Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Seth, Jan 25th, 2005 @ 3:32pm

   
   

   I think

   I think that people (especially non-tech people) forget that the Internet is not that different than any other forms of media and the same laws should be applied to the online world as the offline one. The professor basically quoted someone else. If a reporter did this, it wouldn't be libel, it'd be news. Go after the source.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   nonuser, Jan 25th, 2005 @ 4:08pm

   
   

   semi-private, semi-public spaces vanishing

   When the student submitted the paper it was arguably private between him and the professor. OK, the papers get discussed in class so they are made public, but only to a very limited group of people. One or two of those folk might turn around and tell juicy stories to the Kitty Kellys of the world, but aren't likely to cause much damage. But once the prof posted the paper to the web as part of the class materials, and google's bot found it, it became universally public and part of the permanent record associated with Ben-Tech (a little known entity with unfortunately not enough web references to hide this one).
   

   I think the professor does have some responsibility to vet the facts in the paper, because it was submitted to him in a semi-private setting by a student (not by a professional journalist to his editor, for example). The student is his protege. This is different from simply forwarding an email to a mailing list of co-workers.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Jan 25th, 2005 @ 4:35pm

   
   

   Appeals court did not say professor was libelous

   If you read the article, the appeals court overturned a summary judgement. This is not the same as finding the professor guilty of libel. This merely says that Ben-Tech has made a prima facie case, and that there are now questions of fact to be put before the jury.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Steve Mueller, Jan 25th, 2005 @ 11:39pm

   
   

   Libel?

   I'm sorry, but there's no way this is libel. My understanding of libel is that it requires three (maybe four) aspects.

   1. It must be untrue. The old saying is that the truth is a complete defense.
   2. It must be malicious. If there's an absence of malice, it's not libel.
   3. It must have damaged the other party.
   4. There must be financial losses.

   I don't see how the professor (or the student, for that matter) could be found guilty because there doesn't seem like there was any malicious intent.

   Of course, I'm not a lawyer....

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   sleepy squirrel, Jan 27th, 2005 @ 1:51am

   
   

   posting completely misses point of "passthru"

   the professor certainly didn't "pass thru" the information, he knew what was there and passed it on.
   
   the ISP's can't look into content for this reason, or they'd be held responsible for the same reason.
   
   two totally different situations

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Mike (profile), Jan 31st, 2005 @ 5:02pm

   
   

   Re: posting completely misses point of

   Actually, the circuit court ruled that even if the person was specifically passing on info that was moderated in some way, they were protected from liability.
   

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   aaa, Feb 15th, 2005 @ 7:51pm

   
   

   Re: semi-private, semi-public spaces vanishing

   dgd

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment