I am sorry I have to be so vague but it appears that I am going to be deposition and logs from my blog will be subpoena for use in a case where 1 person slandered another on my blog. Anyway it looks like 1 of the people is seeking damages for what the other said on my blog. I can not get into any details what so ever about the post or even what state this is in. My attorney probably doesn’t even like me posting this much but I gotta ask does anyone know of any case law on slander in blog comments?
I had never heard of someone winning or losing a case where they slandered another in a blog comment.
I will post more when I get the green light.
- Comment Likes 
- Comment Dislikes
September 10, 2009 at 8:03 am
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.
August 8, 2009 at 8:38 pm
That sucks….
I would stick with your lawyer’s advice and just zip it for now.
Keep us posted.
August 1, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Jeremy, there is a lot of bad legal advise being posted in the respinses. I suggest you do not act or refrain from acting without the advice of a competent legal expert, that warning extends to my advice too.
generally speaking you are personally immune to liability as you are merely a conduit. Unless you are the author or substantially modify the offensive materials. Also, i do not believe that there are any restrictions on you discussing the matter, unless the court has specifically ordered you not to (Subjudicy).
Above all else, just do what is right.
December 28, 2008 at 12:59 am
This is crazy…. suing because someone slandered you on a blog…I really have to laugh. I would think all you have to do not to get slandered is not read the individual post or just don’t visit the blog.
August 27, 2008 at 3:39 pm
isnt dat a big issue
March 7, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The website owner will always be safe in this case. Moderation of comments will prevent this kind of thing from happening.
November 4, 2007 at 9:50 am
Hello, very nice site, keep up good job!
Admin good, very good.
August 1, 2007 at 11:58 am
The whole blog and you tube culture is causing quite a stir in legal circles lately. I mean if I spill hot coffee on myself while reading your blogs should I then sue to get enough to send my sons to college? That’s how the case sounds to me. Just that ridiculous, just that absurd. I know of no precedent but I’m not a lawyer. Let’s hope there is never a precedent that finds for the guy who filed a complaint like this one.
June 29, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Very interesting
April 29, 2007 at 7:04 pm
All I have to say is that I enjoy reading your blog A LOT and I agree with your opinions almost always
April 9, 2007 at 3:22 pm
haha damn, strange things sure happend
March 27, 2007 at 12:12 am
One blogger actually called me up and threatened me with legal consequences if I would take down the negative comments I had on my blog to one of his -review-blog. But I got back to him saying if he really though I could voice my personal opinion about his blog he should take it down.
February 2, 2007 at 6:29 pm
I’m in the same situation – they’ve given me till Monday to remove the commenter’s comment or face a solicitor’s letter/possible legal action. I’ve blogged about it here – might seek legal advice from my Dad this weekend.
January 31, 2007 at 7:26 pm
This is ironic!
I got a big law threat once because of a comment on my website
I immediately told everyone I knew. That is still my number 1 day for traffic.
January 28, 2007 at 9:54 pm
i heard of one case, it was on dontdatehimgirl.com supposedly a guy was suing the site for slanderuos remarks made about him that could not be proven…hope this helps
January 28, 2007 at 12:13 am
Why do we care?
December 18, 2006 at 2:55 am
trish stratus topless
http://myblog.es/trish-stratus
September 15, 2006 at 11:56 pm
I think I can one up ya Jeremy. I got subpoena ’s to show up in a child rape case because I posted an artcile about how I felt about this guy and after 2300+ comments the guy’s lawyer now thinks I had a big part in contaminating the jury pool in the area and he wants to move the trial to someplace else.
I’ve been ordered to bring all corespondance to the court date and print out all the pages of my site. BS!!!!
Any advice for me? I was also given a check for $15 to cover my expenses for the day.
September 13, 2006 at 7:45 am
I’m no legal mind, but I’ve often wondered how comments on any forum could be construed. I see posts all the time that cause huge fights among individuals complete with name calling and worse. It will be interesting to see where this goes, as it could impact not only bloggers but forum owners as well.
