Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:42:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090401/0208564336.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090401/0208564336.shtml Fox & Friends have been found not guilty of defamation, after they repeated quotes from a parody news article that they assumed were true (though, even they admitted that the quotes sounded as if they could be from a parody). Basically, it turns out they were just gullible, not defamatory -- mainly because there was no specific malicious intent in repeating the parody info. While the court admitted that the gullibility was negligent and distasteful, that didn't rise to the level of malicious. If anything, the reputation hurt most by this incident isn't that of the guy suing for defamation... but that of the hosts of Fox & Friends.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> not-malice http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090401/0208564336 Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:20:00 PDT Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/1541324333.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/1541324333.shtml being a jerk online some sort of criminal activity, even though that almost certainly violates the First Amendment. The latest is an effort in West Virginia to create a new misdemeanor for posting false information about someone online, which could result in fines and jailtime. Now, as you probably already know, we already have laws against defamation -- though that's a civil issue, where the defamed party can take the defamer to court. In this case, the law would do two things: (1) make it a criminal issue, getting the government involved in determining who to prosecute and (2) lower the standard for what breaks the law. Specifically, defamation has required not just the spreading of false information, but that it be done with malicious intent, if you wanted any kind of punitive damages. Yet, this law in West Virginia has no such requirement, meaning that simply spreading false information, even if not for malicious intent, could get you brought up on criminal charges. That seems to go against the First Amendment, but since when has that ever stopped lawmakers from pushing bills?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> don't-be-a-jerk http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090331/1541324333 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:36:58 PST Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/0147393882.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090224/0147393882.shtml truth is an absolute defense against libel. Apparently, a federal appeals court in Boston feels that there are exceptions to this rule, and that even the truth can be libelous. If that seems incredibly problematic, you're right.

The case involved the office supply company Staples, who had fired an employee for abusing the company's travel and expense reporting system. After letting the guy, Alan S. Noonan, go, the company sent an email to many employees letting them know why Noonan was fired: "A thorough investigation determined that Alan was not in compliance with our [travel and expenses] policies." Noonan sued for libel, but Staples pointed out that since it was entirely accurate, there was no case.

However, the appeals court noted a century old Massachusetts law that suggests that truth is a defense against libel except if the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the defendant in publishing the statement. Even though an earlier ruling had ruled that particular law was unconstitutional, the appeals court said that earlier ruling didn't apply. Instead, it said that since Staples had never named an employee fired for similar reasons, there was "malice" in sending out the email it sent. This may only apply in Massachusetts and it's highly likely to eventually be overturned (either in a rehearing by the entire appeals court, or eventually the Supreme Court), but in the meantime, it represents a very troubling change in the commonly accepted understanding that true statements can't be found as libelous.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> um...-that's-not-good http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090224/0147393882