Comments on: The cost of speech http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/ by Jeff Jarvis Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:48:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Jeff http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-76552 Jeff Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:19:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-76552 In regard to the Lyle Stuart case, it should be noted that the judge remanded the case for retrial with the "improper jury instructions" ruling as a move to save face. Virtually all of the judges in Nevada had a financial connection to Wynn. The initial trial was very unfair. The judge ended up in a tricky situation when all of the nation's major news organizations got together and filed an amicus brief on behalf of Lyle Stuart/Barricade Books. With the eye of the national media trained on the appeal a crooked verdict wouldn't be easily upheld. The jury instructions ruling allowed the judge an out to the sticky situation. Note that once the case was remanded for retrial Wynn did not move to bring the case back before the court. In regard to the Lyle Stuart case, it should be noted that the judge remanded the case for retrial with the “improper jury instructions” ruling as a move to save face. Virtually all of the judges in Nevada had a financial connection to Wynn. The initial trial was very unfair. The judge ended up in a tricky situation when all of the nation’s major news organizations got together and filed an amicus brief on behalf of Lyle Stuart/Barricade Books. With the eye of the national media trained on the appeal a crooked verdict wouldn’t be easily upheld. The jury instructions ruling allowed the judge an out to the sticky situation. Note that once the case was remanded for retrial Wynn did not move to bring the case back before the court.

]]> By: Anita Lott http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-34921 Anita Lott Thu, 30 Mar 2006 19:17:04 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-34921 I have used http://www.free-legal-referral.com in the past to find lawyers in my area! I have used http://www.free-legal-referral.com in the past to find lawyers in my area!

]]> By: Kat http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-34109 Kat Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:28:28 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-34109 What bloggers need to learn is what MSM engages in--politically correct journalism. They toed the line on the mohammed cartoon capers by avoiding publishing the cartoons for fear of being fatwaed. MSM is afraid to use the word terrorist. In America is is fear of being accused of libel. They can learn from CAIR which files more libel suits than Planters has peanuts. It's a great way to intimidate critics and they have the millions to fight their cases that critics don't. And now the battleground changes--bloggers must be intimidated and muzzled --just like MSM. Libel is wrong if it is truly libel, but charging that something is libel simply because it doesn't support your thinking or your agenda, is wrong, also. When we started regulating 'hate speech' we started down a slippery slope. Yes, bloggers need to learn the rules--political correctness. "You change people's behavior simply by bringing the lawsuit." http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29748&access=811579 What bloggers need to learn is what MSM engages in–politically correct journalism. They toed the line on the mohammed cartoon capers by avoiding publishing the cartoons for fear of being fatwaed. MSM is afraid to use the word terrorist. In America is is fear of being accused of libel. They can learn from CAIR which files more libel suits than Planters has peanuts. It’s a great way to intimidate critics and they have the millions to fight their cases that critics don’t. And now the battleground changes–bloggers must be intimidated and muzzled –just like MSM. Libel is wrong if it is truly libel, but charging that something is libel simply because it doesn’t support your thinking or your agenda, is wrong, also. When we started regulating ‘hate speech’ we started down a slippery slope. Yes, bloggers need to learn the rules–political correctness. “You change people’s behavior simply by bringing the lawsuit.”
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29748&access=811579

]]> By: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Saving journalism (and killing the press) http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-34104 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Saving journalism (and killing the press) Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:44:35 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-34104 [...] Webb says that online should be run by the technologists more than the editors. Rubin asks what would happen in Philly if a left-wing power bought one paper and a right-wing power the other (note to myself: I need to post about why I think that could be a good thing; see London). I say that the starting point is to define what local news can and should be: what are we saving and what can we do now we couldn’t do before? It’s not about saving newspaper or — pardon me — saving newsrooms. It’s about growing news. Sandy Shea of the Daily News asks what democracy requires as an agenda item. Another question, Madrak says, is that newspapers can be skewed by serving the wrong public. The shareholder question comes up: Are shareholders the constituency of newspapers? Is that in competition with “our constitutional duty,” Madrak asks. This always comes up. But in this room, to my delight, people immediately say that the issue is how to make money. Duncan Black says that newspapers have squandered the opportunity to make money with audience online. The question comes up: what is the relationship of citizen journalism and professional journalism. This will be the meat of it and the discussion revs up here, too fast to Boswell. Diversity is raised as an issue; this room is mostly white. Warren brings up the issue of bloggers not having the legal protection; see this. [...] [...] Webb says that online should be run by the technologists more than the editors. Rubin asks what would happen in Philly if a left-wing power bought one paper and a right-wing power the other (note to myself: I need to post about why I think that could be a good thing; see London). I say that the starting point is to define what local news can and should be: what are we saving and what can we do now we couldn’t do before? It’s not about saving newspaper or — pardon me — saving newsrooms. It’s about growing news. Sandy Shea of the Daily News asks what democracy requires as an agenda item. Another question, Madrak says, is that newspapers can be skewed by serving the wrong public. The shareholder question comes up: Are shareholders the constituency of newspapers? Is that in competition with “our constitutional duty,” Madrak asks. This always comes up. But in this room, to my delight, people immediately say that the issue is how to make money. Duncan Black says that newspapers have squandered the opportunity to make money with audience online. The question comes up: what is the relationship of citizen journalism and professional journalism. This will be the meat of it and the discussion revs up here, too fast to Boswell. Diversity is raised as an issue; this room is mostly white. Warren brings up the issue of bloggers not having the legal protection; see this. [...]

