"All posts are (c) their original authors" November 5, 2002 8:27 AM Subscribe
"All posts are © their original authors". That's what it says at the bottom of this page. My question: is that true, and is it true whether it says so or not? A friend who owns a mailing list has been threatened with a liable suit by a person who feels they were "defamed" in a post by a member. Is the list owner really responsible for what members post? Could Matt be sued for members rants about real people, and is there a difference (as an example) between saying "Ashcroft is an asshole" and "I think Ashcroft is an asshole"?
that's 'libel' to get nasty.
oh, and ashcroft is an asshole!
posted by quonsar at 8:56 AM on November 5, 2002
oh, and ashcroft is an asshole!
posted by quonsar at 8:56 AM on November 5, 2002
Copyright and legal liability in respect of libel and slander are two entirely different things.
posted by mcwetboy at 9:02 AM on November 5, 2002
posted by mcwetboy at 9:02 AM on November 5, 2002
Protections against libel (in a very, very general sense)
1. Truth - saying something that is true about someone cannot (generally) be libelous.
2. The "notoriety" defense - a person who, through their own actions or position in society, becomes a "public" figure, is less able to be libeled than ordinary folks. Again in very general terms, you can only libel public figures by saying something factually and demonstrably untrue, with either reckless disregard for its truth or falsity or with actual knowledge of its falsity. Statements of opinion, though, will almost never meet that high standard.
Hence, both ashcroft and quonsar are assholes!
posted by yhbc at 9:08 AM on November 5, 2002
1. Truth - saying something that is true about someone cannot (generally) be libelous.
2. The "notoriety" defense - a person who, through their own actions or position in society, becomes a "public" figure, is less able to be libeled than ordinary folks. Again in very general terms, you can only libel public figures by saying something factually and demonstrably untrue, with either reckless disregard for its truth or falsity or with actual knowledge of its falsity. Statements of opinion, though, will almost never meet that high standard.
Hence, both ashcroft and quonsar are assholes!
posted by yhbc at 9:08 AM on November 5, 2002
My point in saying that was to paraphrase The WELL's "you own your words."
I don't "own" the comments here and I don't want people to think I would publish a book without their consent and claim that once submitted to me, all text became the property of me. If someone wants to say something potentially slanderous or libelous, that's their problem and they are responsible for what they do. If someone wants to ask that I delete something clearly in the wrong, I take it on a case-by-case basis, and if I'm going to save lots of headaches by deleting something illegal, I just might. But the point of the statement was to make it clear that I don't claim ownership of contributed works, that people instead trust me to reprint them here, and check with them first before I ever do anything else with them. There's been one book written quoting MetaFilter posts (which the publisher obtained permission from every single commentor) and several newspaper articles that requested reprint rights but didn't, because I insisted they check with everyone first.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:16 AM on November 5, 2002
I don't "own" the comments here and I don't want people to think I would publish a book without their consent and claim that once submitted to me, all text became the property of me. If someone wants to say something potentially slanderous or libelous, that's their problem and they are responsible for what they do. If someone wants to ask that I delete something clearly in the wrong, I take it on a case-by-case basis, and if I'm going to save lots of headaches by deleting something illegal, I just might. But the point of the statement was to make it clear that I don't claim ownership of contributed works, that people instead trust me to reprint them here, and check with them first before I ever do anything else with them. There's been one book written quoting MetaFilter posts (which the publisher obtained permission from every single commentor) and several newspaper articles that requested reprint rights but didn't, because I insisted they check with everyone first.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:16 AM on November 5, 2002
"All posts are © their original authors". That's what it says at the bottom of this page. My question: is that true, and is it true whether it says so or not?
Yes, and yes. But as mcwetboy said, that's completely irrelevant to the question of whether mathowie could potentially be liable for libel.
A friend who owns a mailing list has been threatened with a liable suit by a person who feels they were "defamed" in a post by a member.
My feeling (and no, I don't have solid evidence to back this up) is that people who threaten to sue rarely do. People who are really going to sue don't waste time threatening suits, they go ahead and actually file suit.
