Asturian-American Migration Forum

• threats of death or other harm
• claims which damage someone's reputation (see Defamation below)
• accusations of criminal, dishonest or immoral behavior
• allegations of conduct that deliberately causes injury to others
• claims that a product or service is of poor quality
• smear campaigns

• amenazas de muerte o daños
• afirmaciones que dañan la reputación de alguien (ver a continuación Difamación)
• Acusaciones de conducta criminal, deshonesta o inmoral
• denuncias de conductas que deliberadamente causan un perjuicio a los demás
• afirmaciones que un producto o servicio es de mala calidad
• campañas difamatorias

David Savage wrote: Blogger beware: Postings Draw Suits
David G. Savage
Tribune Washington Bureau

Online anonymity can vanish in litigation over Internet remarks
The Internet has allowed tens of millions of Americans to be published writers. But it also has led to a surge in lawsuits from those who say they were hurt, defamed or threatened by what they read, according to groups that track media lawsuits.

“It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet,” said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.

While bloggers may have a free-speech right to say what they want online, courts have found that they are not protected from being sued for their comments, even if they are posted anonymously.

Some postings have even led to criminal charges. Hal Turner, a right-wing blogger from New Jersey, faces up to 10 years in prison for posting a comment that three Chicago judges “deserve to be killed” for having rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the city’s handgun ban in 2009.

Turner, who also ran his own Web-based radio show, thought this “was political trash talk,” his lawyer said. But earlier this month a jury in Brooklyn convicted him of threatening the lives of the judges on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In western Pennsylvania, a judge recently ruled that a community Web site must identify Internet addresses of people who posted comments calling a township official a “jerk” who put money from the taxpayers in “his pocket.” The official also owned a used-car dealership, and one commenter called his cars “junk.” He sued for defamation, saying the comments were false and damaged his reputation.

In April, a North Carolina county official won a similar ruling after some anonymous bloggers called him a slumlord.

“Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online,” said Eric Goldman, who teaches Internet law at Santa Clara University in California. “A whole new generation can publish now, but they don’t understand the legal dangers they could face. People are
shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, ‘My dentist stinks.’ ” Under federal law, Web sites generally are not liable for comments posted by outsiders. They can, however, be forced to reveal the poster’s identity if the post includes false facts.

Calling someone a “jerk” and a “buffoon” may be safe from a lawsuit because it states an opinion. Saying he wrongly “pocketed” public money could lead to a defamation claim because it states a fact.

The Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment’s protection for the freedom of speech includes the right to publish anonymous pamphlets. But recently, judges have been saying that online speakers do not always have a right to remain anonymous.

Last month the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Nevada judge’s order requiring the disclosure of the identity of three people accused of conducting an
“Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings” against Quixtar, a brand used by direct-sales giant Amway.

“The right to speak, whether anonymously or otherwise, is not unlimited,” wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

Quixtar had sued, contending the postings were damaging to its business. The judge who first ordered the disclosure said the Internet has “great potential for irresponsible, malicious and harmful communication.” Media law experts say suits over Internet postings are hard to track because many arise from local disputes. They rarely result in large verdicts or lengthy appeals.

Goldman, the Santa Clara professor, describes these cases as the “thin-skinned plaintiff versus the griper.” They begin with someone who goes online to complain, perhaps about a restaurant, a contractor, a store, a former boss or a public official.

Sometimes one person’s complaint prompts others to vent.
“There’s a false sense of safety on the Internet,” said Kimberley Isbell, a lawyer for the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard. “If you think you can be anonymous, you may not exercise the same judgment” before posting, she said.

Not surprisingly, the target of the online complaints may think he or she has no choice but to take legal action if the comments are false and malicious.

“These can be life-changing lawsuits.

They can go on for years and cost enormous amounts in legal fees,” Goldman said.

He is particularly concerned about what teenagers post online. “Teenagers do what you might expect. They say things they shouldn’t say. They do stupid things,” he said. “We don’t have a legal standard for defamation that excuses kids.” Media law experts say bloggers and e-mailers need to think twice before sending a message.

“The first thing people need to realize (is) they can be held accountable for what they say online,” Baron said. “Before you speak ill of anyone online, you should think hard before pressing the ‘send’ button.”