]]> By: jvd http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-34073 jvd Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:23:23 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-34073 Most people just want to be helpful when they can. They aren't sitting around wondering about the rules. They are out there leading their lives. People need to know the rules and I'm sure you will be there to explain them. They'll tune you out. Most people just want to be helpful when they can.
They aren’t sitting around wondering about the rules.
They are out there leading their lives. People need to know the rules and I’m sure you will be there to explain them. They’ll tune you out.

]]> By: I.F. Stoner http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33999 I.F. Stoner Fri, 24 Mar 2006 19:16:34 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33999 I'm not saying Lyle Stuart deserved (or didn't) deserve it, but the reality is that libel cases are crushingly expensive to defend. (And a techo nit here, one is not "guilty" of libel in the US, they are liable-- it's a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong). And your comments about public figures aren't quite right. They are not "excluded" from making claims. Ray Donovan, Barry Bonds, The Donald....all are libel plaintiffs. They may not win, but they DO have standing to sue. We seem to agree, though, that posters/bloggers/webbies need to know the rules...whether it's right to break them is another discussion... I’m not saying Lyle Stuart deserved (or didn’t) deserve it, but the reality is that libel cases are crushingly expensive to defend. (And a techo nit here, one is not “guilty” of libel in the US, they are liable– it’s a civil wrong, not a criminal wrong).

And your comments about public figures aren’t quite right. They are not “excluded” from making claims. Ray Donovan, Barry Bonds, The Donald….all are libel plaintiffs. They may not win, but they DO have standing to sue.

We seem to agree, though, that posters/bloggers/webbies need to know the rules…whether it’s right to break them is another discussion…

]]> By: Michael http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33996 Michael Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:16:53 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33996 I would argue that people are publicly libeled more often now than ever, so the rise in libel cases simply reflects that fact. Everyone loves the "Nazi" quote in the story Jeff links to, but the linkers always seem to miss that the defendant had said publicly that the plaintiff was a convicted sex offender! I chuckled when I read the comment above about Lyle Stuart: he was found guilty, so of course the cost was "horrific." (The Nevada Supreme Court later threw out the verdict, but only because of "improper jury instructions.) BTW, Stuart has made a career out of walking the line, and has been sued before and since, so it could be argued that he knew what he was doing and its potential consequences. I would argue that people are publicly libeled more often now than ever, so the rise in libel cases simply reflects that fact.

Everyone loves the “Nazi” quote in the story Jeff links to, but the linkers always seem to miss that the defendant had said publicly that the plaintiff was a convicted sex offender!

I chuckled when I read the comment above about Lyle Stuart: he was found guilty, so of course the cost was “horrific.” (The Nevada Supreme Court later threw out the verdict, but only because of “improper jury instructions.) BTW, Stuart has made a career out of walking the line, and has been sued before and since, so it could be argued that he knew what he was doing and its potential consequences.

]]> By: jblog http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33987 jblog Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:39:45 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33987 Sorry, IF, I was speaking solely from the perspective of U.S. law, and from that perspective I believe my comments are reasonably accurate, including in reference to public figures. I'm aware that the rules vary in other countries. As to the cost of defending libel suits, even most small publishers can afford insurance to cover this -- the weezy little weekly newspaper I started at certainly could and did. As for the rules regarding libel, I would suggest that anyone who is in the habit of publishing provocative statements in a public forum would be well-advised to know them. Sorry, IF, I was speaking solely from the perspective of U.S. law, and from that perspective I believe my comments are reasonably accurate, including in reference to public figures. I’m aware that the rules vary in other countries.

As to the cost of defending libel suits, even most small publishers can afford insurance to cover this — the weezy little weekly newspaper I started at certainly could and did.

As for the rules regarding libel, I would suggest that anyone who is in the habit of publishing provocative statements in a public forum would be well-advised to know them.

]]> By: I.F. Stoner http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33982 I.F. Stoner Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:04:26 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33982 JBLOG, you are well intentioned but ALL WRONG about your understanding of libel law. First, the fault standard of "Actual Malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard) is not always applicable. Second, that is a legal standard found only in the US and a few rare other countries-- the Internet is global and laws of other nations may apply. Third, no case anywhere holds that "public figures are excluded from making claims." None. This is dangerously incorrect. They may (in the US) have to meet the higher fault standard of "Actual Malice" but they can and do bring claims all the time. And not just for the sake of winning but because the horrific cost of defending a libel case may break a small publisher or webmaster. Ask Lyle Stuart, who was put in bankrutpcy after being sued by casino builder Steve Wynn. Are libell laws outdated? Maybe. Can the rich and powerful "counter" false speech my merely creating a blog or holding a press conference? Perhaps. But you have to know what the rules are before you break them. Too many journalists and bloggers do not know the rules. JBLOG, you are well intentioned but ALL WRONG about your understanding of libel law.

