The basics of Web libel
Since this is the legal section, a disclaimer seems pertinent.
What follows is a basic overview of legal topics you might run into. It applies only to the laws of the United States, and you should be aware that guiding principles and legal tests vary from state to state. To be safe, it's best to familiarize yourself with your state's precedents. If your site is based in another country, be sure to learn that country's legal guidelines. They might be significantly different from what you read here.
With that out of the way, let's talk about libel.
Libel is "a false and defamatory attack on a person's reputation in print or electronic form" (Gillmor, 147). In layman's terms, if your words cause significant harm to a person's standing in the community, you're in for a world of hurt.
The dangers of libel are smacked over journalists' heads from the first day on the job, so those of you with newsroom experience probably have a subconscious alarm that blares anytime you encounter a libelous sentence. This alarm provides a decent warning system, but it shouldn't be your only defense. The stakes are higher in the independent Web world. You don't have a legal department at your disposal, and if you do end up in court, the massive fees come directly out of your pocket.
With this in mind, do yourself a favor and make sure your content passes a simple libel test. When you're writing something that aims a less-than-flattering comment, insinuation or description at an individual, pause for a moment and ask yourself the following questions:
- Is this content potentially libelous?
- Can I prove what I'm saying?
If you believe the content is suspicious, proceed directly to question number two. With libel, truth is the ultimate defense. When you call someone a thief, and it can be proven through court records or official documents that that person is, in fact, a thief, you don't have to worry about losing a libel suit. If, however, you have no firm evidence supporting your comment, go back and reevaluate what you've written.
As you're writing, keep in mind that there are different libel standards for public and private figures. For a public official or celebrity to win a libel case against a writer or media outlet, that person must show that the writer/outlet acted with actual malice. This concept, developed by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan, is defined as acting with "knowing falsehood or reckless disregard as to truth or falsity" (Gillmor, 148). What this means is that public figures must prove that you either lied or that you didn't make any effort to back your statement up. It's a tough standard that favors journalists, but the actual malice test doesn't give you carte blanche to say what you want about famous folks. If you shoot your mouth off without solid facts, you're asking for trouble. Bottom line: Stick to the truth.
When it comes to private figures, the libel standard is much lower. In most states, private individuals need to prove negligence to win a libel case. Negligence is both simple and broad because it "implies the failure to exercise ordinary care" (Pember, 167). That "ordinary care" bit is applied on a case by case basis, so it can be supported by a range of examples, including bad sources and lazy reporting. Fortunately, combating negligence is a simple task, requiring only diligence, balanced reporting and good, basic journalism. Hard work, it turns out, is both satisfying and protective.
Related links
