Blogs and Defamation of character

[whotheheckami]

I am unsure of the legal frame workwork that Blogs exist in. Is a blog covered by the laws of the country of the hosting organisation (eg USA for Live Journal) or the country of the poster?

In legal terms is a blog the same as publishing something in a newspaper or magazine or broadcasting it on TV? Would it matter if the post was made on a friends-locked post; or to an audience that did not include the individual or organisation being defamed?

How would I find out if posting something that is defamatory about someone on a blog would count as libel?

I've posted this as an open post so that you can link to it if you think someone who does not read this journal could advise.

Thank you

Mel

Comments

[arachne.livejournal.com]

It's libel, and you can be prosecuted in the country of writing, the country of hosting *and* the country of reading - the libelled party does not need to have read it for it to be libel, so flocked posts are still prosecutable. From an ex-Demon abuse guy who you may have heard of ;)

[arachne.livejournal.com]

(oh, and if you want any more info, I'm sure I can wheedle it out of him, he seems to know a fair bit about this, strangely enough...)

[gerald_duck]

Surely a friends-locked post would be at most slander, because it's not a public/published remark?

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

This was a point that I was unsure about. However, consider a limited-distribution, subscription based magazine. Something published in that would be libellous and I was wondering if the analogy would transfer to blogs. I suspect that it would.

[arachne.livejournal.com]

Nope - slander is spoken. It's easy to remember because they both start with an "s". If it's viewable by an audience outwith the author, it's published - it doesn't matter if one person or a million people read it - it's libel.

[countb.livejournal.com]

It's only libel if it's not true, which is where it gets legally tricky.

[arachne.livejournal.com]

Well duh ;)
I was working on the assumption that that was understood ;)

Mind, it bears saying that the burden of proof is on the person who made the potentially libellous statements/claims. So, if you were to say "that ara, she's boffing Tony Blair", and I was a bit put out by this, the onus would be on you to prove that I was doing so.

I'm not, as it happens.

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

But would you? ;@)

[arachne.livejournal.com]

It'd cost 'im ;)

[countb.livejournal.com]

But you want to, dontcha?

(which is slander, I think)

[arachne.livejournal.com]

Nope, slander is spoken. Libel is published.

I'm *so* taking you to court, boyo :P

[countb.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting I'm a bit Welsh?

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

...and that is a compliment and could never be interpreted as libel

My journal...my sandpit...my rules ;@)

[countb.livejournal.com]

Besides, I *am* a bit Welsh!

(my legs)

[whotheheckami.livejournal.com]

Well I'm not which bits of me are 1/8 Irish! But they'll be the ones most involved at the Pogues! Rar!

[arachne.livejournal.com]

Well duh ;)
I was working on the assumption that that was understood ;)

Mind, it bears saying that the burden of proof is on the person who made the potentially libellous statements/claims. So, if you were to say "that ara, she's boffing Tony Blair", and I was a bit put out by this, the onus would be on you to prove that I was doing so.

I'm not, as it happens.