<— The approx. length of a one line title space —>
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890  (40)

Bloggers face an increase in libel suits

Leader: Bloggers could be held liable for what they publish online. Where is the line drawn between First Amendment speech and outright lies?

What you say on your blog or in an online forum could get you sued for libel, and you might not be ready for it. Over 50 libel lawsuits have been filed in the last two years against those venting their thoughts online, with one lawsuit being successful and resulting in the blogger's paying a fine of $50,000.

The lawsuits so far run the gamut from bloggers being sued over public gossip about intimate events, to warning others not to date certain people, to unauthorized photos posted on MySpace, to religious criticism, and more. In some cases, the victims say that the accusations are false and that the spread of such information on the Internet is hurting their careers and reputations, such as in the case of lawyer Todd Hollis. He is suing the owner of DontDateHimGirl.com, as well as seven other women who have posted to the site, over what he claims are lies about his sexual orientation, STD status, and more. When searching for his name on the Internet, it's certainly hard to find any other information on him besides whether or not he has herpes. Few of us would want that attached to our names as the first hit on Google.

While some of the suits have merit, many of them, such as the case in which Ligonier Ministries suing a blogger for comments about the president being from "a family of nincompoops," seem excessive. The whole appeal to posting on the Internet is that any old Jo(e) Schmoes can exercise his or her First Amendment rights without being censored. Calling someone a nincompoop is neither something that can be categorically verified nor denied. According to Ligonier, I should be able to sue commenters on various Internet sites for calling me a hairdresser and "probably a whore." Probably? Well then.

The 1996 Communications Decency Act protects web sites from being sued over content that is posted by users, but not from self-generated content. That could potentially put each and every blogger at risk for being targeted for libel if he or she cannot provide adequate proof to back up his or her words, something that journalists are required to do regularly.

Should bloggers be forced to fact-check before publishing online or risk losing a libel suit? While some may argue that such a thing would ruin the appeal of blogging, bloggers are already being grouped with journalists in other ways. In May, a California court ruled that bloggers are protected under the same "Shield Law" as journalists when it comes to being asked to reveal sources, which came as a huge relief to most of the blogging community. If bloggers get to be considered journalists in one sense, is it fair to not consider them journalists in another sense and give them a free pass to make false claims? The outcome of upcoming cases, such as Hollis's which will be heard on October 19, could help decide the answer to that question.