Forum operator being threatened for revoking access?

[kgasso]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I am the owner/operator of an Internet bulletin board (forum) with fairly relaxed rules regarding what is acceptable to post. A user recently had their posting privileges revoked due to repeatedly threatening to bring legal action against other forum users regarding simple differences of opinion. The banned user now states that they plan to file as a candidate for a county-level government office, and as the forum can be considered a media outlet, I must provide him with access to post and rebut any discussion regarding him or face a civil suit if I do not comply.

I'm familiar with 47 USC § 230 with regards to liability for user-submitted content, as well as with the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) which determined that newspapers are not required to provide equal space to all political candidates.

This party now claims that this is not an issue of fair access, but states that since political candidates are not afforded libel protection, they must have full access to the written media to defend their position. He also claims a Supreme Court affirmation of this in 2008, but refuses to provide further information. I'm aware that libel for public figures (in particular, political candidates) is difficult to prove, but this claim seems absurd. Am I legally obligated to open up my forum to him?

[meanyjack]

Originally Posted by kgasso

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

I am the owner/operator of an Internet bulletin board (forum) with fairly relaxed rules regarding what is acceptable to post. A user recently had their posting privileges revoked due to repeatedly threatening to bring legal action against other forum users regarding simple differences of opinion. The banned user now states that they plan to file as a candidate for a county-level government office, and as the forum can be considered a media outlet, I must provide him with access to post and rebut any discussion regarding him or face a civil suit if I do not comply.

And this candidate is full of crap. But sounds like a typical politician: a moron.

Ask this person to cite what statute(s) support his claim or shut the hell up. To further show how stupid this candidate is: they are capable of setting up their OWN blog and/or website like every other candidate does.

And you can link my post to this candidate, too. I love getting into it with dumbass political-wannabes like this person sounds.

[eerelations]

Tell this idiot to have his attorney send a letter to your attorney. And until that happens (if it happens), ignore him.

[quincy]

This guy could potentially sue anyone who posts defamatory remarks about him on your forum (if, as a political candidate, he can show actual malice), but you have no legal obligation to open up your bulletin board to allow his posts.

If defamatory comments are made about him by members of your forum, he may request that a retraction be made - which I suppose has SOME similarity to a "right to reply," albeit with a very limited scope, and it would be in the words of the poster, not the banned user, and a retraction is not required.

In 2000, the FCC officially repealed the "fairness doctrine" rules, such as the right to reply rule, the personal attack rule, and the political editorial rule. The FCC had not been enforcing these rules for years anyway. They gave too much editorial control to the FCC, which violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech and a free press.

There is talk currently in Congress about bringing back some form of the fairness doctrine, but the idea is opposed by Obama, as the idea was opposed by his predecessors Reagan, and G.W.

Although to my knowledge it has never been used this way, the banned user could attempt to force in court a "right to reply," using as a basis the Equal Opportunity law. . . . . . . but it would no doubt fail miserably.

There ARE a couple of interesting First Amendment cases before the Supreme Court currently, but not concerning your issue (although Miami Herald has been discussed).

[kgasso]

Sounds like I've got my bases covered if he does decide to waste his money and a lot of people's time in court. Thanks for the help, everyone!