Screenshots

don't you wish its in m'sia

I'm noting here that this ruling applies to only bloggers who post information from other sources, not those who make their own content.

JEFF OOI says: You are smart by half. Read the info on the November verdict by the California Supreme Court -- Google if insufficient -- a website operator (by extension, a blogger) is indemnified from bearing responsibility for comments posted by a third party in his/her website -- UNLESS the Congress reverses it. Do note that that relevant Act cited for jurisdiction are the same in both the California Supreme Court and the Federal Court (First Circuit), i.e. Communications Decency Act of 1996.

Very cute; but that was, I believe, the way things were run for quite some time in the United States -- I understand that that's the reason why web services like YouTube and Blogger don't get sued for slander (instead, amusingly enough, they are more likely to be hit for copyright infringement).

They're not responsible for what their users post. What you said, I'm afraid, is not exactly news.

What is news, to me at any rate, is that bloggers can and are still liable for stuff they post by themselves, without sourcing from other media.

JEFF OOI says: Factually,the US law has not tested Communications Decency Act of 1996 on this aspect. And I don't think you speak with authority on this.

Which, I suppose means that bloggers best follow what I think I'll call the Wikipedia Rule, if they must engage in 'defamatory statements': if it's not sourced anywhere else, don't put it in.

Not that, you know, it applies to us at all.

The ruling says that the service provider is immunized from any tort liability for providing the service that enables postings by external parties.

As an extension to this ruling, consider the case where the service provider also posts.

In regards this extension where the provider is a blog, there are two sub-classes: the blogger posts as blogger and the blogger posts as commenter.

The question then is: what's the difference whether i post as the blogger or as a commenter, or even whether i post in the main text as the blogger, as opposed to posting in the subtext as a commenter?

In fact, any difference would disappear if the blogger posts in the main text with full disclosure of his/her identity and contact details, and also posts in the subtext as an anonymous commenter with a fictitious anonym and addy.

Not only does the difference disappear, there will in fact be a vacuum - the blogger should in fact be applauded for bravely doing a national service. Which blogger/commenter could possibly have nefarious intentions after plastering his/her identity on the site?

In other words, which robber would announce with a loudhailer to the public in advance that he is going to rob that 7-11 in the next five seconds?

In addition to the matter of intention/niat, there is also the matter of national context that explains why blogs, and sites such as yahoo, have blossomed.

The practice of democracy and all civil rights may be encompassed by civilities. But if the subject matter itself is being controlled by the source of the subject matter or limited directly and indirectly, then vehicles such as blogs are the only channels left which the general public can use in order to carry debate forward that will receive higher attention than that circumscribed by those sources, especially where there is substance that those sources would have personal interest in the subjects being debated.