Internet Blacklisting & Blogs as Watchdogs

[babybuggs]

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

Is there a violation of consitutional rights or individual rights to privacy for an internet site to allow corporations who have been victimized by fraudsters or hackers to publicize this information? If an internet blog site acts as a medium for corporations that want to act as a watchdog for the protection of their businesses, what is the liability for that site? How does internet law play into this? I ask because we threw this idea around at a small business workshop, and were seriously considering collaborating together to help flag suspicious activity and identify the perpetrators of crimes involving theft or embezzlement. Especially crimes involving credit cards and identity theft. How far would business clients/bloggers have to go in order to identify these individuals to eliminate accusations of slander? Some have video of individuals stealing committing fraud or identity theft, but the police have not been able to apprehend them. Is is it legal to post these videos, but commit to removal of the blacklisted individual's name upon exoneration or reconciliation with this business?

[Stevef]

Truth is an affirmative defense against defamation.

Unfortunately, the time to assert an affirmative defense is when you are already in court.

I would be prepared to defend against many defamation suits. If you set it up correctly, you'll win them all, but you'll still pay the legal fees.

[babybuggs]

Originally Posted by Stevef

Truth is an affirmative defense against defamation.

Unfortunately, the time to assert an affirmative defense is when you are already in court.

I would be prepared to defend against many defamation suits. If you set it up correctly, you'll win them all, but you'll still pay the legal fees.

is internet law currently structured in such a way where the website could incur limited or no liability through a disclaimer or terms of use statement? could the corporations who are posting this content ostensibly assume all such liability under the current law? I've seen commentary on some court cases where even though some has signed an EULA or such agreed to a terms of use where it may not be enough to protect the internet blog or community that is managing the content. any thoughts?

[quincy]

Disclaimers and terms of services do not prevent or protect against a lawsuit, although they may help to mitigate damages in the event legal action is taken against you.

Check out the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, for information on the protection providers or users of an interactive computer service may have in regard to the content provided by another. An ISP or website can have immunity from torts committed by users over their system, but this is not an absolute immunity.

If police have not apprehended a suspect, and the prosecutor has not brought charges, and a person has not been convicted of any crime, posting the identities of these suspects online could be legally risky, and what is said online about them must be very carefully worded. Defamation actions and invasion of privacy actions could easily arise from the type of content you are proposing for your website.

An attorney should review your plan in its entirety, to point out the areas where you need to be most careful. Any website that you consider along the lines you are proposing should have extensive liability insurance, to cover the suits that most certainly will occur (no matter how careful you are or how merited the suits may be).

The bottom line is that nothing can prevent a lawsuit entirely - anyone can sue for any reason at all. The best you can do is to try to minimize as much as possible the chances of a suit arising from the material you post.

[babybuggs]

cool. thanks to both of you. exactly what i needed to know.