Screenshots

I have always asked this question in the context of the brick and mortar world. I got a wall around my house. Someone paints pornographic grafitti or scribles some seditious or libelous statements on that wall. It is my wall, and I have previously not bothered with advertisement buntings or bills stuck on my wall. Neither welcome them or discourage them. The local neighbourhood knows my wall to be that one with all those buntings and grafitti. I take no responsibility for the content or the promises made on my wall..and I don't earn any money from it either.

So what about the pornographic grafitti or the seditious or libellous statements? Am I libel? Or responsible? If I am lible can I pass on that liability to the local council too? After all they approved the wall in the first place. If they had not then there would not be the wall. What about the cement company or the brick company which provided the fair face on which you find the objectionable material? So how far do we want to go down that track?

I'm not a legal student per se, but from my understanding, the person who paints grafitti on your wall has commited a criminal act "by painting grafitti on your wall".

You would only have a libel case if and only if a person files a libel case. And if a libel case was filed, the person who wrote the libellious statement on the wall will be liable not you who owns the wall.

A better analogy for the case though is you receiving two emails which contains libellious statement, then you start photocopying those emails and distributing it to everyone you see.

The question is:

Should you be liable to libel for distributing these emails?

Should you be liable to libel for distributing these emails knowingly that it contains libellious statement?

Should you be liable to libel for distributing these emails knowingly that it containts libellious statement after repeatedly being warn not to?

The California Supreme Court says no.

Hey ^2SaNe

I'm no legal expert either but I'm not sure if you got it right.

I think there's a lot of difference legally between having someone come to your place either physicaly like on your wall or online on your website and posting libelious comments and you knowingly passing on comments that you know contain libelious stuff.

In the first case, you are not at fault. Someone came to your place and made those comments. That someone is responsible.

In the second case, like your example, when you KNOWINGLY distribute the libelious content, I think you've become a part of the process and are liable to be be charged.

Maybe a more appropriate analogy would be that you erect a bulletin board for members of your neighbourhood to place announcements, etc., and then someone places a libelous statement on the board. Should you be held legally responsible for the libelous statement?

Clarification on my comment. I responded to Observer's analogy to precisely point out the difference of the physical realm and the world wide web.

The case in question is that Rosenthal republish a defamatory statement twice in her newsgroup. She and others were accused of distributing defamatory statements eventhough repeatedly told not to. The statement in question was not written by Rosenthal. My analogy of Rosenthal obtaining an email, photocopying it and distributing it to everyone she sees is correct. At least its the closest to how a newsgroup works and what she did.

johnleemk's analogy will be correct if a commenter was to publish the defamatory statement instead of Rosenthal.

From what I understand of the California Supreme Court ruling is that there were no sufficient evidence that Rosenthal conspire with the original author to defame the plaintiff in question. So there is no malicous intent found.

As I see it, it means even if you knew the statement was defamatory and you publish it, maybe to discuss it, you are not held liable to libel. Only the original author of that statement is held liable.

The case with Jeff and Guna is far different as it was a commenter who publish a statement which Guna find offensive or life-threatening.

I sided with Jeff on that matter because:

1. You should not expect a person to monitor 24/7 comments by others on a particular website. Sufficient leniency must be allowed.

2. There is no evidence that suggested that Jeff did not remove/moderate the comment when it was pointed out.

3. Guna have painted a conspiracy that there was an attempt on his life. This what I personally frown upon. He did not provide evidence, absolutely not a high quality evidence, that an attempt on his life was committed. He based his conspiracy on a mere few sentences to proved an intent. An intent is not a crime. A thought is not a crime. Only the action is a crime. Therefore, there is no conspiracy to commit murder IMHO. Unless of course, you want to prove a conspiracy to commit murder just because a guy says he wants to kill you today.

4. Guna included Jeff in the conspiracy without providing evidence that Jeff harbors a malicious intent. As I see it though, it was a non-issue since there was no conspiracy to murder to begin with as there still was no evidence.

5. Guna believe any comments should be pre-moderated since you can't expect trolls or cyber-gangsters to follow rules. This is a FUD. By painting a boogieman, he proved his point yet he did not provide any evidence that cyber-gangsters exist. Nor did he provide any evidence that there are cyber-gangsters conspiring with each other to defame/commit murder or do some heinous crime. None at all. As I see it, the burden of proof falls on Guna's lap and frankly the evidence that he provided is just not solid enough to prove some intent. Theres not even an act on intent yet.

Oh BTW, if my wall is inundated with grafitti, am I obliged to edit it, should I decide not to paint over it or wash it off?

Tehre are two possible scenarios, or may be 3.

1. I leave the grafitti as it is and not do anything.

2. I regularly edit or delete the grafitti based on my own preferences and bias or prejudices.

3. I declare that my wall is an open wall and you may come and appreciate its form and bare face or state my own disposition for the day for which I take sole responsibility and you may leave comments if you are so dispositioned to do. I take no responsibility for your comments and your comment is your own. But then, after a while I now have started making a practice to edit and delete comments or even respond to some of them. Does this interaction change my own responsibility for my wall? Or would it be safer for me to just once in a while to a white wash and start all over again once the wall is filled and there is no more space for new grafitti?