Could Matt be sued for members rants about real people
Well, anyone can sue anyone for anything, so the answer to that question is yes. The more important question is whether Matt could lose a lawsuit for member rants about real people. I don't know the answer to that.
is there a difference (as an example) between saying "Ashcroft is an asshole" and "I think Ashcroft is an asshole"?
Probably not, because both of those are generally understood to be subjective opinions, which are not libel. Now, if you said "Ashcroft is a rapist," that's potentially libel.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:24 AM on November 5, 2002
Yes, and yes. But as mcwetboy said, that's completely irrelevant to the question of whether mathowie could potentially be liable for libel.
A friend who owns a mailing list has been threatened with a liable suit by a person who feels they were "defamed" in a post by a member.
My feeling (and no, I don't have solid evidence to back this up) is that people who threaten to sue rarely do. People who are really going to sue don't waste time threatening suits, they go ahead and actually file suit.
Could Matt be sued for members rants about real people
Well, anyone can sue anyone for anything, so the answer to that question is yes. The more important question is whether Matt could lose a lawsuit for member rants about real people. I don't know the answer to that.
is there a difference (as an example) between saying "Ashcroft is an asshole" and "I think Ashcroft is an asshole"?
Probably not, because both of those are generally understood to be subjective opinions, which are not libel. Now, if you said "Ashcroft is a rapist," that's potentially libel.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:24 AM on November 5, 2002
It doesn't much matter who is responsible for the statements since the person who thinks they have been injured by a statement can bring a lawsuit regardless of whether they are in the right or not.
The question then becomes how much do you went to spend to prove that you are in the right?
That's an interesting question to have to ask yourself. I find myself asking it right now as some company has taken offense to something I've posted to my personal site, and they are threatening legal action if I don't remove it.
My lawyers have told me that what I posted was nothing. That I am in the right, but that being right doesn't mean you don't get sued. So, how much do I want to spend to be right, and how much can I save by quietly going away? I'm not sure.
If they had asked nice instead of threatened legal action, we probably could easily work something out. But, when pushed, I want to push back and damn the costs. I hate legal bullying, so I'm inclined to fight it just on principal. I can afford to do that once. But, what about the next company that takes issue with something I say or the next?
I wonder if bloggers aren't going to be forcefully silenced by companies that can throw some attorney's bills on it just because the personal publisher can't really afford to fight it. I wonder if maybe bloggers will need the equivalent of malpractice insurance if they want their speech to be protected, and what does that do to raise the barrier to entry for personal publishing?
Please Don't Link or Protest This
Please - I'd appreciate it if none of the activist elements of the blogging community started getting all protesty about suppression of free expression. I only mention it here to illustrate a point. I don't want a lot of sites slagging this company, because I may find myself in a position where I want to put that genie back in the bottle, and once it's out, it may be harder to come to a solution.
posted by willnot at 11:30 AM on November 5, 2002
The question then becomes how much do you went to spend to prove that you are in the right?
That's an interesting question to have to ask yourself. I find myself asking it right now as some company has taken offense to something I've posted to my personal site, and they are threatening legal action if I don't remove it.
My lawyers have told me that what I posted was nothing. That I am in the right, but that being right doesn't mean you don't get sued. So, how much do I want to spend to be right, and how much can I save by quietly going away? I'm not sure.
If they had asked nice instead of threatened legal action, we probably could easily work something out. But, when pushed, I want to push back and damn the costs. I hate legal bullying, so I'm inclined to fight it just on principal. I can afford to do that once. But, what about the next company that takes issue with something I say or the next?
I wonder if bloggers aren't going to be forcefully silenced by companies that can throw some attorney's bills on it just because the personal publisher can't really afford to fight it. I wonder if maybe bloggers will need the equivalent of malpractice insurance if they want their speech to be protected, and what does that do to raise the barrier to entry for personal publishing?
Please Don't Link or Protest This
Please - I'd appreciate it if none of the activist elements of the blogging community started getting all protesty about suppression of free expression. I only mention it here to illustrate a point. I don't want a lot of sites slagging this company, because I may find myself in a position where I want to put that genie back in the bottle, and once it's out, it may be harder to come to a solution.
posted by willnot at 11:30 AM on November 5, 2002
Is there a difference (...) between saying "Ashcroft is an asshole" and "I think Ashcroft is an asshole"?
