Yesterday we mentioned the defamation trial of Northside blogger John Hoff, aka The Adventures of Johnny Northside. Today the trial is getting larger attention in part because of the connection to the First Amendment and also this morning’s arguments surrounding comments on blogs. Can blog and website owners can be libel for the comments, including comments that go through the approval process before showing up? TC Daily Planet’s Shelia Regan, who’s at the trial, just tweeted that “Judge rules John Hoff can’t be held libel for comments on his blog unless it’s proven he wrote them”.
From the reports I’ve heard and read, it sounds like this trial might go the whole week, so it will be interesting to see what other issues are raised in court.
11 Reader Comments
10:09 am
@_taylor_: I think you meant to write “liable” instead of “libel” in your headline?
10:32 am
you are correct sir
10:35 am
(Psst! Check that spelling, too.)
10:39 am
lol. just a disaster.
10:52 am
(I do like how you used that apostrophe, though!)
10:54 am
I suppose it comes down to a blogger’s ability to verify a particular comment is defamation. Being that it’s such a murky subject even in the court system, I am guessing this is why it was ok with Northside’s blog.That said, the only way I’m removing a comment which isn’t in violation of my interpretation of my website’s TOS is if a court order is received. I’d have no problems in removing a comment at that time.
11:43 am
@Bill: I think the judge’s decision was based more on the concept of “common carrier,” a precedent set back in the ’90s when CompuServe was dragged into court because of something posted there; i.e. that the publisher of a blog is no more responsible or liable for unedited content than would be the telephone company. As long as the “carrier” (in this case, Johnny Northside) does not edit comment content, they cannot be held liable, or be held culpable, for damages.
12:04 pm
@noodleman, I believe you are correct. However, the tricky part about Hoff’s case is that he moderates all comments, so only comments he approves go live. That’s not unique to his blog, but it makes it hard to say that you didn’t know about the content hosted on your site. That said, it sounds like the judge agreed that just because John lets something go live, he isn’t necessarily endorsing the commenter’s views, fact checking their statements, etc.
12:55 pm
@Ed: Yup, there is a point at which a publisher or “common carrier” does become liable. CompuServe’s defense was that their message boards did not edit contributor content. The CompuServe boards were moderated, too, IIRC, but I’m not sure how closely this case fits the precedent.
2:00 pm
Here’s David Brauer’s “summation” @MinnPost.
12:18 am
[...] of the City has two threads discussing the [...]