UPDATE: It's Times for a Paywall

Image via Wikipedia

Executive Editor Bill Keller told Foreign Press Assn. dinner attendees this week that The New York Times will erect a paywall for its Website content beginning in January 2011.

No details were forthcoming, but as  previously reported by "TUOL," the Times is more likely to follow the Financial Times model for charging for Website articles than the full paywall employed by Times' competitor Wall St. Journal. Specifically, the Times may employ a metered system that allows a certain number of online articles to be  viewed for free before fees are assessed.

Meanwhile, speaking of "Times," www.Guardian.co.uk reports that the Times of London's paywall will be up and running next week (see "TUOL" post 3/26/10), but the anticipated revenue stream didn't stop the ad-starved times from slashing its budget by 10 percent and lopping off about 50 paid staff. The Times Website will offer non-text content, such as debates between journalists (those who haven't been pink-slipped, presumably).

The Times, they are a' changin' on both sides of the Pond.

Court Squeezes LimeWire

Image via CrunchBase

LimeWire, one of the largest commercial P2P music downloading services, was rocked this week by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Kimba Wood, who ruled for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on its claims of copyright infringement, unfair competition, and inducing others to commit copyright infringement.

The 59-page opinion in  Arista Records, LLC et al. v. Lime Group, LLC (Case No. 1:06-cv-05936) found LimeWire, a software file sharing company, and its Chair, Mark Gorton, were both liable for inducing copyright infringement. According to the RIAA, more than 200 million copies of LimeWire's software has been downloaded to date.

Besides the free software version, LimeWire sells an "Extended Pro" version for $34.95 annually. Although it outlasted Napster and other rivals, LimeWire has not kept pace with faster competitors such as BitTorrent.  Judge Wood will meet with the litigants on June 1, where topics such as monetary damages and the possibility of the parties collaborating in the future doubtless will be addressed.

Leapin' Lizards! It's Curtains for Little Orphan Annie Comic Strip

Image via Wikipedia

The Chicago Tribune reports that Tribune Media Services will discontinue the Little Orphan Annie comic strip June 13, bringing the adventures of the auburn-haired, button-eyed orphan to a close after 85 years.

Introduced during the Coolidge Administration on August 5, 1924, by creator Harold Gray, who oversaw the strip for 44 years until his death in 1968, Little Orphan Annie, her faithful dog Sandy, wealthy industrialist Oliver "Daddy" Warbucks, and the mysterious Punjab and Asp have enjoyed success in the comics, radio, movies, and on Broadway.  Today, the strip runs in fewer than 20 newspapers, but in its heyday, hundreds of dailies featured the panel strip.

 The final strip will raise questions with Daddy Warbucks about Annie's fate after her encounter with the Butcher of the Balkans.  Although she no longer will appear in the daily comics, Tribune Media Services insists it will not be a hard-knock life for Annie, who may resurface in comics or on the silver screen. There's always "Tomorrow," for Annie fannies.

No comment from Annie, but "Arf," said Sandy.

Official & LA Parish Seek ID of Website's Anonymous Bloggers

Cover of All the King's Men

In Parish of Jefferson & Steve Theriot v. John Does 1-100 (24th Jud. Dist. Case No. 687191), the interim president of a La. political subdivision has sued for defamation and subpoenaed www.NOLA.com, the Web affiliate of the New Orleans Times-Picayune daily newspaper, for the identities of 11 anonymous bloggers who have commented on news stories about Theriot and a scandal that has wracked the parish.  Neither the newspaper nor the Website are parties to the suit.

According to items on the NOLA site and the blog, http://slabbed.wordpress.com, the lawsuit, which the government entity is funding, seeks, by subpoena, to identify pseudonymous commenters on the NOLA Website, including watchout41, jpigpen4, fauxu, taxesfortim, riverbirch, and viewfromhell, the latter who allegedly labeled Theriot in a comment "another Jefferson Parish politician thug mobster."

The plaintiffs' petition includes a count for defamation alleging that the anonymous posters' comments have harmed plaintiffs' reputation and standing in the community.  The Times-Picayune has not commented other than to confirm that its attorneys are reviewing the subpoena.