September 7, 2006 at 9:05 pm
This is truly an amazing story. If I understand you correctly, you are refraining from further comment on this issue until your attorney advises you that it is safe for you to speak about it again. If I understand what the true gravity of the situation here, with respect to the issue, it seems to me that at least one person’s freedom of speech has already been limited.
September 6, 2006 at 2:03 am
I agree with Andre – you could sue anybody for anything….
strictyly speaking you are a media publisher and reliable for what’s on your website… but IMHO the person sueing must first give you a chance to react to proof good will… at least that’s my european understanding of your crazy laws … (well it’s not so far from that in Europe)
I just relate this to the Traffic Power Sucks case from Aaron Wall, which was won by him finally…
September 5, 2006 at 12:42 pm
There was a recent decision in philadelphia about a web site owner who ran forums, and he was sued by someone who was claiming defamation by another person in the forums. they lost. Can’t remember the citation now, but basically, the Forum owner was protected as an ISP would be.
September 5, 2006 at 8:15 am
You can SUE ANYBODY for ANYTHING in this country. The question is, can you WIN? In this case, I think the answer is no.
September 4, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Please do research. I dont think you can be sued for this.
September 3, 2006 at 9:15 pm
One of the things I hate about the net is how easily cowards can hide behind screen names and flame people, in many cases w/o proof.
I hate that Shoe is involved, but maybe lawsuits like this will cause the foolish among us to think twice before blasting someone, especially without proof. My philisophy is to talk no different online than I would if I were in a face to face convo…..
September 3, 2006 at 3:31 pm
This has happened to James Poling of BlogNYC (now metadish). He was sued by a former playboy playmate for his posts about her. Suit is still pending.
We posted on it & gave the legal criteria for winning (or losing) a defamation case (libel for written defamation). Here’s the link
http://blog.sellsiusrealestate.com/?p=1144
Bottom line: Defamation is very hard case to win because damages are tough to prove & a little thing they call the First Amendment protecting opinions. Still it’s costly to defend. A motion for summary judgment is the fastest and cheapest way out.
September 3, 2006 at 11:55 am
I can’t bad mouth you in “real life”, now can I? So how is this any different to that if it really WAS done with ill intent in mind?
I don’t understand why so many people are so eager to jump on the “free speech” bandwagon in general.
September 3, 2006 at 11:45 am
It’ll be intresting to see what comes of this,
Definetly intresting for 1 blog post LOL
Your traffic just went up 10 fold hehe.
September 3, 2006 at 10:48 am
I find this particular post funny after Quadszilla was recently talking about the power of viral hoax marketing.
I am neither calling this a hoax or Jeremy a liar, but imagine if it were. This is spreading like wildfire.
September 3, 2006 at 3:44 am
Not sure if someone else has said this as I skimmed a fair few of the comments. You can’t slander someone on a blog. But you can libel them.
September 3, 2006 at 1:23 am
Comedians and cartoonists can mercilessly bash anyone they want with almost no fear of legal consequences. If it was a comment that mocks a work or person, not necessarily to criticize, but in order to make a joke then it’s protected free speech. Parody is almost always negative and often slanderous but if it was just a joke, then I believe it’s protected.
September 2, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Let us know of any updates shoe…
September 2, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I can’t wait to see what comes of this. Probably another publicity stunt by a webmaster that can’t find traffic any other way. (Not refering to Shoemoney
)
September 2, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Can you say this country really needs tort reform, for that matter the world needs it. I can.
September 2, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Ninety percent of you are completely wrong about what is going on here. Shoe is not being sued. He’s only being compelled by the subpoena to provide information for a court case. He’s a third party, or ‘innocent’ bystander. No one is try to hold Shoe responsible for what someone else said on his blog.
