20061123 Bloggers and the Courts Barrett v Rosenthal

Bloggers and the Courts Barrett v Rosenthal

Barrett v Rosenthal in the Supreme Court of California

November 23rd, 2006

November 25th, 2006 UPDATE: Please see Crablaw’s discussion here: Kevin Dayhoff and Michelle Malkin Make Sense on Barrett v. Rosenthal

Michelle Malkin has a post about the November 20th, 2006 decision in the Supreme Court of California; Barrett v. Rosenthal, that perhaps some of our local attorney bloggers may investigate and report upon.

“Internet defamation: A dissent” by Michelle Malkin November 22, 2006 08:28 AM begins:

I suppose, as a blogger, I should join in and cheer the much-buzzed-about decision in Barrett v. Rosenthal this week, which ruled in California that Internet users who post (to Web sites or discussion groups) defamatory statements originally made by others are immune from liability.

[…]

Many of my friends and colleagues in the blogosphere see the decision as a triumph for Internet free speech. See Glenn Reynolds, Danny Glover, and Justin Levine at Patterico's, for a sample of opinion.

Read the rest of her post here. It is well worth the time. She provides a summary of the case from Eugene Volokh and some additional insightful commentary.

My initial reaction is ambivalence. This is a knife that can cut both ways. On the one hand, as a blogger, I am certainly willing to accept legal protections…

On the other hand, I would rather that bloggers be held to the same standards as apply to the “print” media - - and what I am held to in my columns which appear in the print media.

Here’s the rub. In my capacity as a former appointed, elected official, and public figure; and now as a blogger, I would rather have some recourse against some of the more colorful assertions about me, my decisions and my participation in decisions. Yes, I understand full well, that as an elected official, some of my rights are taken away from me as to what folks can say…

Never-the-less, as a person who has been the subject of misleading information in the past, I certainly have no interest in giving folks, carte blanche, to say whatever they wish in the blogosphere.

Folks love to expound about their “right to free speech” but all too often the room gets silent about the responsibilities that go along with the right to free speech – especially in the blogosphere.

Ms. Malkin said it well further down in her post:

But aren't bloggers the ones arguing that we should be treated like MSM journalists? Isn't that what the Apple vs. bloggers case was all about? Remember? Seems to me that some bloggers want to enjoy the benefits of MSM status (fighting for the same coverage as traditional journalists under shield laws, as in the Apple case), but avoid the consequences (getting sued if they re-publish defamatory material online).

####