|
Web writers are at risk of libel lawsuits when they don't take the proper precautions to avoid libeling their subjects.
Libel is the printing of false information that hurts the reputation of someone. Journalists study libel law to make sure they refrain from libeling the subjects of their articles. But in online publishing, many bloggers and citizen journalists have never studied libel law and put themselves at risk for law suits every day.
Proving Libel
In journalism, there are private and public figures. Public figures are people that are in the public eye, such as actors and politicians. Then there are the further subcategories of public figures who chose to be in the public eye and those who didn't.
A politician is a person who chose to be a public figure. A crime victim may be thrust into the public eye but did not seek it. Whether the person is a public or private figure will decide the type of recourse the person has against libel.
Libel Against Public Figures
A public figure has to prove a concept called "actual malice" to be able to win a libel case. This is to protect writers who may be afraid of criticizing public figures. Actual malice means that the writer was either knowingly lying or simply didn't care whether what was written was true. This can be proven if finding out the truth would have been easy but still wasn't done.
Libel Against Private Figures
If someone has stumbled into fame or notoriety, special care has to be taken. It takes far less for a private person to win a libel case. Something incorrect written about a private figure can be enough grounds for a libel suit. Rather than actual malice, the deciding factor is simply negligence. It's up to the court whether a writer was negligent in trying to find out the truth.
Avoiding Libel
The simple way to avoid a libel suit is to tell the truth when talking about anyone. Double check sources and never print anything unless you're sure about it. There are times when a content writer or blogger simply wants to state their opinion about a person. In these cases, make sure it's understood that the copy is an opinion. Using the term "I think" can help remind people that what is being writing is an opinion.
Libel law suits can be extremely costly, especially for the loser. Avoiding libel at all costs is better than printing something that can't be proven. Remember that people are coming to the Web for information. They are trusting Web writers to give them information that is well-researched and truthful.
The copyright of the article Avoiding Libel in Online Writing in Online Publishing is owned by Lizz Shepherd. Permission to republish Avoiding Libel in Online Writing in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
May 10, 2008 3:34 AM
Philip Northeast :
One big trap for publishing online is the variety of juridictions and
different laws prevailing worldwide. The law applies where the reputation
of the person defamed (libel) is rathert than where th epublisher
originates.
US company Dow Jones were succesfully sued in
Australia when they defamed Melbourne business man and sporting identity
Joseph Gutnick for comments made on a US website. Because the site (it is
the world wide web)can be accessed in Melbourne, where his reputaton is
most significant, he chose to sue there.
Also in Australia
truth alone is not a defence in defamation actions
May 10, 2008 1:27 PM
Lizz Shepherd :
Thats true- I was planning a second article that touched on some of that
aspect of it. I know that in the U.K. the information doesn't even have to
be false to be considered libel. It just has to be harmful to the
reputation. But, to go into each country's libel laws would be more of a
large book than an article. Since the largest percentage of Internet users
are in the U.S., it's helpful to know an overview of U.S. libel law. But of
course we do have to be mindful of the laws of all countries.
May 1, 2009 9:07 PM
Guest :
Keep in mind that even in the United States and all that can be liable for
defamation if truth is twisted. This is called "false light".
Blog owners in the United States effectively have Federal immunity for
hosting libelous information as a result of section 230(c) of the
communications decency act. Many ambivalent blog owners or administrators
will turn a blind eye to the plight of the innocent victims of libel
because of this safe harbor.
Congressional immunity
notwithstanding, blog administrators would do well morally to help libeled
victims by moderating, or removing offensive material. There are many
corporate giants such as large search engines and the like who host open
forums that allow anonymous libel. Yahoo! is generally a good corporate
citizen and removes, or the indexes materials that are clearly libelous.
Google on the other hand, makes it very difficult for victims, usually
requiring a court order issued in their local Superior Court. This of
course becomes cost inhibitive for the majority of the population.
Michael Roberts. www.rexxfield.com
Aug 13, 2009 6:00 AM
Guest :
The UK Libel Laws have taken another step into the abyss and could signal
the end of Free Speech. A UK based media club, The Groucho Club which is
owned by a billion pound corporation ‘Graphite Capital’ have launched a one
of kind High Court action for a pre publishing test case for libel against
Tyrone D Murphy, the author of an exposé book about the club. The book has
not been completed yet and the case seems to be based on what could be
written and not what has been written. www.g-book.co.uk is the book web
site
What do you make of this type of case where a legal action can be
taken against a writer of a book that has not been written yet. This action
is certainly a threat against all writers and journalists
4 Comments
|
May 10, 2008
