Sehr Interessant

Everyone knows the Internet can be a nasty place. From bloggers who bore their readers and wage war on grammar to commenters who spend their entire day viciously tearing others to shreds under pseudonyms, most of the opinions being touted aren’t always taken seriously. But how will this lovably effed up relationship evolve if the legal stakes are raised?

We’re interested to see what will happen with the suit brought against an anonymous blogger in by two attorneys. Burt Odelson and Mark Sterk weren’t just a little peeved when “John Doe,” the name listed for the creator of the Proviso Insider, wrote of their "imminent" indictment. The lawyers are charging that a post on the blog, which provides information and commentary on political issues that affect Proviso township, went too far.

At issue is a July 19th post asking “Will Odelson & Sterk be Indicted Next??” The two men are arguing that it is one thing to call them names or criticize them, but it is different to finger either of them, in Odelson’s words, as a “crook.” The two will seek damages in Cook County Court from a creator who has yet to be found. The domain is not registered to anyone, and the Blogger profile only says that the creator(s?) was raised in Forest Park and likes Mary Poppins.
gavel.jpg
Legal precendent for libel as far as blogs go is complex and fairly new. There have been cases on both sides of the fence but, basically, bloggers can be held libel just like any other publisher. While blogs have the same protections under the Constitution as other media, they may also be held to the same standards. Then again, it’s possible that they are not.

So, how will they find this person? If a writer for the blog is found, could he or she claim to be a regular writer for the blog, but not the publisher? The words the writer used could certainly be construed as libelous, but how will a judge rule on what some might still consider one opinion? What are your thoughts on blog libel?

Email This Entry


Comments (6) [rss]

This is why this guest refuses to sign up for a Chicagoist account.

...commenters who spend their entire day viciously tearing others to shreds under pseudonyms, most of the opinions being touted aren’t always taken seriously.

Sorry Chicagoist, I couldn't hear you. Was that you, or your vagina, talking?

I have to say, I thought along these lines when I read Alicia Dorr's take on Anand Tiwari. I don't think she crossed the libel line, but she was hovered damned close to it.

what are my thoughts on libel? how about "i'm worried for you guys." i completely agree with guest 3 - alicia was cutting it VERY close there.

also, i presume that that the lorelle guide has been widely distributed to chicagoist staff, right?

it's hard to argue against the freedom to say what you want online, but at the same time, i'm incredibly tired of reading people's comments when they lost the constructive part of their criticism, offer no real debate and in many cases are just viciously attacking people with words they wouldn't have the "balls" to say in person. what started out as such a great new form of information and communication has given way to operating like the cattiest of high school fights.

it's pretty hard to set guidelines, but i'm tired of assholes who have nothing better to put people down.

"Was that you, or your vagina, talking?"

way to be sexist. marty should try having a cyber-stalker and see how he likes that.

or do big, strong men not have to deal with silly things like that?

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

Tips

About Chicagoist

Chicagoist is a website about Chicago. More

Editor: Marcus Gilmer
Publisher: Gothamist

Contribute

Latest Tip:

NYT article detailing how the city will spend all of the money from the parking meter lease by 2010.
[more]

Latest Photo:

Recent Comments

Subscribe

Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from Chicagoist.

All Our RSS