"TUOL" 's crack research team is unfamiliar with Louisiana law (though has read All the King's Men and seen the movie with Broderick Crawford), but is puzzled because government entities cannot be libeled. Not sure how Jefferson Parish's reputation and standing can be harmed in the community, when Jefferson Parish is the community.  Theriot can sue for libel, but as a public official, has a high bar of proof over which to hurdle.

The case would seem to be a candidate for an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) claim.

N.J. Paper's "Fair Report" Defeats Libel Claim

Image via Wikipedia

In Thomas John Salzano v. North Jersey Media Group, Inc. d/b/a The Record, NorthJersey.com, Malcolm Borg, Stephen A. Borg, Martha McKay & Jonathan Markey, Glen Ridge Voice, Inc. & Frank A. Orechio (Case No. A 78-79, Sept. 2008 Term) the N. J. Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the so-called "fair report" privilege applies to defamatory statements contained in filed pleadings that have yet to come before a judicial officer.

In reversing an appellate decision that held media outlets liable for defamatory allegations contained in pretrial filings, New Jersey's High Court wrote that a media defendant's full, fair and accurate account of an official proceeding need not be exact, provided that readers receive a substantially correct account of the official document's contents.  The state supreme court credited the public with being sophisticated enough to evaluate accusations.

The plaintiff sued the defendants based on a March 2006, article in The Record concerning a bankruptcy court complaint alleging the plaintiff misappropriated $500,000 from a telecommunications company. The complaint against him has since been dismissed, according to the plaintiff.  The N.J. Supreme Court said the plaintiff could pursue his action regarding allegedly libelous statements from sources other than the court documents at issue.

A New Owner for Discover Magazine?

Image via Wikipedia

"Science, Technology & the Future" is the slogan that appears below the title of Discovermagazine.com, but the future of the Website and monthly magazine with a 700,000 circulation is uncertain, according to FOLIO magazine.

Bidding to purchase the periodical begins May 17, and so far, FOLIO reports, about two dozen suitors are interested in perusing the offering memorandum. Private equity firms WallerSutton and Sandler Capital Management are the backers of Discover Media LLC. Disney Publishing sold Discover in 2005 to Bob Guccione, Jr., for roughly $15 million. Discover Media CEO Henry Donahue took over for Guccione in 2007.

Tweet by Twit Has Authorities in Snit

Image via Wikipedia

The Financial Times and www.DailyRecord.co.uk report that a 26-year-old Englishman is the first person held criminally liable under a 2003 British law that prohibits sending "indecent, obscene or menacing" messages over a public electronic communications network.

Paul Chambers was upset that a snowstorm shut down Robin Hood Airport in Doncaster, England, a week before his scheduled flight, possibly derailing a planned liasion in Ireland with his girlfriend. Chambers fired off a Tweet that set a one-week deadline for Robin Hood to re-open or "I'm blowing the airport sky high." Authorities were neither amused nor impressed that the purported threat was within Twitter's 140-character message limit and Chambers, who is training as an accountant, soon found his number was up.

It's a scary world and vigilance by law enforcement is necessary and commendable, but a threat to free expression is equally alarming. It can be a fine line between danger and dumbness, and Chambers knows the risks that lurk on the mean "tweets" of Doncaster.

N.H. High Court Backs Anonymous Blogging, Shield Law for Online Journalists

Image by Ben McLeod via Flickr

In the important 14-page decision last week of The Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Heavy Industries, Inc. (Case No. 2009-262), the New Hampshire Supreme Court bolstered protection for preserving the confidentiality of anonymous bloggers.

Implode-O-Meter, a Website that follows the mortgage industry, reported the N.H. Banking Dept. was investigating The Mortgage Specialists, Inc., and linked to an official document addressing the probe that the Website obtained from a confidential source. A pseudonymous blogger, "Brianbattersby," commented on the investigation.

The Mortgage Specialists successfully argued before Rockingham County Superior Court Judge Kenneth McHugh for an injunction ordering the removal of the banking report document and for identification of the anonymous blogger, whose comments the mortgage company claimed were defamatory.

