Reading through the anti-blog screed by Edward Fadeley in today’s Theo, I can’t help but wonder if the reason he’s a “retired associate justice of the Oregon Supreme Court” rather than an active one is the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
(He actually retired in order to receive treatments for throat cancer. But I wasn’t making a crack about that.)
Okay, to be fair, it could be that he knows exactly what he’s talking about and is abusing that knowledge to convey a false picture in order to advance an agenda. Neither option is of particular benefit to anyone living in the 21st century, as most of us are.
“Ten years ago Congress passed a law requiring blog operators to protect the public by self-regulation,” Fadeley writes. In reality, what was adopted last decade was the Communications Decency Act, much of which was struck down by the courts, but not the bit that protected online publishers which provide some manner of public posting ability from being responsible for what individual posters say.
It was, in a very real sense, only just recently that a court specifically ruled that this covers blogs as much as it covers, say, AOL. That ruling was written by one of the judges who rationally dealt with the CDA a decade ago, so he knows what he’s doing.
Fadeley goes on to suggest that protecting online publishers who offer public forums is the equivalent to protecting “libel, defamation or spoken-but-fraudulent activity” and also runs counter to the Oregon Constitution’s provision that “every person shall be responsible for the abuse” of their free speech rights.
What he ignores here, of course, is the fact that the free speech rights at issue at those of the individual posters to public forums, who are in no way protected by the CDA from actions against them for any “libel, defamation or spoken-but-fraudulent activity”.
(Philosophically, the basic idea is that online publishers who provide public forums are enabling the free speech rights of others, and so just as the City of Portland can’t be sued for slander shouted by someone on a sidewalk, providers of public forums online can’t be sued for libel posted by someone else.)
Fadeley continues the distortions by rhetorically combining a case in which online publishers posted “information about a rumored new Apple product” with the problem Fadeley perceives with a lack of protections against online libel.
You’ll notice, of course, that the Apple case had nothing whatsoever to do with libel, but Fadeley conflates the two issues anyway, because it serves his scare tactics.
Continuing on to raise the example of various individuals or organizations whom an online publisher attacks as cultish, Fadeley says that “the law should protect their rights and demand journalistic standards and accountability.”
Of course, there really isn’t a law which covers “journalistic standards and accountability” per se, and in fact that’s precisely one of the things the courts discussed in the Apple case. “We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish ‘legitimate’ from ‘illegitimate’ news,” the judge in that case wrote. “Any attempt by courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment.”
Fadeley concludes by warning, “It’s high time to fill the gap in a system that allows defamation in the blogosphere to go unchecked.”
The problem is that no law has been passed, nor any court ruling issued, which exempts blogs or posters to public forums from existing proscriptions against libel or slander.
Of course, it’s also possible that Fadeley has a general inability (scroll down) to understand (scroll down) the rules.
Addendum: Oh, the irony. It seems that Fadeley once was on the Wayne Morse Historical Park Corporation Board at a time when the Wayne Morse Free Speech Plaza was conceived and dedicated.