I think an attempt to apply libel laws to one
category and not the other is doomed.


What's more, libel law applies to both categories even now. It's hard to
see how one could legally justify an exemption for writers in cyberspace
that does not apply to writers in any other medium.


Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 11:22:19 -0500
From: shaynes () research westlaw com (Steve Haynes)


Dave -


On Thu, 12 May 1994 22:31:14 -0400 you published an "anonymous" note:


> "This raises an interesting question.  How large does your
> mailing list have to be before you may be subject to libel
> laws--10, 100, 1000.
>
> Since I would argue that a libelous comment on the Net can
> be even more damaging that a similar comment in a newspaper,
> I would support extension of libel laws to cyberspace--but
> only for "publishers".  But how to define that term?"


The law says merely that a statement must be _published_ to make
it libelous.  Thus, publication to one person satisfies the
standard.  Increasing numbers of readers may add weight on issues
of harm and maliciousness, which might increase damages.


I commenter supports extension of libel to cyberspace -- well,
sorry to say, libel already extends to cyberspace.  And being a
"publisher" has nothing to do with it.  Each netizen is a
"publisher" in that sense.


A related question of slightly greater complexity is, if a person
is a frequent contributor to lists that go to thousands, does
that make that person a "public figure," which under libel law
requires (as I recall) that a purported libeler know the falsity
of statements made about that "public figure" before libel can
attach.


The bottom line:  we should _always_ be careful of what we say,
how we say it, and to whom.  In other words, pause before
flaming.


Steve


* Stephen L. Haynes            Internet:  shaynes () research westlaw com
* Manager, WESTLAW Research    MCI Mail:  221-3969
*   & Development              Compuserve:  76236,3547
* West Publishing Company      Phone:  612/687-5770
* 610 Opperman Drive           Fax:  612/687-7907
* Eagan, MN  55123




Date: Fri, 13 May 94 08:38:27 -0400
From: shap () viper cis upenn edu (Jonathan Shapiro)




   "This raises an interesting question.  How large does your mailing list
   have to be before you may be subject to libel laws--10, 100, 1000.


   Since I would argue that a libelous comment on the Net can be even more
   damaging that a similar comment in a newspaper, I would support extension
   of libel laws to cyberspace--but only for "publishers".  But how to
   define that term?"


Why only for publishers?  I don't really understand how libel law
works outside of cyberspace, but I was under the impression that
anyone could be sued for libel.


In any case, I foresee a problem with publisher-based libel that is
analogous to the common carrier problem.  There are people who publish
who perform an editorial function, and those who simply repost without
editing.  It's not clear to me if the person who edits should assume
more liability, but I think there is a challenging set of issues to be
explored here.


Jonathan