May 26th, in what will continue to be a much discussed story, Anthony DiMeo III's lawsuit against Tucker Max was dismissed by U.S. District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell.
According to the Inquirer's Dan Rubin, DiMeo contended his reputation suffered from comments made on TuckerMax.com after his New Year Eve party went awry.
District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell in dismissing DiMeo's complaint, relied heavily on Section 230 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code (2) (A):
- (c) Protection for "Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material
- (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.- (2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of -
- (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
- (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
In short, a user of an "interactive computer service", who is the publisher of the contended information, which information is "provided by another information content provider.", cannot be held liable for defamation claims for materials generated by others. I am not a lawyer and suggest contacting one if you have questions.
From District Court Judge Stewart Dalzell's Memorandum Opinion:
In sum, Max's Web site uses (and likely provides) an "interactive computer service." DiMeo seeks to treat Max as a publisher or speaker of information. And the six posts constitute "information provided by another information content provider." See 47 U.S.C. 230 (c) (1). Thus the statute blocks DiMeo's defamation claim. See 47 U.S.C. 230 (e) (3).
According to Dan Rubin, DiMeo says he will likely appeal and pursue those who commented on Max's site.
We, along with others, have received related threats of lawsuit. Other sites, understandably to also avoid lawsuit, have removed any and all mention of DiMeo.
I feel it is my responsibility to warn the users of Philly Future, indeed the users of any service, that you are subject to such threats as well, both for items you created and those to which you link.
It's important to get informed and learn how to defend yourself in the case of a lawsuit filed against you. Reading the EFF's Legal Guide for Bloggers is a good place to start. In particular, pay attention to libel concerns.
If you are accepting advertising or not, and are commenting/reporting on those with influence, a good idea is to register your blog as an LLC. Becoming an LLC does not provide you with protection against lawsuit, but it does help insulate you personally from lawsuit concerns against your blog. See a lawyer for more information -- this is not something you can learn how to do credibly with a few Google searches.
Last week there was a win for free speech - but it is important to get informed - and be prepared.
Update 3/15/07: DiMeo has since retained a new attorney in this ongoing matter, namely Alan Nochumson, Esq., who currently serves as Chair of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Young Lawyers Division. He has promptly filed a formal appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Oral arguments in this matter are now scheduled to be heard before the panel of Third Circuit federal judges. DiMeo said the defamation case is not over by any any means.
If Bloggers are Journalists...
Then they should live up to the responsibilities than they should also be bound by the similar ethics and laws.
Unfortuantely, I don't believe bloggers are journalists. Perhaps a small percentage are? But most bloggers are really editorialists. (If I was a reporter, I would know if that was a word). Not reporters.
Good post Karl! However, I understand the reasons for removing the name and mentions of He who Shall Not Be Named. You don't mention what Philly Future has done, if any, specifically. But the "censoring" of comments, I feel is an adequate response to such "nonsense".
Certainly, small little bloggers/podcasters like myself, would hate to be bothered by such lawsuits. But it is probably a good idea for any blog to have a code of conduct for commenting (and if more than one user blogs on a particluar site) that they agree on a code of conduct for Content posters.
I'm all for freedom. But there's not reason to put my iPod and Tivo (my only valued assets) on the line because of some immature comments about an incredibly immature non-public persona on a incredibly immature website.
Thanks but...
We are going to implement a TOS here, however, a terms of service would not have been enough to have avoided the threat, since there was nothing libelous over what we received the threat for, or threats since.
In fact, if we react to threats of that nature regularly here, we might as well shut down. There would be no way we could run, keep the spirit and purpose of the service intact, and keep a free exchange of ideas flowing.
It's a delicate balance. My hat is off to those who pull it off at other services.
This lawsuit was a real concern for grassroots citizen journalism efforts and for message forums/blogs everywhere.
I don't get into the "bloggers are journalists/bloggers are not journalists" argument - what concerns me is supporting acts of journalism. Acts of journalism can be composed by *anybody* - but doing so requires infrastructure, support, protections, and expertise. In the end that means money. And it helps a great deal to have institutional and long term cultural memory. That's why I am not a blog triumphalist - I believe we *need* our papers - and organizations like PhillyIMC - because they are crucial in supporting and producing acts of journalism. Blogs are part of the future, but not the end-all-be-all that some make them out to be. So we are in agreement pretty much.
Lawsuits like the one against TuckerMax, if it were allowed to proceed, would have been a fatal blow to our site, and to innumerable others.
Thanks, Karl
Was thinking about this for different reasons. I'm wondering however if some sort of collective action is possible here. LLCs can have partners. If 5 people wanted to share the burden and responsibility, maybe one LLC could provide an umbrella for all.
That's protection against frivilous lawsuits and the attempt to silence via legal action or the threat thereof.
I'm not for one moment suggesting that incorporating as an LLC gives one the right to behave badly or somehow renders one immune from the usual criteria for libel and defamation, etc.
Likewise, I'm not interested in weighing in right now on the blogger vs. journalist distinction either. Except to say in passing that if we're talking about standards of objectivity and integrity, Steve Coll is an exemplary journalist; Bill O'Reilly, soemthing quite else or a "television personality."
Profession heal thyself, and let the same laws regarding responsibility apply equally to all. Please keep us updated.
To the anonymous commentor I just deleted
This site has no official support for ANYONE. Any attempt to say so is a lie and a misunderstanding of this post (and the service we provide) in order to create trouble for the community.
It's not appreciated. Go away. This thread is closed.