To put it another way, person A said person B is a moron on Shoe’s blog. Person B didn’t like this and is suing person A. For part of their case person B probably needs to prove it was person A and has to get that information from Shoe.
Try looking up what a subpoena is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena.
September 2, 2006 at 1:16 pm
It will be interesting to watch the direction this takes the blogging world. The idea of censoring ones thoughts is alien these days.
September 2, 2006 at 12:52 pm
another great idea to get people linking to your blog.
doubt this is real.
September 2, 2006 at 12:36 pm
It will be very interesting to see how this case works out for you Shoe. I will be keeping track of all the latest developments in the new Shoemoney section of my blog
September 2, 2006 at 12:28 pm
In the case of false statements, it then has to be proven that the person knew that what they said was untrue before they said it.
September 2, 2006 at 11:55 am
SHOEMONEY
I have been in this industry many years and I have never seen anyone generate buzz like you.
Your site went from not on the net to #66 most popular blog in less then 1 year ?!? AMAZING
September 2, 2006 at 11:35 am
Perhaps you could check with the EFF? I think that they would be interested in this….
http://www.eff.org/
I don’t think you personally could be held liable for comments made by another. Perhaps the situation could be (have been) resolved simply by removing the post?
I also think it depends on if the person being slandered was a public figure vs. a private figure (I believe the laws are different in this arena…but I could be wrong).
September 2, 2006 at 9:31 am
If it’s not Markus suing someone that left a comment, his post titled Shoemoney & Blogging & Libel would seem to give the impression that it’s him suing you.
I’m guessing that it’s not the case, since you two seem to have made up–and he even came on the radio show. Maybe he’ll update his post for clarity if that’s not the case.
September 2, 2006 at 8:44 am
Always thinking of the business.
September 2, 2006 at 7:43 am
It’s nice to see that the majority of people here feel this is ridiculous.
September 2, 2006 at 7:42 am
If 2 people fight on your blog, why will something be related to u :-S
September 2, 2006 at 5:31 am
Dang nice Link bait ?
September 2, 2006 at 3:53 am
Plenty of internet libel law pertaining to online discussions here .
September 2, 2006 at 1:44 am
I am not sure how that even flies… Don’t thosands of sites do this daily? I mean people posting comments about celebrities, athletes, and others? Seems kind of odd that it only applies to “blogs”.
Can someone give more info on how this works?
September 2, 2006 at 12:09 am
This blogger stood his ground and scared off his accusers.
September 1, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Oooh, the drama…
Why don’t you take that fatty Google check and get an actual attorney. You look like a shlub soliciting legal advice from random yokels on the internets.
Also, anyone who uses the word “blogosphere” should be stabbed in the eye with a rusty fork over the internet.
Good luck.
September 1, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Cough, that’s correct except for the bit about the opinion. If you make factually false statements of libelous or slanderous nature, it doesn’t matter whether you intended it as fact or as opinion.
September 1, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Please, if you really want to know the answer to this question and be able to sleep at night, ASK A LAWYER.
Asking people at random will just give your crap results.
Though no, to answer your question, there have not yet been any cases directly related to *blogs* but there have been several cases related to online forums and message boards, wherein it was held that the operators of the forums and message boards are not responsible for postings made by 3rd parties.
I imagine the application to blogs is the same, but like I said, I would check with a lawyer. Initial interviews to discuss situations like this are free, and it will only cost you money if you choose to retain his/her/their services.
September 1, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Has anyone taken a look at Markus’ blog?
September 1, 2006 at 10:35 pm
I hope you have patience – seems like the law is hitting blogs harder now.
September 1, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Good luck with the case. In the US, defamation cases are difficult to win as the law provides for many “legal” excuses to help keep free speech alive. It is true that first the person has to prove that the comment, was, in fact, untrue, that the person said it with the intent to be malicious and then they have to prove that they were significantly damaged by it.
Are they naming you as well in the suit or are just using your blog posts as evidence?
