Comments on: Barrett v. Rosenthal: Blogger Immunity for Defamatory Comments http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/11/barrett_v_rosen.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Daniel J. Solove http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/11/barrett_v_rosen.html/comment-page-1#comment-56251 Daniel J. Solove Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:21:26 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/11/barrett-v-rosenthal-blogger-immunity-for-defamatory-comments.html#comment-56251 Eric, What if you sent me an ordinary letter with a libel and I excerpt it on my blog? Do I get Sec. 230 immunity? And, of course, if you ever tell me a rumor about somebody that I want to post, I'll be sure to ask you to write it down for me, so then I can post it that way and avoid liability. With the exception of libels originating based on first hand observation, aren't most libels the result of rumors, communicated to the publisher, who then reports them? In other words, suppose I'm a journalist and a source sends me a letter about you, which I then report in my story in the following way: "A source, who remains anonymous, has informed me that Eric Goldman is [insert libelous fact about you here.]" I'm liable for this if in a newspaper, but not in a blog or on a website? Does this really make sense? Do you think <em>Batzel</em> is a sensible application of Sec. 230? I think that <em>Batzel</em> is wrong, so I'd at the very least draw the line there. But that does make it difficult to distinguish scenario #3 in my post. Eric,

What if you sent me an ordinary letter with a libel and I excerpt it on my blog? Do I get Sec. 230 immunity?

And, of course, if you ever tell me a rumor about somebody that I want to post, I’ll be sure to ask you to write it down for me, so then I can post it that way and avoid liability.

With the exception of libels originating based on first hand observation, aren’t most libels the result of rumors, communicated to the publisher, who then reports them? In other words, suppose I’m a journalist and a source sends me a letter about you, which I then report in my story in the following way: “A source, who remains anonymous, has informed me that Eric Goldman is [insert libelous fact about you here.]” I’m liable for this if in a newspaper, but not in a blog or on a website? Does this really make sense? Do you think Batzel is a sensible application of Sec. 230?

I think that Batzel is wrong, so I’d at the very least draw the line there. But that does make it difficult to distinguish scenario #3 in my post.

]]> By: Eric Goldman http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/11/barrett_v_rosen.html/comment-page-1#comment-56250 Eric Goldman Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:37:11 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/11/barrett-v-rosenthal-blogger-immunity-for-defamatory-comments.html#comment-56250 Good post, Dan. But there's another way to look at your slippery slope. Assuming that Congress intended to moot liability for #4 for the policy reasons articulated in Zeran and Barrett, as you point out, there was no principled way to distinguish #2 and #3--so all of them should be covered by the same immunity. As for #1, this just may be a situation where the medium matters--there is a difference between relaying unrecorded oral statements from third parties and relaying their recorded statements. Eric. Good post, Dan. But there’s another way to look at your slippery slope. Assuming that Congress intended to moot liability for #4 for the policy reasons articulated in Zeran and Barrett, as you point out, there was no principled way to distinguish #2 and #3–so all of them should be covered by the same immunity. As for #1, this just may be a situation where the medium matters–there is a difference between relaying unrecorded oral statements from third parties and relaying their recorded statements. Eric.

]]>