The N.H. High Court said a balancing test must be applied not only to the plaintiff's interests, but also to the interests of  anonymous speakers. The Court wrote: "The fact that Implode operates a Website makes it no less a member of the press...[W]e conclude that Implode's Website serves an informative function and contributes to the flow of information to the public. Thus, Implode is a reporter for purposes of the newsgathering privilege."

The Supreme Court said publication of the loan document did not violate privacy and confidentiality laws. The High Court also raised the bar for requiring the disclosure of the identity of anonymous online speakers.  "TUOL" weighed in on this case,and  the hot-button issue of  the application of First Amendment protection to anonymous bloggers on N.H. Public Radio's The Exchange last November (http://www.nhpr.org/node/27862).

Wichita Station Off-the-Hook in Misidentified Murder Suspect Suit

Image via Wikipedia

In Melanie L. Valadez, Adm. of Estate of Roger G. Valadez v. Emmis Communications & Todd Spessard, (Case No. 99,139), the Kansas Supreme Court this month overturned a judgment against Wichita's KSN-TV and its news director involving the station's wrongly identifying plaintiff's decedent as a suspect in the notorious BTK serial killings.

According to an Associated Press report, in December 2004, KSN-TV, acting on an anonymous tip, dispatched a reporter to the home of Roger G. Valadez whom police had arrested for housing code violations and trespassing. Police had obtained a search warrant of Valadez's home.  The station erroneously reported that Valadez's arrest was in connection with the BTK killings ("Bind, Torture, Kill"), which terrorized Wichita from 1974-91. Ultimately, Dennis Radar confessed to the BTK killings of 10 individuals following his arrest in 2005.

Valadez sued Emmis Comm. (KSN-TV owner) and Spessard in 2005, alleging defamation, invasion of privacy and outrage. A jury in October 2006, awarded the plaintiff $300,000 for defamation and $800,000 for mental suffering. Roger Valadez died in November 2006, and the trial court threw out the defamation award in January 2007, ruling any harm to Valadez's reputation ended on his death, and reduced the $800,000 outrage award to $250,000.

The Kansas Supreme Court overturned the $250,000 judgment, holding that the plaintiff's decedent had not suffered severe emotional distress, evidenced by his absence of psychiatric or mental health treatment, and ruled any emotional upset the late Valadez endured would have occurred even if KSN-TV just reported the facts of his arrest. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, when Valadez died, the jury award in his favor was not yet final and had not been entered into the official court journal.

"We do not hold that the media is beyond the scope of tortious outrage actions in all circumstances," the court wrote. "We merely hold that under the facts of this case, the plaintiff failed to prove an injury severe enough to sustain his claim."

Canada High Court Rejects Constitutional Reporter's Privilege

Image by jacob earl via Flickr

No constitutional provision exists to shield journalists from having to divulge confidential sources to authorities engaged in police investigations, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in an 8-1 decision.

The High Court upheld a 2008 ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal that rejected a reporter's privilege claim and ordered the National Post to surrender a document to police, reversing the Ontario Superior Court, which had quashed the search warrant for the information involving a land deal by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Nowhere to be found in the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Charter of Rights is a special constitutional privilege for journalists, the Supreme Court held.  With the proliferation of the news media and the absence of uniform industry guidelines governing the handling of news sources, the High Court ruled that granting constitutional immunity to the press would impede law enforcement and jeopardize constitutional values, such as privacy.

The news wasn't all bad for Canadian journalists.  Writing for the majority, Justice Ian Binnie said courts should "strive to uphold the special position of the media and protect the media's secret sources where such protection is in the public interest."  The Supreme Court articulated the possibility of shielding confidential sources on a case-by-case evaluation, depending on factors such as the severity of the underlying crime being investigated, the relevance and value of the confidential information being sought by authorities, and "the public interest in respecting the journalist's promise of confidentiality."

Small steps, perhaps, but moving closer to the ad hoc test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972),  which recognized a limited journalist's privilege that could be overcome by a showing that the shielded information was relevant, vital to the case and unavailable elsewhere. Justice Rosalie Abella dissented from the opinion of her fellow Canadian justices, noting that confidential sources are critical to the "responsible performance of the media's role."

Does Newsweek Have a 'Slim' Chance?