September 1, 2006 at 9:24 pm
I got this comment on my blog yesterday. Don’t know if it’s connected with Jeremy’s “case”. Looks spammy though.
————————————————
Hello Marc:
While investigating the fellow you named in your entry “Another Linkbait Classic From�, we found your website.
We wonder if you’re aware that that idiot and seo scammer is under investigation?
So, for linking to him, we hope you’ll not be surprized to get a subpoena soon from us.
John Hammer (33degrees)
September 1, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Seems to be the trend now days to prevent people from airing their
views on any chat medium.
Could very well be a test case.
Many problems with this, because of so many hacked accounts, that an innocent person could get hurt here
September 1, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Looks like a test case, will be difficult to find the person responsible for
their public comments. Seems to be a trend to harm blogging and free
speech now days on any chat medium and there ard there are many
problems with this because of so many hacked accounts. It could very
be that an innocent person may get hurt here.
September 1, 2006 at 8:54 pm
Sorry to hear about this but society seems ever more litigious.
On the up side, they do say that any publicity is good publicity!
September 1, 2006 at 8:48 pm
The blogosphere is watching this one!
September 1, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I would be talking to a few High Profile Lawyers myself… The better/bigger the law firm I think the better representation you will get…
September 1, 2006 at 8:18 pm
You may contact owner of http://jeffooi.com/ who has had similar experience here in Malaysia. It may be different, but who knows, you may find his advice helpful..
September 1, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Sorry to hear about, though it sounds interesting. I don’t think you can be held liable though.
September 1, 2006 at 7:33 pm
You mean, I’ve been wasting all of this time reading through your blog for money-making tips and info… when I could have just skipped to the big payout and sued one of your other readers?
September 1, 2006 at 7:17 pm
reminds me of when Oprah was sued over her comments about Cattle beef. Ranchers said she caused their prices to drop which she probably did but there is also the freedom of press/speech.
They lost thanks to her high powered attorneys by a large part!
When you sue a billionaire, most likely you are going to lose.
September 1, 2006 at 6:22 pm
Only because this a confusing distinction, this may help…
Slander is spoken defamation, libel is written. So this would be libel.
Jeremy, if you’ll allow me to shamelessly plug, we’ll be covering this starting Tuesday in Blogging Law 101 on tubetorial.com
September 1, 2006 at 5:34 pm
No it’s not that simple. They must also prove that what was said was untrue. Moreover, if the comment was stated as an opinion and based on fact that are corectly stated it falls under “fair comment” and there is no case.
September 1, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Thats terrible…. god im gonna have to be less flippant on my comments everywhere….
September 1, 2006 at 4:51 pm
I wrote this post a while ago, but maybe there’s some information in here that might be useful.
It was an interview with the NYT general counsel on libel.
September 1, 2006 at 4:50 pm
I don’t see anything said in that blog that would hurt a persons biz and cost them money. Maybe it is all a pub stunt between the two of them. Doesn’t really matter, whatever works to bring traffic, go for it.
September 1, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Thats the way it is these days, everyone is out for an easy buck. Easier to sue for it than to work for it. I might call people like this scum but then that might start another lawsuit. Geez, what an enormous waste of time!
Just saw the article about you in webservices mag. Way to go!
September 1, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Jeremy, you should be happy that you aren’t living in Germany. We have a huge lawsuit going on in this country right now where some guy sued a forum for a post of a member and the judge ruled that there are many cases where the forum owner is actually responsible.
September 1, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Freedom of speech has NOTHING to do with this. Or do you think there are different laws for the internet and for the “real world”?
September 1, 2006 at 2:36 pm
In the end, it sounds like another great marketing tactic for a couple of sites. Attention is attention and it works.
September 1, 2006 at 2:32 pm
was it mailed or delivered by a subpoena deliverer in person? is it in your state or different state?
these are things to consider.
similar experience: i once received a subpoena by mail (no confirmation of any kind) for a hearing or trial or legal action that I personally had nothing to do with but it was where I worked and they used one of our ‘housing available’ bulletin boards.
it was to occur in the courts in the city i was working in. i did nothing about it. nothing ever happened. i never heard back from any parties involved.
fwiw.
