I see no reason to exclude from the centuries-old tort of defamation those who publish their comments on the internet, whether in blog form or otherwise. The law already excludes a blogger from liability for what others say in the comments section on his or her blog, which is a correct outcome under the circumstances and is clearly a good example of old laws accommodating and striking balances with new technologies. But why should anyone who actually defames another be let off the hook merely because it is easier to publish one’s statements via this medium? By definition, a libelous statement is one that has damaged someone else’s reputation through publication of false factual assertions. I simply see no justification for carving out a broader exemption of blogs in general; that seems to me to be going much too far. The law is intended to impose some level of discipline on people who publish statements about others, and to me that’s a good thing and easy enough for a blogger to take into account even in the context of rapidly developing events.

Oh, and ehrichweiss, I am assuming you are not a lawyer, since the advice you are giving is not very good advice. Though not typical, there have been successful libel suits where even though the person’s name was not used, the publication was directed toward an audience who clearly understood, based on the statements made, exactly who the author was talking about. Moreover, the American rule in litigation does not generally allow you to “countersue for . . . attorney fees.” If a lawsuit is entirely frivolous, one can petition the court to award attorney fees as a sanction, but it would have to be so clearly lacking in any merit as to leave no doubt that the person who brought the suit did so in utter bad faith. Although I’m dubious of a suit like the one shanoboy describes, I seriously doubt it would meet that standard.