Online Defamation Law

When i search the web sites about Defamation i found http://www.eff.org which EFF means Electronic Frontier Foundation and they are working on defending of free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights. They have a good explanation about Defamation. what i write here is the thing i got from this website with some changing in some parts for understanding better for anyone who wants to know about Online Defamation:


First you need to know what is the Defamation.


Generally, defamation is a false and unprivileged statement of fact that is harmful to someone's reputation, and published "with fault," meaning as a result of negligence or malice. State laws often define defamation in specific ways. Libel is a written defamation; slander is a spoken defamation.
after understanding about defamation you need to know what are the elements of a defamation claims,


The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:

1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
• a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
• b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
4. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice

And Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
here what is coming to your mind, maybe you think can my opinion be defamatory? I should say no BUT merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS database").


limitations on libel


Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. In certain circumstances, such as when the defendant cannot be identified, a plaintiff can have more time to file a claim. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.
here is some example to understanding better of limitation on libel which is part of defamation:


The following are a couple of examples from California cases; note the law may vary from state to state. Libelous (when false):

• Charging someone with being a communist (in 1959)
• Calling an attorney a "crook"
• Describing a woman as a call girl
• Accusing a minister of unethical conduct
• Accusing a father of violating the confidence of son

Not-libelous:

• Calling a political foe a "thief" and "liar" in chance encounter (because hyperbole in context)
• Calling a TV show participant a "local loser," "chicken butt" and "big skank"
• Calling someone a "bitch" or a "son of a bitch"
• Changing product code name from Carl Sagan to "Butt Head Astronomer"

Since libel is considered in context, do not take these examples to be a hard and fast rule about particular phrases. Generally, the non-libelous examples are hyperbole or opinion, while the libelous statements are stating a defamatory fact.

I hope my research about Online Defamation was useful for you and now you have a good perspective about this law. So Be careful about what you say in the facebook and Internet !!!

Draft Rules under Section 43A & Section 79 of IT Act for public comments

Today i found very interesting news new rules from India, which their goverment add these rules for protecting the sensetive personal data and also for exemption and immunity from liability of intermediary. it also help people to use internet in the cyber cafe with more confident. here is the news:

Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India have put up draft rules under section 43A and 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 on its website: mit.gov.in for public comments by 28 February, 2011.

Section 43A provides for compensation for failure to protect sensitive personal data by body corporates, who are expected to implement and maintain resonable security practices and procedures as prescribed by Central Government. In this regard, the draft rules lay down for compulsory Privacy Policy by body corporates and also provide for restriction on disclosure of information to third party, which cannot be made except with prior permission of the information providers. Further, reasonable security and practices are expected to be implementd by adoption of “The International Standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001 on Information Technology – Security Techniques – Information Security Management System – Requirements”.

Section 79 provides for exemption from liability of intermediary, if the intermediary, among other factors also observes due diligence while discharging his duties under this Act and also observes such other guidelines as the Central Government may prescribe in this behalf. In this regard, the draft rules lay down that intermediary to have proper terms and conditions of use of its website, user agreement, privacy policy, etc. 

Section 79 also includes role of cyber cafes as intermedaries, in this regard also draft of cyber cafe guidelines have been put up by ministry for public comments. It includes provision for Identification of User, Log Registers, Management of Physical Layout and computer resource and inspection of cyber cafe.

http://www.cyberlawtimes.com/draft-rules-under-section-43a-section-79-of-it-act-for-public-comments/

Saudi Government Blocks 3,000 Drug Websites

here what i found in news about suspending some website that i never heard before about it. before this all of us just hearing about to block the sexual websites. nobody cares about the others, here i think this is the first thing in saudi arabia happened and i like it. Blocking DRUG websites. 3000 of them, can you belevie it ?? here it is :


Saudi Gazette – Govt blocks 3,000 drug websites: “Govt blocks 3,000 drug websites
DAMMAM: The government’s Drug Combat Department has blocked over 3,000 international Internet websites for being involved in enticing young people to take drugs and showing them ways to market these poisons. Abdel Ilah Al-Shareef, Assistant Director of the Drug Combat Department for Preventive Affairs, said three incidents have been detected connected to drug trafficking via the Internet. He added that three websites have been constructed to inform surfers about preventive measures. Al-Shareef warned that some websites set up for chatting, electronic games and cartoon serials exploit adolescents and urge them to take forbidden substances. This move was announced after a meeting on the danger of drugs was held at the Education Theater in Hafr Al-Batin. — Okaz/Saudi Gazette __ “

*\ http://cyberlaw.org.uk/

Iran launches cyber crime unit

This what i got from http://www.geo.tv/ . in this case we can clearly see that the actual crime is just happening from government side. they use their power to control of cyberspace.

TEHRAN: Iran on Sunday, 23th of January 2011, officially launched its cyber police unit to confront Internet crimes and counter social networks that spread "espionage and riots," police chief Esmaeil Ahmadi Moghaddam said. The country's first web watchdog team was now operational in the capital, Tehran, while police stations throughout the country would have their cyber units by the end of the Iranian year, March 21, he was quoted as saying by state news agency. Ahmadi Moghaddam said the cyber police would take on anti-revolutionary and dissident groups who used Internet-based social networks in 2009 to trigger protests against the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "Through these very social networks in our country, anti-revolutionary groups and dissidents found each other and contacted foreign countries and triggered riots," he said, referring to anti-Ahmadinejad protests that led to widespread unrest in Tehran in which dozens were killed. Supporters of rival candidates used the Internet and social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to swap information and coordinate protests against Ahmadinejad after his re-election. The government, however, rapidly clamped down heavily on the Internet making access difficult at times.