CA Court: Message Boards Are Opinions, Not Facts
Posted by
chrisd
on Wed Nov 28, 2001 04:06 PM
from the special-rights-for-special-people dept.
from the special-rights-for-special-people dept.
Masem writes: "According to this Newsbytes story, a CA appeals court has issued a ruling that says that typical messages posted to internet message boards can not be considered as libel or slander, as they inheritently are framed as opinions and not as statements of fact. The case stems from rather negative comments posted by defendants about a computer reseller company on the internet; the company sued for libelous comments; lower courts did initially rule for the company, but the appeals court has overturned this. While not every message posted in a public forum is safe, the court's decision seems to convey that unless the message is framed as a form of fact, then any message posted to a public internet forum should be considered as opinion, and thus cannot be considered as a libelous comment."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
CA Court: Message Boards Are Opinions, Not Facts
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 297 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Thank heavens! (Score:3, Troll)
hehe... (Score:3, Insightful)
seriously, good work there in CA...
This ruling (would) make no sense (Score:5, Informative)
So while it's true that most of what you find on message boards is bullshit, and should thus be regarded as such without further verification, it can still be libel. All that matters is that it's a lie presented as fact to hurt the object.
However, what the defendants were accused of is TRADE libel - apparently they were saying things like "this stock sucks" clearly within the context of opinion. It could be considered libel within some contexts - but not within that of a message forum. Anyone getting stock tips off one of those is pretty dumb. So in their limited case, it seems they were not commiting libel.
cryptochrome
Re:This ruling (would) make no sense (Score:4, Interesting)
on the other hand, if he'd been making derogatory comments specifically for the purpose of manipulating the markets, and the appeals court said it was okay, then he might get his money back.
is this the 9th appeals court? they seem to have a history of being reversed...
jon
/. is still safe (Score:5, Funny)
"Yes, Yes, my precious"
"Uhhh... Mr. Gates?"
"WHAT are you doing here!"
"Uhhh... sir, I was sent my the legal team... ya know, Nazgul, Balrog, & son... it seems a court ruling in California put a crimp in our plan to rid oursleves of that vile website, slash-"
"DON'T say that word!!
"Uh, sir.. we don't have any flying monkeys... all we have is Dancing Monkey boy..."
"Crap... forget this, I'm just going to stay down here and play with my invisibility ring"
New disclaimer: (Score:5, Funny)
Change to
Besides, the best defense may just be, "Hey, this is Slashdot -- you were expecting facts?";-)
Re:New disclaimer: (Score:5, Insightful)
Changing the line to something like
"All comments are the opinions of the owner and not the property of Slashdot"
might just save you a world of grief down the line.
Re:New disclaimer: (Score:4, Informative)
The content can counter the disclaimer depending on form. For example, if you say "John Doe raped Jane Bloggs", that will be read as an attempt to state facts rather than an opinion. On the other hand, if you say "I believe John Doe raped Jane Bloggs", it's probably a statement of opinion put together with the disclaimer. If you say "Jane Bloggs was raped. In my opinion, the most likely culprit is John Doe", then the disclaimer isn't even necessary.
You need to be careful though - in the United States, opinion is absolutely protected in the same way truth is protected, because "there can be no such thing as a false opinion." Here in New South Wales, opinion has unqualified protection under the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) s32 [austlii.edu.au]. But on the Internet you need to make sure that the web site you publish on is in a jurisdiction that has this unqualified protection of opinion, but as long as it's in such a jurisdiction, and you make no attempt to limit the persons who access your web site, a defendant in another jurisdiction won't be able to touch you, even under their local laws (Kostiuk v. Braintech (1999) 171 DLR (4d) 46).
You also need to make sure that when making comment you provide the statement of fact that backs it up. For example, if you say "Joe is a person incompetent to hold a position as a public official", you might be nailed in some places. On the other hand, if you say "Joe cannot read. A person who cannot read is incompetent to hold a position as a public official", the provided it's true that Joe can't read, your OK (in fact in this case you'd be OK most anywhere in the English speaking world).
It's best to make it absolutely clear what part is opinion (or "comment" in defamation terms) and what parts are facts when you're saying something you know somebody might claim is defamatory. This is critical (although less so in the US) - failure to make clear the separation between facts and comments can kill the "fair comment" defence. In some jurisdictions you also have to prove your facts, so it's better to say "I received this email which purports to be from X and says Y" rather than "X sent me this email that says Y".
Of course it's easier just not to say anything bad about other people, but much more boring.
IANALY,TINLA
Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
good except... (Score:3, Interesting)
IMHO (Score:4, Funny)
new UBB tag (Score:3, Funny)
<fact>Linux rules, M$ drools!</fact>
This tag would lend the enclosed text more credence, but also hold the poster responsible for its content.
heh.
Good news for Fuckedcompany.com (Score:5, Informative)
Dangerous article -- chaning the line (Score:3, Insightful)
The analysis of fact and opinion has been based on context and content. This ruling recognizes the context portion or the analysis. And states that it being in that forum makes it as from a disgruntled stockholder as opposed to someone in "the know" or with authority.
Even on a web posting, libel can still be found.
Rational dudes? (Score:3, Funny)
If this shows a trend, I may have to move out that way.
Tell that to vwforums.com (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh (Score:3, Funny)
This makes so much sense, it is funny. (Score:3, Interesting)
lawyers for jim ellis vw can't be happy (Score:3, Informative)
If you haven't already, I highly recommend you have a read (although the length of the thread at this point easily rivals some of the longest ever seen even on
FYI: The dealership seems to be backtracking now, and supposedly will be in settlement talks this Friday. Hopefully this translates into an even stronger position for Mantis to deal from.
Have a nice day. (Score:3, Funny)
Disclaimer: The following comments represent opinion only and should NOT be regarded as statements of fact, slander or libel:
Microsoft SUCKS ! Windows SUCKS ! MSN SUCKS ! Internet Explorer SUCKS ! Passport SUCKS ! .NET SUCKS ! [insert name of Microsoft product here] SUCKS !
The following, however, are statements of fact:
Linux ROCKS! FreeBSD ROCKS! NetBSD ROCKS! OpenBSD ROCKS! Darwin ROCKS! Amiga ROCKS! BeOS ROCKS! IceWM ROCKS! vi ROCKS! Opera for Linux ROCKS! Qmail ROCKS! csh ROCKS! [insert name of UN*X program here] ROCKS!
Oh well.