Ferrari Mailing List: Re: Legal Question - Ferrari 250 GT SWB Chassis# 2639 , from bad to worst.

[Scott Saidel (Ferrarisimo]

Doug:

This area of law continues to develop and so far the news - from "our" perspective is not good.

Understand that the general rules regarding defamation hold "republishers" equally responsible for the damage resulting from false, libelous, statements.  So, if I tell the local paper that you have a loathsome disease and they publish it (and it is not true) - both the paper and I are liable.  This should make sense - since it is the publication and not the mere utterance of the libelous statement that is the tort.

As a result, what this means in cyber space - is that forwarding untrue, damaging statements about a third party could result in liability for the republication initial libelous statement - particularly, if it is forwarded to a party not among the initial recipients.  

There is some defense if - for example - the libelous statement is credited to the original speaker AND an effort is made to confirm the facts.  Such as a paper reporting that I said "you have a loathsome disease" and then they call several others who confirm that you do in fact suffer from said disease, as indicated - but this is not 100%.  All the people credited with the statement - or confirmation - could be on the hook if the allegations proves to be unfounded.  However, truth is a complete defense - so if they called your doctor and he confirmed the diagnosis - they (and I) would be off the hook. 

I do differentiate this from merely commenting on the statements (without forwarding the original) as long as the comments themselves are not libelous.  

The widely recognized problem with the internet - and email in particular - is that it represents such a different format than existed in the days of posted mail when these laws developed.  It took a lot more to write things out long hand, address an envelope, stamp, and then mail it - than it does to make a wry comment and press return (especially if your email program defaults to attaching the previous correspondence - as mine does).  

As such the law is in flux, and I expect that we are due for a case with some substantial issue (probably some celebrity suing the Daily Mail or Perez Hilton for a nasty, untrue allegation) that tries to tie in a bunch of "innocent" 20 somethings that passed it around - giving it momentum.  I would hope that a good lawyer could protect the "innocents" but legally they could be on the hook (since it is unlikely that the 20 somethings personally made any effort to verify the inaccurate facts - see the problem?).  

Really, it was exactly this kind of momentum breeding the appearance of truth - to an untrue and unfounded allegation - that was the cornerstone to the existing libel laws.  In fact, it was repetition and republication making an untrue statement 'seem' factual that was one of the things that the law was trying to protect against.  If I were arguing the celebrity's side of the case, that is certainly where I would be arguing - that the republishing of false "facts" until they are accepted as true - is exactly what the law is supposed to be protecting us from. 

England recognized this situation and has enacted some protections for "innocent republishers."  The US has not.  There has yet to be a high profile case in the US - at least that I am aware of - addressing this particular situation.  As such, I would suggest that - when dealing with potentially damaging, potentially inaccurate, and therefore potentially defamatory communications - that you don't attach the previous post to your communications.

Scottie   

On Oct 24, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Doug and Terri Anderson wrote:

Just struck me that some pretty tough stuff has been written here about another fellow.  The specter of “. . . could be sued . . . “ was broached.

 

Open question here – The person stating the juicy stuff is open for libel BUT what abut the rest of us who pass on his internet rant?  Has this area of law ever been examined?

 

For instance – someone sends me a letter much akin to what Mr. Le Grand has spelled out on this forum.  I take the letter and pass it on to a friend.  That could make me a target for passing on libelous information.

 

But this is the internet.  Any problem?  Who governs the internet?

 

Just wondering

 

DOUG

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.ferrarilist.com/mailman/options/ferrari/ferrarisimo%40comcast.net

Sponsored by BooyahMedia.com 
and F1 Headlines
http://www.F1Headlines.com/