This is great news:
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Tuesday that Web loggers, website operators and e-mail list editors can’t be held responsible for libel for information they republish, extending crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers.
Online free speech advocates praised the decision as a victory. The ruling effectively differentiates conventional news media, which can be sued relatively easily for libel, from certain forms of online communication such as moderated e-mail lists. One implication is that DIY publishers like bloggers cannot be sued as easily.
My understanding is that this protects me when I publish information that others had wrong- and all I need to do is when informed the information is wrong (which I do anyway), correct it? Am I reading this correctly, lawyers?
Jeff
I am not sure it is as clear as you have just stated. The opinion itself is located here(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0156380p.pdf) The Court identified a number of hurdles that the defendant has to clear before he is immune from suit. For example, the court here made an inquiry as to whether the posted information was truly supplied by a third party (in which case it might trigger immunity from suit) or was in fact authored by the defendant himself. Likewise, if I sent you a private email containing defamatory material that I did not intend to be posted on balloon juice, it is possible that you could be liable if you chose to post it. Just some brief thoughts (I have not reviewed the entire opinion yet).
Mike the Analyst
Another good reason (besides the obvious one) to CREDIT YOUR SOURCES.