Thanks to Christian for posting the breaking news that iBrattleboro has been dismissed as a target in their high-profile defamation suit. You know the one – where iBrat was sued over the content of a user comment? The one that got national attention for its free speech implications? The one that legal analysts across the country dismissed out of hand? (from the Citizen Media Law Project):
This is not even a close question… Moreover, immunity exists even if a defendant edits comments (so long as the edits do not materially change the meaning of the statement) or otherwise exercises discretion in selecting which comments to post or remove.
(That’s for the very reasons Caoimhin discussed here, for those paying attention). The same suit that was dismissed as bunk by virtually every media observer?
Yeah, that suit. The one that Brattleboro Reformer editor Randy Holhut had this to say about:
“…”If what gets published or what gets posted or what gets aired doesn’t meet the standards, then you’re legally liable for it.”
This quote coming after the Reformer’s comparably-toned editorial the Citizen Media Law Project specifically referred to as “odd” and “simply wrong as a matter of law.”
But of course, the Reformer piece was nothing. The Times Argus and Rutland Herald (who, on occasion, needlessly make little offhand pokes at the blogosphere and citizen journalism) apparently had truly unique wisdom. Grandiose wisdom, in fact (emphasis added):
It hits at the center of a gray area in electronic law, and as such, may well wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court before all is said and done.
…well, almost unique, as WCAX ridiculously agreed:
It targets a gray area of media law and could potentially end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Good grief. Putting aside the borderline plagiarism on display between those two quotes above – there was no “gray area.” Why did everybody else in the known universe seem to understand that? Now that this nonsense has been unceremoniously tossed out of the courthouse on its ass (as everyone predicted), these “professionals” should be ashamed of themselves, waxing excited as they were over a meritless assault on the free speech rights they themselves depend on.
And now that there’s a little egg on their faces (egg not shared by their more even-keeled, rational counterparts in the other traditional media outlets from Seven Days to the New England Press Association), maybe they can take the media envy somewhere more appropriate: to a therapist.