Image via Wikipedia

The Washington Post has retained Washington, D.C. law firm Covington & Burling to advise it on the sale of Newsweek magazine, the black-and-blue newsweekly that bled $28 million in losses last year. Meanwhile, Newsweek's editor, Jon Meacham, has expressed hope he can corral investors and purchase the magazine.

Now, The New York Post reports today that Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire who owns 7 percent of The New York Times, was taking in the sites of Manhattan this week, meeting with Newsweek executives and New York Times bigwigs, with plans at the very least to increase his ownership stake in the Gray Lady.  Not so fast, says www.Forbes.com, which quotes a Slim spokesperson (and son-in-law) as confirming that the billionaire visited New York City, but did not contact Newsweek and has no present interest in boosting his ownership in the Times.

The mainstream press has trouble getting the story right these days, even when it's covering itself.  One thing is indisputable--the slow death that Newsweek in  its current state is suffering has picked up its pace.

4 Journos Scratched Off Gitmo Guest List

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Pentagon has revoked the press credentials of four journalists covering the Gitmo military commission hearings after their articles named a witness whose identity had been protected by the presiding judge.

The judge presiding over the pretrial proceedings of  23-year-old Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, ordered that a witness be referred to only as "Interrogator No. 1," although the individual in question gave an on-the-record interview to one of the barred reporters in 2008 and was identified by name in 2005 during court-martial proceedings against him.  Likewise, the presiding judge closed the courtroom during the airing of a video interrogation of Khadr by Canadian authorities, even though the video was widely disseminated on YouTube after its public release was ordered by the Canadian Supreme Court.

The four journalists precluded from further reporting on Guantanamo Bay military commission hearings include The Toronto Star's Michelle Shepard, The Globe & Mail reporter Paul Koring, The Miami Herald's Carol Rosenberg and Steven Edwards of the CanWest news service.  The Pentagon order bars only the named reporters, but permits their news organizations to send other journalists to cover the detention proceedings. Reporters are allowed to cover court proceedings at Gitmo, but are not permitted to interview participants at any time. The four journalists are expected to appeal their ban.

A judge must be empowered to uphold courtroom decorum and able to suppress sensitive information vital to national security, notwithstanding the First Amendment. However, imposing a gag order on information that already is widely circulated in the public domain is more surreal, than sensible.  The Pentagon would do well to review the Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. U.S., 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (the "Pentagon Papers" case), to brush-up on the high standard  set for prior restraint, and U.S. v. Progressive, 407 F. Supp. 990 (1979), in which a gag order against a magazine publishing an article about making an H-Bomb was rendered moot by other publications' publishing different "recipes" for making the bomb.

Guantanamo Bay and The Bill of Rights get along like Charlie Sheen and the Mrs., so it was only a matter of time before the First Amendment felt the sting of Gitmo.

Playboy: Nude-Free Website in the Offing?

Image via Wikipedia

Paidcontent.org reports that Playboy Enterprises, Inc. has plans to debut TheSmokingJacket.com, a Website that folks can safely surf at their office computer because the online content will be bereft of pictures of "nekkid" women.

Okay, faithful "TUOL" readers, now that you've returned from visiting the site and seen for yourselves the "Coming Soon!" notice (make your own joke), you know that Playboy is promising online content that "brings you everything you love about Playboy, men's entertainment, and the Internet"--except for photo spreads of nubile, pneumatic young women who love horseback riding and hate phoniness.

A Playboy Website without nudity?  Wonder if other magazines will follow suit on their online alter egos. Looking forward to Better Homes & Gardens without any photos of homes or gardens, TV Guide sans program listings, and Cosmopolitan without neuroses.

Journos File 1st A. Suit Re: GOP Convention Arrest

Image via Wikipedia

In Goodman et al. v. City of St. Paul et al. (Case No. 0:10cv1966), filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, syndicated broadcast journalist Amy Goodman, host of Democracy Now!, along with two of her producers, Nicole Salazar and Abdel Kouddous, allege their First Amendment rights were violated when they were arrested while covering the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The plaintiffs claim authorities interfered with their newsgathering and are seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants engaging in such conduct in the future, as well as unspecified compensatory and puntive money damages.  In all,  roughly 50 journalists and about 800 protestors and bystanders were arrested during the GOP convention.

