Libel on the Internet

by Lisa Burns

For the past two weeks, we have explored the questions surrounding libel on the Internet and how it is impacting the industry. Various members of the literary industry have been the victims of online assault on the Internet for years. Up until this point, cyber-bullies, a.k.a. “industry insiders,” posing as legitimate, unbiased investigative reporters, have been telling us how to think without bothering to back up their spurious claims with facts.

You may be asking, “How does all this affect my next novel?” The industry, along with aspiring writers, has made the decision not to listen to the creators of libelous websites and blogs. The result? So-called “bad” agents and publishers will finally have a chance to prove that they are the good guys. Authors, agents and publishers will soon have more options in terms of gathering facts about the literary industry. With the 2008 launch of websites like Cyntopedia, an online encyclopedia for the publishing industry, legitimate publishers, agents and authors are taking a stance against slanderous websites and blogs. The literary industry is fighting back, not by playing the games the non-professionals play, but by encouraging the public to check references and to draw their own conclusion.

There is only one reason these dubious critics have made an impact. The creators of these malicious websites joined the Internet revolution before the literary industry. Now that the literary industry has made its impact online, the tide is quickly turning. This is an important time for the literary industry. History will look back on the past five years and show that the literary industry did not succumb to the childish games of a few tech-savvy, angry bloggers. Instead, they stuck to the original mission of publishing: to provide the public with truth, honesty and integrity in writing. The recent actions of a few misguided bloggers and website operators cannot deter the works of thousands.

A number of laws are being proposed to protect the victims of disparaging blogs and websites. Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill in March 2008 making anonymous posting on blogs and websites illegal. With his proposed bill, the full name of the contributor would be used anytime his or her comment is posted. On the other side of the debate, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case brought against an Internet Egyptology newsgroup by a woman seeking damages after the website ridiculed her credentials and expertise, saying she had gotten her college degree from “a Cracker Jack box.”

The name-calling, teasing and lying against agents, publishers and bloggers is just one reason the literary industry is taking a stand against libelous websites and blogs. The real victims are the talented writers who are discouraged from pursuing their dreams after reading disparaging remarks about various literary professionals on certain websites and blogs. It is our hope that would-be writers conduct their own research and choose the right publisher or agent that suits his or her project, even if a website lists a potential agent or publisher on their scam list.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com

by Lisa Burns

Last week, WNW explored the difference between stating an opinion and libel. Because of the attacks on publishers within the past five years, WNW has decided to examine both sides of this debate. The decisions by the courts, either in favor of or against bloggers, will no doubt have a huge impact on the way the publishing industry operates.

For web designers, the war of words is an attack on the first amendment. The instant commentary provided on virtually every subject by websites and blogs is protected under the first amendment. This often colorful observation of events is sometimes taken for fact, which explains the opposition websites and blogs are facing. One of the more popular blogging websites, www.blogger.com, has a disclaimer that reads, “We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share. It is our belief that censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression.”

The Supreme Court weighed in with its decision by ruling unanimously in favor of the ACLU in Reno v. ACLU. According to the ACLU, “the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person’s access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader’s hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.” This landmark decision was an enormous victory for web designers and bloggers everywhere.

Advocates for free speech on the Internet see posted disparaging information as freedom of expression, not defamation of character; they believe that censorship of such information will begin with blogs and websites and eventually pollute email and search engines. To restrict or alter information on the Internet would be as damaging as the banning of classic American novels, including The Catcher and the Rye.

Around the world, bloggers whose posts have been removed believe a political agenda is behind the removal of their words. A report in the May 3, 2006 bulletin from France’s Reporters Without Borders states in reference to bloggers’ possible repression of freedom of expression, “Dictators would seem powerless faced with this explosion of online material. How could they monitor the e-mails of China's 130 million users or censor the messages posted by Iran's 70,000 bloggers? The enemies of the Internet have unfortunately shown their determination and skill in doing just that. Censorship of the Web is growing and is now done on every continent.”

To censor websites and blogs is a global issue, not just an American concern. To limit or alter information from the general public could be a huge step backwards, and an infringement on civil rights. The question facing the courts is where to draw the line. The line is the difference between freedom of speech and libel on the Internet.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com

by Lisa Burns

Freedom of speech to writers is as imperative as a camera is to a photographer and a canvas to a painter; without the right to record free-flowing ideas, the writer would have no motivation to practice his or her art form. With this freedom comes a certain amount of liability, especially when a large mass of people are reading content and assuming without any further research that the statements made are fact. The impact of the Internet has split the online community into two groups: writers who cite freedom of speech and create blogs, forums and web pages without consequence, and the victims of vicious websites, who claim their character has been defamed by these sites. On one hand, writers of blogs and forums are authors who should have the same rights as anyone else. It is not against the law to state an opinion or to make a claim in a printed publication, so why is the Internet any different? On the other hand, it is libelous to print false information and claim it to be true. The question remains: Is the Internet a haven for free speech, or are certain restrictions necessary to improve the quality and integrity of websites?

To start, we need to understand the difference between stating an opinion and libel. Eugene Volokh, professor at the University of California Los Angeles Law School, says, “As a general matter, statements are actionable libel when they are false statements of ‘fact’ that injure a person’s reputation.” These statements are typically made by critics who state falsehoods and pass them off as facts. An opinion, on the other hand, does not claim to be factual. “The line is between stating an opinion, which is fully protected by the First Amendment even when it destroys a business, and making a false statement of fact, which may be unprotected and thus legally actionable even if it doesn’t destroy a business,” says Mr. Volokh. “Exactly when a statement crosses the line between opinion and factual assertion is sometimes clear and sometimes hazy, but that’s the question that should be asked.”

The literary industry in particular has been hit hard in recent years by brand-bashing on the Internet. Jeremy D. Mishkin, partner and chair of the Litigation Department of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP summarizes the law, saying, “You may not defame others. You do not have the right to make a false statement that harms the reputation of other people. When an expression of opinion includes explicit or implicit statements of fact that are false and harm the reputation of others, it’s usually enough to claim defamation.”

WNW is going to take a closer look at both sides of this debate. Next week, we will examine the side writers on the Internet are taking. Are their civil liberties in question? The third and final part of the “The War of the Words” series will study the businesses that have been defamed because of disparaging remarks on the Internet. We invite you to consider both sides of the debate and to weigh in with your own opinion.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com