everybody plays a part in this game/

Sunday, May 13, 2007 ;

8:19 PM

May 10, 2007
Watchdog Organization Battles Bogus Online Defamation Case

Internet Forum Shielded by Federal Law Protecting Free Speech

Washington, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of the National Capital Area has asked a Washington, D.C., court to dismiss claims against a nonprofit watchdog organization and its operators, arguing that federal law and the First Amendment protect them from liability in a defamation lawsuit.

DCWatch is a government watchdog organization run by Dorothy Brizill and Gary Imhoff to monitor Washington, D.C., city politics and public affairs. DCWatch's website, www.dcwatch.com, publishes articles and columns on local politics. Themail@dcwatch.com is an online newsletter and discussion forum devoted to reporting, analysis and commentary on local issues, past editions of which are archived on the DCWatch site.

In articles printed in themail@dcwatch.com, Washington journalist Jonetta Rose Barras reported that Roslyn Johnson, then Deputy Director of Programs for the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation, had inflated her employment and salary history to secure her position. A subsequent formal investigation by the D.C. Inspector General concluded that Johnson did in fact submit an inflated resume and was improperly hired for her position. But in a lawsuit filed earlier this year, Johnson claims that these articles were defamatory, placed her in a false light, and resulted in the termination of her employment with the city. In addition to suing reporter Barras, she also sued DCWatch and its operators, claiming that their Internet publication of these articles made them responsible for their content.

EFF and the ACLU of the National Capital Area filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, pointing out that DCWatch and its operators are shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which expressly protects providers or users of interactive computer services from liability in order to encourage robust debate in online discussions. The motion also urged the court to dismiss Johnson's claims, because the First Amendment protects statements about public officials that are substantially true.

"The Internet has played host to a renaissance of political speech, facilitating discussion on issues of local, national, and international importance," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "It's important that judges resist attempts by public officials to shut down online debate just because they don't like the speech."

Courts throughout the country have recognized the critical role Section 230 plays in enabling open discourse on the Internet and have shielded website operators from liability for comments made by others.

"The case against DCWatch must be dismissed. Congress has given online publications absolute immunity for claims based on third-party articles," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "An Internet intermediary should not be liable for what the speaker has said."

"This is a concept that should be expanded into all media: books, newspapers, radio and television," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area. "A speaker or writer should be responsible for his or her words. A bookstore or newsstand should not be responsible for the content of what it distributes."

http://www.eff.org/news/

\\ newspaper, internet, television- few of the most common and popular medium of communication and information exchange. any news or contents that appeared in them will be taken 'for real' and acts as an influence to the public. if adequate control is not exercised on these publications, inappropriate news may cause unrest among the public.

the definition of free speech is then questioned here in this article- to what extend is the law of 'free speech'? in countries like USA and Singapore, citizens are granted the freedom of free speech, and as the internet technologies progress, more and more people apply this privilege on blogging and website holding. however, this freedom is not always good as bloggers tend to forget who they are addressing or criticising, and often land themselves in deep soup, with the government suing them for some other violations found in some other parts of the law. So now the problem comes, what do we uphold, freedom or control?

this is not an easy task for the government as well. a win-win situation is even harder to achieve, and definitely not all needs can be fulfilled. to prevent bloggers or critics from offending any parts against the law, guidelines should be provided to the public, stating clearly what and what the public should followand what they should avoid.

every day is a new day ♥