California can seem like a whole other country in terms of its court system, but it’s interesting that the state Supreme Court ruled this week that federal law prevents those who run blogs and Web bulletin boards from being sued for the defamatory expressions made by others. “Subjecting Internet service providers and users to defamation liability would tend to chill online speech,” the unanimous court said, pointing to the federal Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress in 1966.
Meanwhile, in Kansas, the Legislature refuses to repeal the state’s Third World-style criminal defamation law, which carries fines and up to a year in jail.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
11 Comments
I have seen the line crossed many times here and on the message baord. Yes, calling a spade a spade should not be a crime. But also far too many time the net is used as a shield to belittle and show a total lack of morals and common decentcy to others.
Or as if often said in chat rooms, “I do not have to be nice…I am on the net!”
Some people here, like Steven Davis, have accused me of living in the past. They are so right. But I’m always trying to figure out how to reinvent myself. Young biologist, doctor, home-educating parent. I’m trying to figure out the next reinvention.
I was hit with a SLAPP suit. (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). I learned a lot about defamation law.
If any of you are sued for defamation in a Kansas court on postings to WEBlog, you can move for the case to be judged in federal court. The Internet is a nationwide, even global network. Moreover, you get the full protection of Supreme Court rulings on freedom of the press. Local Wichita Eagle officials didn’t create the WEBlog on their own recognizance. They had to get approval from Knight Ridder execs in San Jose, California. Today, they get approval from Sacramento-based McClatchey. You can’t post anything here, without the approval of a California corporation.
The real problem is the intimidation of WE staff reporters. They cannot do really important investigative reporting. That’s because their California masters want REVENUES. Most of WE revenues come from local advertisters, not subscribers.Should they reformulate things? Would you be willing to pay $1.50 per issue? “He who pays the piper gets to name the tune.”
Interesting post, Heartdoc.
I think the paper would be a lot cheaper if it weren’t 75 percent ads and inserts.
Meanwhile the elegantly thin “CityPaper” has five times the content and a tenth of the ads, and it is free.
For those who wish to read the Kansas Criminal Defamation statute (K.S.A. 21-4004):
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatuteFile.do?number=/21-4004.html
It’s a shame some people don’t use the law, Operation Rescue would be out of business in seconds.
“I was hit with a SLAPP suit. (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation). I learned a lot about defamation law.”
I’ve never heard of this. Is it possible to explain the circumstances?
BTW, we all live in the past to some extent. For example, past constructions of reality shape that which I perceive, today.
The _Wichita City Paper_ is worth a look. It is run by the same people who used to put out _F-5_ – which is now very different from what it once was.
The _Wichita City Paper_ is aimed toward a younger, arty, crowd. For example in the first or second issue they had an article about the trials of self-employed musicians obtaining health care coverage. There is no shortage of liberal editorial opinion in the paper, which I presume is one reason it appeals to the Capn.
OFF TOPIC:
For those interested in Wichita’s musical past, check out this 1982 video of The Embarrassment. The band’s story was recently retold in _The Shocker_ WSU’s alumni magazine.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5064239223733412370&q=The+Embarrassment&hl=en
Just don’t stop buying your cars from Scholfield Auto Plaza or Randy will twist in the wind, a victim of the cruel California task masters.
And remember, if it is good for selling motorcars, it is good for the Eagle.
Ibedevlinya – gee, didn’t you used to bash Randy under another name?
Kansas law doesn’t matter. The California court was deciding how to interpret FEDERAL law. The Communications Decency Act passed by Congress in 1996 establishes that websites can’t be sued for 3rd party comments.
In fact, if I defame someone right now, right here on kansas.com, the CDA says the Eagle cannot be held liable for what I say. Federal law always trumps state law.
It’s conceivable that a court in Kansas could defy the ruling, but that would surely be appealed to the Supreme Court who would rule, as they did in Zeran v. AOL, that the website enjoys immunity. So again, Kansas defamation laws don’t affect websites’ liability for hosting third-party content.