September 1, 2006 at 2:28 pm
My guess it is is related to the Lincoln firm that was going to do a redesign of his website.
Jeremy: Do you have a court filing number (or whatever it is called) so we can look this up online?
September 1, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Negative….
read the papers from aaron walls case against traffic power. He was sued for slander on his blog
September 1, 2006 at 1:11 pm
So sad to hear about these things… what the hell happened to FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Atleast you’ve got plenty of new traffic rolling in…
September 1, 2006 at 12:38 pm
my guess it involves this post http://www.shoemoney.com/2006/05/08/plentyoffish-marketing-101-when-all-else-fails-just-lie/ and the exchange between Shawn M. and Markus from plentyoffish.com
September 1, 2006 at 12:03 pm
I would think Aaron Wall from SEOBook.com would have some insightful information for you from his experience earlier this year with Traffic Power.
September 1, 2006 at 11:54 am
I am actually surprised that nobody else has even noticed that you can not “slander” someone on a blog. It is just not possible legally. Slander is quite simply, spoken words. Libel, however, is written words an is more likely the case here.
September 1, 2006 at 11:53 am
Decent breakdown:
http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2006/04/20/blog-law-blogging-for-lawyers-evan-brown-on-defamation/
September 1, 2006 at 11:41 am
have your attorney find out if you are on the hook here. You may need to add some language to the comments section saying that the comments do not necessarily reflect the view of the Shoemoney empire etc etc. Hopefully that would limit your exposure to your own posts..
September 1, 2006 at 11:35 am
Shoe, have you removed any of the particular postings?
September 1, 2006 at 11:33 am
I’m very interested to see the outcome of this case.
September 1, 2006 at 11:29 am
Man, that is deep! On the other hand, this is good press.
September 1, 2006 at 11:28 am
Fortunately for whatever poster for whatever topic: truth is the defense for libel and slander. Shoe ad revenue up.
September 1, 2006 at 11:24 am
hmmm wonder which one….
September 1, 2006 at 11:23 am
I dont know enough about the legal system to know what to worry about =)
September 1, 2006 at 11:08 am
are you worried about your liability exposure of the liability of the poster?
September 1, 2006 at 11:01 am
It’s simple. If the person can prove there was a loss, the other person will have to pay up if he or she has any money.
September 1, 2006 at 10:24 am
i hope this won’t prevent people from blogging frankly on shoemoney
but you’ll be getting a lot of publicity from this. the press will pick it up automatically – i’m sure they watch digg, frak, and others…
September 1, 2006 at 9:29 am
Wow. Think of the publicity and traffic that will generate for shoemoney.com . Can you get the press involved?
September 1, 2006 at 9:19 am
You might find this Delaware Supreme Court decision interesting, but I’m not certain how useful it will be to you, considering the fact patterns involved and the likeliness that you are in a different jurisdication.
Doe vs. Cahill
Still, there may be something in there that might be helpful. Here’s an AP wire article on it that puts it into perspective:
Court Rules in Favor of Anonymous Blogger
September 1, 2006 at 9:19 am
wow just the comments of that post has some good debate
September 1, 2006 at 9:17 am
I would take the idiot that started this lawsuit out to the woodshed. People like this should not be able to leave the house. I am astonished and disappointed in human kind.
September 1, 2006 at 9:12 am
I’ve not seen it happen with a blog personally but you might want to read this page http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/04/18/043121.php which talks about people being sued successully for posting comments on the internet.
September 1, 2006 at 9:07 am
I haven’t heard of a case regarding a blog post or comment but there was a big fuss about a forum posting a couple of years ago here in the uk.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3644610.stm
September 1, 2006 at 8:50 am
Interesting to say the least, I wonder what post this is in…..