Interesting point.
more:
A public figure must show "actual malice" — that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
Do blogs have the same constitutional protections as mainstream media?
Yes. The US Supreme Court has said that "in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals and organizations engaged in the same activities."
What's the statute of limitation on libel?
Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. NY/NJ: 1 year also.
Not-libelous:
Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.
How do courts look at the context of a statement?
For a blog, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog's audience.
Context is critical. For example, it was not libel for ESPN to caption a photo "Evel Knievel proves you're never too old to be a pimp," since it was (in context) "not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably susceptible to such a literal interpretation. Ironically, it was most likely intended as a compliment." However, it would be defamatory to falsely assert "our dad's a pimp" or to accuse your dad of "dabbling in the pimptorial arts." (Real case, but the defendant sons succeeded in a truth defense).
And yes, I extended an apology to King after the first threatening PM, and I wrote him again tonight.
This is going to be an epic day in getbig history.
Sounds like your worried, ROb.
Im not sure whats happening, but- some people are sensitive to thngs, and believe it or not, many more rediclous suits have been filed and won! Not to make you worried, but , its true. I dont think your in that much danger, but if someone knows the right people in the legal./ justice system, they can make your like miserable, no matter how petty it seems...
good luck man.