Goodman's producers were arrested Sept. 1, 2008, the initial day of the GOP festivities that culminated with the nomination of the McCain/Palin ticket. The suit alleges the plaintiffs were conspicuously displaying press passes when they were arrested.  Named as defendants were the Twin Cities of Minneapolis & St. Paul, along with their police chiefs, Ramsey County and its sheriff, and as-yet unidentified police officers.

Judge Seals Testimony of Upcoming Rielle Hunter Deposition

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Bad news for National Enquirer readers: The Raleigh News & Observer reports that Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Allen Baddour has ordered sealed any information gleaned from the as-yet unscheduled deposition of  Rielle Hunter, campaign videographer and canoodler of former presidential candidate John Edwards, in her lawsuit against Andrew Young, former Edwards aide and philanderer surrogate, concerning ownership rights of a sex tape starring Hunter and Edwards, the one-term, two-timing U.S. Senator from North Carolina.

Judge Baddour's order will keep Hunter's musings under oath under seal for 45 days, after which he will entertain arguments for extending the order.  Hunter's attorneys had tried to obtain a more extensive order from Judge Baddour that would have sealed all depositions in the case and imposed on parties a gag order preventing them from discussing the contents of deposition testimony in public.

Hunter's attorneys argued that exposing Hunter's testimony to public view would subject their client to an invasion of privacy and would be harmful to her reputation.  An interesting, if unpersuasive argument, given that Hunter freely babbled to Oprah about pitching woo with "Johnny" and posed, sans pants,  in GQ Magazine.

Sorry, "TUOL" readers--as much as you may hope for it, both parties in a civil lawsuit can't lose.

Seinfeld Cookbook: A Trademark & Copyright Case About Nothing

Cover via Amazon

In Missy Chase Lapine, The Sneaky Chef, Inc. v. Jessica Seinfeld, Jerry Seinfeld, HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. & Departure Productions, LLC (Case No. 09-4423cv), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit last week upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiffs' copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and trademark dilution claims.

Lapine, author of  The Sneaky Chef:  Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids'  Favorite Meals, claimed  Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Foods, written by Jessica Seinfeld, the spouse of comic Jerry Seinfeld,  infringed on Lapine's work. Both cookbooks cracked The New York Times best-sellers list, with Seinfeld's book, which came out four months after Lapine's, capturing the number 1 spot.

The appellate court conducted an independent comparison of the two cookbooks, concluding: "the 'total concept and feel' of Deceptively Delicious is very different from that of The Sneaky Chef."  Foodies may be thrilled by the Second Circuit's observation that "stockpiling vegetable purees for covert use in children's food is an idea that cannot be copyrighted."

In reviewing the standard for deciding if copyright infringement occurred, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision noted: "When, as in this case, a work incorporates unprotected elements from the public domain, we apply a 'more discerning observer' test, which requires 'substantial similarity between those elements, and only those elements, that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed [work]."

Which leads Seinfeld fan "TUOL" to wonder: Why do they call it a "trademark"--there are no marks being traded? And what are they diluting the trademark with?  How do you infringe on a copyright anyway--do you have to stand on it, or can you just make harassing telephone calls?...

2nd Circuit Finds a 'Catch' in Injunction Against Salinger Sequel

Image via Wikipedia

"60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye," which draws characters from the late J.D. Salinger's classic "Catcher in the Rye,"  (see "TUOL" post 7/24/09), may yet line the shelves of U.S. bookstores following a ruling April 30 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

In  Colleen M. Salinger & Matthew R. Salinger, Trustees of the J.D. Salinger Literary Trust v. Fredrik Colting, writing under the name John David California, Windupbird Publishing Ltd., Nicotext A.B. & ABP, Inc. d/b/a SCB Distributors, Inc. (Case No. 09-2878cv), the appellate court vacated a preliminary injunction against "60 Years" on copyright infringement grounds and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to review the injunction standard following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts enjoined the publication of Colting's tome, finding it derivative and substantially similar to Salinger's revered novel about Holden Caulfield's coming of age. In other words, Judge Batts determined Salinger was likely to prevail on the merits of his copyright infringement suit, and would be substantially harmed by the sale of "60 Years" in the U.S.