This is wildly off-topic for Mack Twain's very interesting post, even though it's a question dear to my heart, as I am currently suing my former employer, a big Portuguese portal called Clix, because, in an attempt to blackmail me into leaving my publisher for twenty years, they pulled the plug on my weblog, thus blocking my access to a year's worth of columns (not to mention the hundreds of users' contributions) and preventing the publication of the resulting book.
But what interests me most is how and why Americans and Brits use "asshole/arsehole" as an insult, not to mention "pussy" or "cunt". So, naturally, I was reminded of Craig Raine's attempt to rescue its dignity and general attractiveness:
ARSEHOLE
It is shy as a gathered eyelet
neatly worked in shrinking violet;
it is the dilating iris, tucked
away, a tightening throb when fucked.
It is a soiled and puckered hem,
the golden treasury's privy purse.
With all the colours of a bruise,
it is the fleck of blood in albumen.
I dreamed your body was an instrument
and this was the worn mouthpiece
to which my breathing lips were bent.
Each note pleaded to love a little longer,
longer, as though it was dying of hunger.
I fed that famished mouth my ambergris.
Craig Raine
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:46 AM on November 5, 2002
This is wildly off-topic for Mack Twain's very interesting post, even though it's a question dear to my heart, as I am currently suing my former employer, a big Portuguese portal called Clix, because, in an attempt to blackmail me into leaving my publisher for twenty years, they pulled the plug on my weblog, thus blocking my access to a year's worth of columns (not to mention the hundreds of users' contributions) and preventing the publication of the resulting book.
But what interests me most is how and why Americans and Brits use "asshole/arsehole" as an insult, not to mention "pussy" or "cunt". So, naturally, I was reminded of Craig Raine's attempt to rescue its dignity and general attractiveness:
ARSEHOLE
It is shy as a gathered eyelet
neatly worked in shrinking violet;
it is the dilating iris, tucked
away, a tightening throb when fucked.
It is a soiled and puckered hem,
the golden treasury's privy purse.
With all the colours of a bruise,
it is the fleck of blood in albumen.
I dreamed your body was an instrument
and this was the worn mouthpiece
to which my breathing lips were bent.
Each note pleaded to love a little longer,
longer, as though it was dying of hunger.
I fed that famished mouth my ambergris.
Craig Raine
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:46 AM on November 5, 2002
both ashcroft and quonsar are assholes!
crap, if only you had said something factually and demonstrably untrue i could sue!
i was recently the subject of a muchraking tv news investigation. i had done nothing wrong, but was made to sound like an egregrious thief. and they were very clever about it - for example, the allegation was that i had performed work for a part time job while at my full time job. the news report said "For 21 months, quonsar accepted a paycheck from blabla while holding a job at woofwoof." which was totally true. if they had said "quonsar performed work for blabla on woofwoof time" that would have been libelous, because it wasnt true. they managed to plant the impression they wanted without actually saying it. and that is precisely how it was perceived by the typical viewer.
posted by quonsar at 12:16 PM on November 5, 2002
crap, if only you had said something factually and demonstrably untrue i could sue!
i was recently the subject of a muchraking tv news investigation. i had done nothing wrong, but was made to sound like an egregrious thief. and they were very clever about it - for example, the allegation was that i had performed work for a part time job while at my full time job. the news report said "For 21 months, quonsar accepted a paycheck from blabla while holding a job at woofwoof." which was totally true. if they had said "quonsar performed work for blabla on woofwoof time" that would have been libelous, because it wasnt true. they managed to plant the impression they wanted without actually saying it. and that is precisely how it was perceived by the typical viewer.
posted by quonsar at 12:16 PM on November 5, 2002
Ah, the Martian school.
both ashcroft and quonsar are assholes!
now thats a 'Postcard'
:)
posted by clavdivs at 1:08 PM on November 5, 2002
both ashcroft and quonsar are assholes!
now thats a 'Postcard'
:)
posted by clavdivs at 1:08 PM on November 5, 2002
If you publish you may well be liable, publishers are often sued for liable as they can be easier to pursue, richer, more likely to compromise than individual authors.
