Traverse Internet Law: Internet Lawyers

Defamation Lawyer: Rosemary Port v. Google

Here is my post on the Google Bomb community site about the legal claim being asserted by Rosemary Port against Google for unmasking her identity in the Liskula Cohen case. As a defamation lawyer I addressed the very issue of anonymity and the movement of the free speech expansionists in my new book hitting the bookstores September 1. In the meantime, if you want an up close and personal view of the complicated issues involved, and a broader view from an Internet defamation lawyer of where this volley fits in with the war for control of the web, Google Bomb is available on Amazon: Google Bomb Book.   

Defamation Lawyer: What Can Get You Sued?

As defamation lawyers we are often involved in analyzing a potentially defamatory post. In today's world, it is getting harder and harder to figure out whether some blog comment or post is a statement of fact. Statements of fact can now be couched in statements of opinion and craftfully presented so that Google picks up the factual words and presents those it is results. It's a game that brings into play issues unique to the law of the Internet and issues your typical defamation lawyer will have a hard time grasping. 

At Traverse Internet Law, our defamation lawyers deal with this type of analysis often. 

Internet Law: Defamation of The Dead on NPR Monday

Internet Lawyer John W Dozier Jr. will be on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" Monday. Tune in to learn about defamation of the dead...and how to deal with social network profiles of the deceased...interesting and timely topics. No doubt that the complexities of living life in a connected world are growing.  

Internet Lawyer Comments on $12.5 Million Judgment

Reports show that in the first major commercial internet defamation case tried to jury verdict in Texas a $12.5 Million judgment has been returned. The defendants had launched a website critical of the plaintiff, ORIX Capital Markets, at the "Predatorix" domain name. Signficantly, the suit included allegations of conspiracy to defame, a basis for recovering that Dozier Internet Law has been supporting as a viable basis for extending liability to all involved in a mobosphere attack. All defendant participants involved are potentially liable under this theory even if the individuals themselves did not publish the defamatory comments.

The case was tried for two weeks before a jury, and the judgment was for $2.5 Million in compensatory damages and $10 Million in punitive damages. Needless to say, ORIX now owns the website.

I wonder where Public Citizen was in this case? This is the second judgment in excess of $10 Million a jury has returned for online defamation against individuals. Public Citizen picks its cases very carefully from the looks of things and likes to publicize little victories that have little significance in the grander scheme of things. You'll hear more about Public Citizen, Paul Levy, and Greg Beck in "Google Bomb", my upcoming book set to hit the shelves in the coming months. 

Internet Law: Wikipedia Editing and Section 230

Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, is proposing a new editorial process for edits in which a trusted team of editors will review and approve new edits. The pervasive issue of false and defamatory edits hit a new low last week with a false entry that Senators Kennedy and Byrd had died.

Traverse Internet Law is on both sides of this issue. Clients ask us for guidance in what can, and what cannot, be edited, ever mindful of the fine line that must be navigated to stay away from publisher liability for the content of third party posts. Wikipedia is to be commended for focusing the net's attention on the need to use discretion and edit content. But unless Wikipedia is willing to assume a huge risk and become a publisher of content and not a mere conduit of information and a service provider, you won't see this new plan implemented.

That's because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act won't give them immunity from liability that arises when false information is included in third party posts and edits. And there is no way Wikipedia can truly make judgment calls as to what is, and is not, defamatory. Even lawyers and judges disagree vehemently. 

Let's hope that Congress sees the wisdom in amending Section 230 to establish more appropriate guidelines for editing that will allow immunity to be preserved when all one is really trying to do is have a decent, civil, honest and fair online society. Of course, that will be seen by Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU and others as an attack on free speech. So the battle will be a heated one when the time comes for Congress to amend a 13 year old law that may have made sense before Web 2.0 and User Generated Content took over the web, but makes absolutely no sense now.