In light of the eBay decision and the recent case of Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, 129 S. Ct. 365 (2008), the Second Circuit held that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York must revise its standard test for determining whether to grant preliminary injunctions in copyright cases. Going forward, a plaintiff seeking a court order enjoining publication in a copyright case must still show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or "sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in [the plaintiff's] favor." More to the point, the plaintiff must demonstrate it will suffer harm if the injunction does not enter, and the court may not presume irreparable harm by following some general rule.

CNN & CBS Marriage in the Works?

Image via Wikipedia

Building viewership and slashing costs are motivating reported news partnership conversations between CBS News and CNN.

Neither CBS nor Time Warner have acknowledged the rumored negotiations, which could result in a boon for both networks. Were a joint operation to be realized, CBS would have a cable outlet to match rival NBC's cable counterpart MSNBC, while CNN could draw on Black Rock's stable of news stars, such as Katie Couric, to combat Fox News and MSNBC, both of which are eating CNN's lunch in the ratings war at present.

Reportedly, even if CNN and CBS combine operations, the Eye Network's "60 Minutes" would be exempt, though the Sunday night powerhouse has made correspondent overtures to CNN's Anderson Cooper in the past.  "TUOL" is undecided about whether a CNN/CBS marriage would result in a journalism upgrade, but it would offer a golden opportunity to perform Carbon 14 testing on Larry King and Andy Rooney.  

OSU Student Photog Involved in 1st Amendment Buckeye Bovine Dust-up

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Runaway cows roaming the athletic fields of Ohio State University on April 21 may sound like a frat house prank, but to shutterbug Alex Kotran of The Lantern, OSU's student newspaper, it was utterly newsworthy.

Kotran started photographing the bovine fugitives, much to the dismay of agriculture dept. employees trying to corral the hoofed hoodlums and campus police who thought the situation was fraught with peril. Kotran soon found himself manacled by OSU  campus police Off. William Linton, who went through Kotran's pockets looking for id so he could complete his report (perhaps he suspected Kotran had hidden files and lock picks in a cow pie facilitating the Guernsey getaway).

Possibly facing a criminal trespass charge (notwithstanding that the incident occurred on a public field of a public research university), Kotran looked to The Lantern and OSU for legal assistance. A University spokesperson said OSU doesn't provide counsel for employees facing criminal charges, let alone photojournalism students, and made other noises about a "conflict of interest." No help was forthcoming from
The Lantern's Publications Committee or the School of Communication either.

The cow flap has drawn the attention of prominent journalist Len Downie, Jr., former managing editor of The Washington Post, current Arizona State Univ. journalism prof., and more important, one-time managing editor of The Lantern. Downie condemned the treatment received by Kotran.

For now, Kotran's parents are likely to foot the legal bill (like a steroidal student activities fee).  At some point, common sense may enter into the equation and an OSU administrator someplace may apologize for the misundertanding that resulted in Kotran's handcuffing. Until then, unlike the on-the-lam Jerseys, the news media will "milk" the Kotran story for all it's worth.

Can a Swede Sue Google for 'Libelous' Links? Of Norse He Can

Image by wEnDaLicious via Flickr

A 61-year-old Swedish businessperson has sued Google for defamation, claiming that a Google search results of his name led to blogs that falsely portray him as a pedophile.

The plaintiff is seeking a million kroner ($135,021) from the Internet search behemoth for negative publicity he and his business purportedly have sustained because of the linked-to information. The businessperson has also alerted police regarding who he suspects is spreading the allegedly defamatory gossip about him.

In the U.S., the individual who initiated the allegedly libelous claims would be exposed to legal liability, but Google, which indexes, rather than publishes data, would likely be protected by Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which says the user or provider of an interactive computer service can't be considered the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider.

It's a bumpier ride for Google internationally, as the company learned when it was held liable for invasion of privacy by an Italian court (see "TUOL" post 2/25/10), and in 2008, when it was socked by a Brazilian court with an $8,500 fine for a social networking site posting that accused a priest of being a pedophile.