Copyright and liable are not linked in this case so the answer I guess is, yes the copyright is ours (as Matt has kindly assigned it to us) but unfortunately Matt can certainly be sued for the contents of this board.
In fact if someone were liabled on this board they would almost certainly go after Matt, though in practice that could be difficult, there are issues of legal jurisdiction (think John Leslie), etc. Matt would then have to assess the seriousness of the suit and act accordingly.
p.s. I trump your Postcard with an Onion Memory and lay a scatological Geography of the House of my own.
posted by johnny novak at 3:11 PM on November 5, 2002
Copyright and liable are not linked in this case so the answer I guess is, yes the copyright is ours (as Matt has kindly assigned it to us) but unfortunately Matt can certainly be sued for the contents of this board.
In fact if someone were liabled on this board they would almost certainly go after Matt, though in practice that could be difficult, there are issues of legal jurisdiction (think John Leslie), etc. Matt would then have to assess the seriousness of the suit and act accordingly.
p.s. I trump your Postcard with an Onion Memory and lay a scatological Geography of the House of my own.
posted by johnny novak at 3:11 PM on November 5, 2002
How can you libel someone named stavrosthewonderchicken, clavdivs, or dong_resin (et al)? Seems to me the "doing them harm" criteria would be hard to prove.
posted by rushmc at 7:05 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by rushmc at 7:05 PM on November 5, 2002
Hey, watch that!
*slaps a lawsuit on rushmc*
This topic, the usual pointless jocularity aside, interests me a great deal, actually. I've long wondered if, just as an example, I call GW the 'most evil man in the western hemisphere', if I can get in any trouble for it (other than having Steve_at_somewhere hurl imprecations my way).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:43 PM on November 5, 2002
*slaps a lawsuit on rushmc*
This topic, the usual pointless jocularity aside, interests me a great deal, actually. I've long wondered if, just as an example, I call GW the 'most evil man in the western hemisphere', if I can get in any trouble for it (other than having Steve_at_somewhere hurl imprecations my way).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:43 PM on November 5, 2002
i, um, have a friend (friend, yeah, that's the ticket) who, uh, made a photoshop of bush as, um, seen through a rifle scope. i'm pretty sure um, he would get in trouble for that...
posted by quonsar at 8:24 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by quonsar at 8:24 PM on November 5, 2002
Here is the difference between libel and liable for those of you who apparently don't know. (If you check the pronunciation keys, you will also note that they are even pronounced differently.)
posted by Lynsey at 9:20 PM on November 5, 2002
posted by Lynsey at 9:20 PM on November 5, 2002
Ashcroft is a public figure and therefore fair game.
Nothing wrong with calling an asshole an asshole,
thank you very much.
posted by The Old Buzzard at 11:08 PM on November 5, 2002
Nothing wrong with calling an asshole an asshole,
thank you very much.
posted by The Old Buzzard at 11:08 PM on November 5, 2002
ashcroft and asshole are redundant. asshole covers it.
posted by quonsar at 6:47 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by quonsar at 6:47 AM on November 6, 2002
I've long wondered if, just as an example, I call GW the 'most evil man in the western hemisphere', if I can get in any trouble for it
Probably not, since the question of who is the most evil man in the western hemisphere is a question of subjective opinion.
It's when you get into factual statements that you can really get into trouble. If you wrote that GWB shoplifted 3 pairs of jeans from Macy's at 7:35 p.m. on October 12, that would be libel (unless it were true).
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2002
Probably not, since the question of who is the most evil man in the western hemisphere is a question of subjective opinion.
It's when you get into factual statements that you can really get into trouble. If you wrote that GWB shoplifted 3 pairs of jeans from Macy's at 7:35 p.m. on October 12, that would be libel (unless it were true).
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:26 AM on November 6, 2002
well, at least under a less fascist regime, anyway...
posted by quonsar at 8:17 AM on November 6, 2002
posted by quonsar at 8:17 AM on November 6, 2002
« Older What is the consensus regarding posting images to... | Is MetaFilter better on the weekend? Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
does your mates mailinglist state where the © goes? if it says the same as here, all posts are © their poster.
posted by dabitch at 8:38 AM on November 5, 2002