I feel it would be an outrageous stretch for anyone to sue on a comment on a news item, and would end up with the Righthaven sort of smackdown that the litigant would deserve. Since the article is an extension of the comment ability, the very same would attain there as well. Yes, there is some theoretical liability, but I don't feel it to be a substantial risk.
However, even this remote risk does speak to one feature that I would love to see employed on this Freeper Editorial Sidebar (and this is where JohnRob comes in): It would be a great asset to the moderation of that sidebar if,
2) Once certain posters have earned their chops, perhaps they might be thought of as Regular Contributors (such as are featured in some of the news websites) and they might get an ability to post right away. If there was a problem, the article or opinion piece could be taken down in retrospect.
I understand this might take some new coding, but I don't see this as too formidable a programming task. Right John? I mean, if you had it all done in dotNet, it should be easy! Oh wait, you did it in Perl. ;)
Sorry, we’re not going to vet any posts, other than our regular moderating which is usually in response to submitted abuse reports and or for inappropriate or misclassified posts. We do not have an editorial staff. This is a discussion site, not a news reporting agency. Our posters are exercising their first amendment rights to post items for discussion and critiquing purposes. It’s opinion oriented. Sometimes our opinions do make news, though. Like (paraphrasing), “Something’s wrong with Rather’s letter. The fonts don’t look right for a typewriter.”
The right to express opinion is protected by law.
Bottom line up front: this is a great idea. It can work, and given the resources Jim has at his disposal (i.e., some very powerful conservatives who are capable of giving him top-notch advice on both legal and practical matters) I think it will work.
Legal environments differ from state to state, not in basic principles of libel law but rather on fine points, state precedents, and practical issues. I am not qualified to discuss details of California law and I'd be a fool to try. Jim has access to private legal advice so there's no point.
Reading between lines, I think the point Jim is making may be that his role providing an online forum to post opinions is a different category, legally speaking, from editing a newspaper and becoming responsible for every single thing in its pages. Internet law is in a tremendous state of flux, and the level of moderation, prior review, etc., that is exercised by the owner of a website becomes key in how courts will view the level of liability of the website owner vis-a-vis the person posting an article or posting a comment on an article.
I don't think anyone can safely predict how the courts will handle developing internet law down the road, but that distinction between posting content and providing a forum for others to post content was asserted last year by my business partner's lawyer, and it saved him from a lawsuit threat caused by allegedly libelous comments on an article. I'm not going to say more publicly since the statute of limitations on the alleged offense hasn't yet expired, the guy is still mad, and he has a long history of suing people, but I was very glad our business operations were designed with defending against litigation in mind. In my world, most people aren't going to spend five-digit sums of money merely to jump on me in court, especially since any lawyer worth his salt will find out very fast that I know what I'm doing, I don't make the sort of screwball mistakes that typically get reporters sued, and I have the financial resources to fight back hard rather than buckling under at the first threat. However, I'm a conservative, and that means I'm cheap, so I hate spending money I don't need to spend and prefer to prepare in advance rather than suffer due to lack of advance planning.
Also, “balls” count. It's possible for management be so scared of their shadows that people can't do their jobs. Anyone who knows Free Republic's history knows its owner doesn't back down easily and that will help him tremendously.
Lawyers for big newspapers, networks, and TV and radio stations are used to threats and respond accordingly. There's a reason for that. Giving in to bullies makes the bullying worse.
Anyway, I said up front that this is a great idea. I hope it takes off. Free Republic could do a tremendous amount of good with original content, especially at the state and congressional district levels.