First, the fault standard of “Actual Malice” (knowing falsity or reckless disregard) is not always applicable.

Second, that is a legal standard found only in the US and a few rare other countries– the Internet is global and laws of other nations may apply.

Third, no case anywhere holds that “public figures are excluded from making claims.” None. This is dangerously incorrect. They may (in the US) have to meet the higher fault standard of “Actual Malice” but they can and do bring claims all the time. And not just for the sake of winning but because the horrific cost of defending a libel case may break a small publisher or webmaster. Ask Lyle Stuart, who was put in bankrutpcy after being sued by casino builder Steve Wynn.

Are libell laws outdated? Maybe. Can the rich and powerful “counter” false speech my merely creating a blog or holding a press conference? Perhaps. But you have to know what the rules are before you break them. Too many journalists and bloggers do not know the rules.

]]> By: jblog http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33976 jblog Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:28:46 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33976 Well, let's remember what the standard of proof is for winning a libel case before we decide to throw it all out. Merely proving that the information was false is not sufficient. The plaintiff has to prove that the publisher knew that the information was false, or acted in a reckless fashion in publishing it. He also has to prove actual damages. And public figures -- politicians, actors, etc. -- are excluded from making claims. It's not like you just file a complaint and collect the check. Requiring people to be responsible for what they publish -- whether their professional journalists or not -- is not an unreasonable expectation. And if it discourages some people from posting stuff because they don't have the good sense to check their facts, well perhaps that's not such a bad thing. In case you haven't noticed, there's an awful lot of crap floating around out there on the Internet. Well, let’s remember what the standard of proof is for winning a libel case before we decide to throw it all out.

Merely proving that the information was false is not sufficient.

The plaintiff has to prove that the publisher knew that the information was false, or acted in a reckless fashion in publishing it. He also has to prove actual damages.

And public figures — politicians, actors, etc. — are excluded from making claims.

It’s not like you just file a complaint and collect the check.

Requiring people to be responsible for what they publish — whether their professional journalists or not — is not an unreasonable expectation.

And if it discourages some people from posting stuff because they don’t have the good sense to check their facts, well perhaps that’s not such a bad thing.

In case you haven’t noticed, there’s an awful lot of crap floating around out there on the Internet.

]]> By: Jim Dermitt http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33946 Jim Dermitt Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:54:07 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33946 Maybe the Dept. of Homeland Security has an Annoying Unit. You are sitting there blogging and federal shock troops surround the house. The jackboots kick in the door and say take your hands off the keyboard. If you got a warrant, I guess your going to come in. They don't need a no stinking warrant! They caught you red handed being annoying in violation of the G-Censor rules. Corporate America is just like China, which is also annoying. Google is annoying but people are making boat loads of money. They are moving towards a Google that knows more about you. That annoys me. Maybe the Dept. of Homeland Security has an Annoying Unit.
You are sitting there blogging and federal shock troops surround the house. The jackboots kick in the door and say take your hands off the keyboard.
If you got a warrant, I guess your going to come in. They don’t need a no stinking warrant! They caught you red handed being annoying in violation of the G-Censor rules. Corporate America is just like China, which is also annoying. Google is annoying but people are making boat loads of money.
They are moving towards a Google that knows more about you. That annoys me.

]]> By: W-orthless http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33940 W-orthless Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:27:37 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33940 Who decides what's annoying? Who decides what’s annoying?

]]> By: Jim Dermitt http://www.buzzmachine.com/2006/03/24/the-cost-of-speech/#comment-33939 Jim Dermitt Fri, 24 Mar 2006 13:23:55 +0000 http://www.buzzmachine.com/?p=1305#comment-33939 I guess it's really a moral issue and you just can't measure morality. What is thoughtless to one person is illegal to another. When I troll the web looking for something I check twice and buy once. That is how I do woodwork. I always try to measure twice and cut once. People have different ideas about things. Declan McCullagh had a good piece on this sort of thing in January. Commentary--Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime. "To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section's other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice." http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html?tag=nl.e589 Big Brother is watching. They are having $1,000 a plate dinner tonight here to raise money for Sen. Rick Santorum. The President is coming to town. I wonder if Arlen will show up to keep the guests informed. I guess it’s really a moral issue and you just can’t measure morality. What is thoughtless to one person is illegal to another. When I troll the web looking for something I check twice and buy once. That is how I do woodwork. I always try to measure twice and cut once. People have different ideas about things. Declan McCullagh had a good piece on this sort of thing in January.

Commentary–Annoying someone via the Internet is now a federal crime.
“To grease the rails for this idea, Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the section’s other sponsors slipped it into an unrelated, must-pass bill to fund the Department of Justice.”
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6024695.html?tag=nl.e589

Big Brother is watching. They are having $1,000 a plate dinner tonight here to raise money for Sen. Rick Santorum. The President is coming to town. I wonder if Arlen will show up to keep the guests informed.

]]>