Is Obama’s Web Site Liable for its Users’ Libel? Edit Link

It has been established [http://husaria.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/obama-campaign-sanctioned-anti-semitic-and-other-hate-speech/] that Barack Obama’s official campaign site exercises editorial control over the content of my.barackobama.com, and is capable of finding and removing “offensive” and “disrespectful” material within two days. Does this exercise of editorial control create not only a moral duty to remove the anti-Semitic, racist, and misogynist hate speech that pervades my.barackobama.com, but also a legal duty to remove libelous material? We phrase this as a question because we are not qualified to give legal advice. Suffice to say, however, that numerous comments at my.barackobama.com libel an identifiable entity with false accusations of criminal activity–and we have E-mailed the page in question to the organization in question for review by its attorneys. [We are not, by the way, going to give the libel any “legs” by quoting it here even for the purpose of condemnation.]

...Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. suggests, however, that the fact that the Obama campaign has (and exercises) the right to “edit, refuse to post or remove any material submitted to or posted on our Website” does in fact create an affirmative duty to censor libelous entries.

...In summary, we are not qualified to judge whether Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. means that Barack Obama’s official campaign is liable for the libelous material that has been posted there, or whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives it some protection. We would welcome the opinions of attorneys who can give professional opinions. Suffice to say, however, that it has been established that:

(1) The Obama campaign exercises editorial control over the content of my.barackobama.com

(2) Libelous material (false accusation of criminal activity) has been posted to my.barackobama.com

Subsequent inspection of my.barackobama.com shows numerous statements about several identifiable persons (corporate or individual, we won't go into detail) that are automatically libelous because they are false accusations of crimes. They refer to the entities in question as criminals.

Note that, although it is more difficult to libel a public figure than it is a private citizen or corporate "person," it is not impossible. It's conceivable that the defamatory statements that were leveled against public figures at my.barackobama.com stepped over the line.

Do any attorneys here want to weigh in on the implications of Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. and http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol3/a014Horowitz.html

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) offers broad protection for providers and users of interactive computer services against liability for defamation and other content-based claims when a third-party provides the information. Although providers and users of interactive computer services (ICSs) are permitted to exercise some editorial control while still avoiding legal liability, at some point, such editing may transform the provider or user of the ICS into an information content provider and deprive them of § 230 immunity. The key issue is where the threshold between permissible and impermissible editorial control lies.

Re: “This is idiocracy in action. There’s a politician who went after FRee Republic for the same reason...remember that?
We were all called racist hate mongers and FR would have been shut down if idiots like this fool had their way.”

Directing hate at someone (whether right or wrong) is not libel. A false accusation of a crime is, and several appeared at my.barackobama.com.

Free Republic, by the way, DOES try to keep overt hate and so on off the site. Several threads about Ted Kennedy’s illness were closed, and members threatened with suspensions, because of inappropriate remarks about Kennedy’s illness. In contrast, the Obama campaign does nothing about anti-Semitic, racist, and similar material until it becomes an Internet-wide scandal. (Suggested title: “Free Republic CLASS versus Barack Obama CRASS”)

This is not, however, what I am talking about here; the material at the Obama site goes beyond merely anti-Semitic, misogynist, and racist to actual libel of identifiable persons, both corporate and individual. As an example, saying that women are unfit to hold public office is misogynist (as happened at Obama’s site) but it is not legally actionable. A false accusation of a crime is, and Obama’s site contains numerous such entries.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.