G.A.B.B.

In our world he is known as InstaPundit – pioneer blogger and hero to many on the Right side of the blogosphere. In my wife’s world, he is known as Glenn Reynolds, Professor of Law at Tennessee (and to give you an idea of the differences, Prof. W. had heard of Glenn Reynolds, but hadn’t heard of InstaPundit.)

Occasionally, he lets the worlds collide, as with a recent law review article on libel in the blogosphere.

Normally posts here on GABB will be more along the blurb/link/let’s discuss! lines, rather than the windy pieces found on the Pages. Unfortunately, downloading the paper is a substantial pain in the tuckus, so I’ll try to summarize. He starts by noting that to date, essentially no significant libel cases involving blogs have been litigated. He notes a number of legal and “cultural” factors that account for this.

He recounts briefly basic libel law to discuss why bloggers are unlikely to run afoul of it. He talks a bit about how blogs are changing and veers into a blog-loving elegy. He then comes back to talk about how technology generally should change how courts approach libel cases. His conclusions:

First, I think that the threshold of harm should be fairly high. Since
defamation law is intended to remedy actual harm to people’s reputations, courts
should take cognizance of the reality that blogs are not generally relied on as
sole sources of information: A statement on a blog that a defendant has failed
multiple polygraph tests is likely to be seen by most readers as a jumping-off
point for further research, while a similar statement in The New York Times is
more likely to be regarded as conclusive. (This matters both as a threshold
question, and, should liability be found, again as to damages.)

Second, because of the nature of blogs and blog readership, a swift correction
should be seen as entirely remedying the problem. Unlike newspapers’
corrections, it will not appear in a separate “edition,” but at the same
URL, and thanks to search engines like Google and Technorati, it will be
readily available to future readers as well.

Third, courts should take into account the ease with which plaintiffs can get their
own story out, via blogs and other electronic media, too. Indeed, a plaintiff who
feels injured can start a blog, publish his/her response, and – via a link
to the offending post – be confident that his or her version will be readily
discoverable via Technorati. This sort of self-help might even be regarded
as necessary mitigation.

Finally, though I won’t go as far as John Perry Barlow’s “Declaration of
Independence” for cyberspace, I think that courts should recognize that the
blogosphere is a place with its own culture, norms, and readership, and that
charges of defamation should be interpreted in context:26 It’s a rough-and-tumble
world, not a place where Marqis of Queensbury rules apply.

That's a taste. The whole thing is worth the effort and quite accessible for the nonlawyer. For anyone interested who is also planning to attend the Akron MeetUp, let me know and I'll bring you a copy.