Stanford Center for Internet and Society

There have been a host of apocalyptic warnings in the blogosphere about the First Circuit’s recent decision holding that truth is not an absolute defense to a defamation claim. One blogger dubbed it “the most dangerous libel decision in decades,” and nearly everyone predicts it could have serious implications for journalists. But instead of joining the chorus of First Amendment advocates decrying the decision, I propose we take a step back to calmly examine the appropriate level of First Amendment protection for truthful private information.

BNA's Electronic Commerce & Law Report reports that an Illinois court has ruled that an interactive Web page offering out-of-state visitors the ability to set up an appointment and submit comments is merely an advertisement and will not support, consistently with due process, the assertion of general jurisdiction in forums where the Web site is viewed.

Heise.de in Germany reports that a Hamburg court has ruled that forum owners should have unlimited liability, and are co-culpable for, any comments or discussions that take place on their sites, even if posted by third parties (eg. users) and without the forum owners knowledge. The report says:

Supermodel Caprice has, according to the Press Gazette, launched a £100,000 legal battle for libel damages over stories in The Sun and on the paper’s website.

The New Jersey Star-Ledger reports that:

"a Bergen County builder is suing a consumer-advocate Web site and Internet search-engine Google over an anonymous online posting that described his home construction as a shoddy "nightmare."

According to a report in Canadian newspaper, The Globe and Mail:

C-Net is reporting that a school principal in the US state of Pennsylvania has filed a libel suit against four ex-students who, he alleges, harmed his reputation by creating mock myspace profiles:

The Guardian reports that an internet libel and invasion of privacy case based on allegations over posts made on the blogs of advertising group WPP has been settled out of court. Proceedings had already begun before a jury in the High Court, which hears all UK libel cases. From the Guardian:

About two years ago, I started collecting links to posts, articles, academic discussions and case law about internet libel. I've put this into del.icio.us where I've used the tags internetlaw and internetlibel.