Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Online defamation worth $11.3 million? Update Oct. 12: Along with posting this item yesterday, I sent a note to "letters @ editor and publisher.com" asking if E&P has a special reprint arrangement with USA Today. I got a reply today from editor Greg Mitchell, saying E&P does pay the Associated Press for rights -- and that the person who posted the story may have thought it was from AP. E&P removed the story today. In its place is a note saying that "Due to a mix-up, [the story] was not properly credited to USA Today. We regret the error and have deleted the article." For continuity, I've kept my original comment about the E&P story, but moved it into the right column. Now back to the main topic... that libel judgment... USA Today: By Laura Parker, USA TODAY Posted 10/10/2006 10:07 PM ET; Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ET A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. -- first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review -- represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing." Closing paragraphs: ... Bock says... she doesn't have the money to pay the judgment or hire a lawyer to appeal it. She adds that if the goal of Scheff's lawsuit was to stifle what Bock says online, it worked. "I don't feel like I can express my opinions," Bock says. "Only one side of the story was told in court. Nobody heard my side." Posted 10/10/2006 10:07 PM ET Updated 10/11/2006 10:53 AM ET Editor & Publisher: By E&P Staff Published: October 11, 2006 10:15 AM ET NEW YORK A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud." [... etc.] My original comment: I guess there's only one way to tell this story... Hmm... Maybe Editor & Publisher ("America's oldest journal covering the newspaper industry") has some agreement with USA Today to use stories without credit. Even so, adding the "By E&P Staff" tag seems odd, unless Laura Parker works for E&P and moonlights for USA Today. Here's part of Laura Parker's main USA Today story on the online defamation debate, "Courts are asked to crack down on bloggers, websites": "In the past two years, more than 50 lawsuits stemming from postings on blogs and website message boards have been filed across the nation. The suits have spawned a debate over how the "blogosphere" and its revolutionary impact on speech and publishing might change libel law. "Legal analysts say the lawsuits are challenging a mind-set that has long surrounded blogging: that most bloggers essentially are "judgment-proof" because they -- unlike traditional media such as newspapers, magazines and television outlets -- often are ordinary citizens who don't have a lot of money...." The Associated Press version of the $11 million story does credit USA Today with an interview quote near the end. Finally, here's Daniel Ostrovsky's South Florida DailyBusinessReview.com item -- the one cited above as breaking the story, although he focused more on the case itself, rather than whether it was a record award in an online libel case, or what it might mean for legions of feisty bloggers. 6:02:17 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2008 Bob Stepno. Last update: 7/19/08; 1:17:09 PM.