Kevin Karpinski, a Baltimore attorney representing Devenyns, wrote in the complaint that Albero is liable for the comment, even if he didn't write it. That's because Karpinski charges Albero determines which of the comments submitted by his readers he will publish and whether he will edit them first. Albero erred because he either knew -- or should have known -- the comment was false, Karpinski contends.Here are our thoughts...
First and foremost, Joe is right, he can't be successfully sued for posting or approving comments of his readers. That would mean that all websites, such as AOL, Yahoo, the Daily Times, and all blog sites would all be liable for anything that their users posted, about anything, ever. It is impossible to know if something that a reader posts is accurate or not due to the amount of research that must be undertaken. Further, it is important to realize that Devenyns is a public official and public officials are subject to criticisms by the public, either public or private. Furthermore, most of what is posted is opinion which is not subject to the truth test. If we say that "Chief XYZ is stupidly", hey that's our opinion. We have no way to check his IQ or can confirm that he is in fact stupid.
He is also protected by Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States Code (47 USC § 230), which is why the Chief of Police and the Mayor lost the last two cases. More information available at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html. Lastly, he is protected by the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution of the United States. For more information on Libel and slander go to http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/libel-and-slander. In order to reach the level of slander or libel the statement must meet four criteria. Which this case does not.
Posts
1 comment:
No doubt you will be on the city's shit list for standing with the law that protects everyone, including Albero.
Post a Comment