Comments on: FOI Topics and Links of the Week http://futureoftheinternet.org/foi-topics-and-links-of-the-week-10 Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School Mon, 07 May 2012 17:36:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Seth Finkelstein http://futureoftheinternet.org/foi-topics-and-links-of-the-week-10/comment-page-1#comment-18999 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:47:24 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1460#comment-18999 Hey, Google Scholar has the text of the case: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10913649502886881716 Hmm ... 75. Although Perry did not provide the information concerning Wallace to the Blog, Perry circulated the Blog to several people. [June 3, 2009 Tr. 186:15-17.] For example, on September 21, 2006, Perry e-mailed Hoffman, requesting that she print out the Blog and give it to people on his behalf while he remained anonymous. [June 4, 2009 Tr. 38:23-39:19; 40:16-20; 48:1-7]; [Pls.' Ex. No. 37.] c. Perry Defamed Wallace and Bajjali i. The Blog (A) Perry published the defamatory statements As discussed supra, the sending of an e-mail is considered publication for defamation purposes. Perry published the defamatory statements relating to Wallace when he sent several individuals a link to the Blog. [Finding of Fact No. 75.] Indeed, the Blog contained several defamatory statements regarding Wallace. For example, the Blog insinuated that Wallace was an armsdealer. [Finding of Fact No. 76.] Therefore, Perry's e-mails constitute a publication based upon Texas law. Further, Perry published the information from the Blog by informing Frishberg of the contents within the Blog. [Finding of Fact No. 51.] Hey, Google Scholar has the text of the case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10913649502886881716

Hmm …

75. Although Perry did not provide the information concerning Wallace to the Blog, Perry circulated the Blog to several people. [June 3, 2009 Tr. 186:15-17.] For example, on September 21, 2006, Perry e-mailed Hoffman, requesting that she print out the Blog and give it to people on his behalf while he remained anonymous. [June 4, 2009 Tr. 38:23-39:19; 40:16-20; 48:1-7]; [Pls.' Ex. No. 37.]

c. Perry Defamed Wallace and Bajjali

i. The Blog

(A) Perry published the defamatory statements

As discussed supra, the sending of an e-mail is considered publication for defamation purposes. Perry published the defamatory statements relating to Wallace when he sent several individuals a link to the Blog. [Finding of Fact No. 75.] Indeed, the Blog contained several defamatory statements regarding Wallace. For example, the Blog insinuated that Wallace was an armsdealer. [Finding of Fact No. 76.] Therefore, Perry’s e-mails constitute a publication based upon Texas law. Further, Perry published the information from the Blog by informing Frishberg of the contents within the Blog. [Finding of Fact No. 51.]

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://futureoftheinternet.org/foi-topics-and-links-of-the-week-10/comment-page-1#comment-18998 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:27:56 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1460#comment-18998 Eric Goldman noted it months ago: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/february_2010_q.htm "* In re Perry, 2010 WL 374770 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2010). Emailing links to a third party's defamatory blog constituted "publication" of the blog for defamation purposes. The court doesn't discuss 47 USC 230 at all!" Eric Goldman noted it months ago:

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/03/february_2010_q.htm

“* In re Perry, 2010 WL 374770 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Feb. 3, 2010). Emailing links to a third party’s defamatory blog constituted “publication” of the blog for defamation purposes. The court doesn’t discuss 47 USC 230 at all!”

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://futureoftheinternet.org/foi-topics-and-links-of-the-week-10/comment-page-1#comment-18997 Seth Finkelstein Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:22:43 +0000 http://futureoftheinternet.org/?p=1460#comment-18997 > It’s unlikely that the ruling will survive an appeal, since forwarding a link probably doesn’t amount to the required element of “publication” under a traditional interpretation of defamation law. I started digging for better sources than _Techdirt_, which can be ... opinionated. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=08b474c7-1946-4e12-b0d9-d10d46dfc324 "The court found that Perry’s email containing hyperlinks to the blog met the “publication” element of Wallace’s defamation claim under Texas defamation law: “a statement is published when it is said orally, put into writing or in print, and the statement was published in such a way that the third parties are capable of understanding its defamatory nature.” Thus, the court found that “an email, just like a letter or a note, is a means for a statement to be published so that third parties are capable of understanding the defamatory nature of the statements.” The court also found that Perry acted with actual malice and defamed Wallace by sending the links, together with other defamatory statements." Disclaimer: IANAL. > It’s unlikely that the ruling will survive an appeal, since forwarding a link probably doesn’t amount to the required element of “publication” under a traditional interpretation of defamation law.

I started digging for better sources than _Techdirt_, which can be … opinionated.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=08b474c7-1946-4e12-b0d9-d10d46dfc324

“The court found that Perry’s email containing hyperlinks to the blog met the “publication” element of Wallace’s defamation claim under Texas defamation law: “a statement is published when it is said orally, put into writing or in print, and the statement was published in such a way that the third parties are capable of understanding its defamatory nature.” Thus, the court found that “an email, just like a letter or a note, is a means for a statement to be published so that third parties are capable of understanding the defamatory nature of the statements.” The court also found that Perry acted with actual malice and defamed Wallace by sending the links, together with other defamatory statements.”

Disclaimer: IANAL.

]]>