In one of the blogs that I read someone has threatened legal action for a blog post that was made. There were several requests from a person requesting a reciprocal link back to a website. The person requesting the link had create a buried page that was not linked anywhere from their main website and this page was not indexed in any search engines, thus making any links from the page useless. The blog owner wrote about what transpired in the request, indicating that this was not a great way to build reciprocal links and named the individual who was making the requests and outlined what transpired. From discussions with the blog owner, the individual is threatening legal action for libel, saying private emails were disclosed etc and that there has been damage to the persons reputation and business. Does such a threat hold water because many of us bloggers do similar things. I'd be really curious as to what you think.
might seem to be all fun and games, it is possible to be sued for libel when blogging. If you aren't careful about what you say, you could wind up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. First, it's important that you remember your audience whenever you decide to blog.
I guess the truth is an absolute defence in this instance. There is no duty to retain the privacy of your own emails as they did not contain priviledged information, and since the potential defender is only displaying emails he was sent (i.e. they weren't supposed to be for another person or recipient) or that he sent himself, then he can do what he wants with them. If the contents of the emails the person sent could damage his business or reputation then he shouldn't have sent them in the first instance, or only sent them with the understanding (in advance) that the email contents were priviledged. Sound like the usual idiot who acts without thinking, gets caught out doing something dumb, stupid, or illegal, then bluffs and blusters when caught out. I don't think the blog owner has anything to worry about in this instance and it is unlikely any legal action will be forthcoming. We're only hearing part of the story here, but if what you say is all there is I wouldn't be losing any sleep over it. EDIT I meant to say, the blog owner was perhaps insensitive and should have displayed some caution and not named the person out of courtesy, but they haven't done anything that would warrant a suit for libel.
Yes, you're right when you say that. However, is it libel when someone simply talks about a series of events that transpired and questions the tactics used for reciprocal link building? Truth is a defense for libel and if what is blogged about is simply a revelation of a series of emails and what was discovered when checking out the request, is that libel? There is no expectation of privacy in the emails from what I can tell. I've read similar posts at Sugarrae's blog - http://www.sugarrae.com/james-cook-kawink/ To me while it seems that it may impact reputation but it is simply a restatement of the things that happened. There's no false statements being made in such a post from what I can see.
@robbrown - That's my thoughts on it as well. However, I still have seen quite a few bloggers out people in such a manner and I'm guessing they do this to maybe prove a point to others who may make similar requests. LOL! It would suck to be the subject of such a post and it would be something that would piss me off but I would look at it as being "oh well, I made my bed, I will now have to sleep in it"! LOL!
I agree, but doing such a thing doesn't do much for the blogger either as it shows a distinct lack of morals, conscience, or compassion. It would have been easy to make the point about that being an ineffective method without having to name the person. While it wasn't strictly illegal or libellous it wasn't a very smart thing to do either. It may have made the blogger feel superior but it would make me question whether doing business with that type of person would be wise. Their lack of "thinking it through" could get them in a lot of trouble with someone determined enough. They might cross the wrong person one day with that person actually following through with a case against them. It would be a Civil case and the defendent would have to defend themselves or lose by default. A pursuer who was nasty enough and had deep enough pockets could ruin someone financially or give then an extremely hard time. It's the ones who shout about suing that you tend to be able to ignore while the ones who don't say much and seem to accept it are the ones to worry about. Judging from many posts you see on these forums it makes me wonder if people view the internet as some sort of Wild West where normal rules don't matter, and where they think they are anonymous behind their computer screen and can do or say whatever they want without consequence. Some people get a nasty shock when the real world catches up with them, and those who do the sort of things that the blogger did may get a surprise one day when a court action drops through their letter box.
I agree. The veil of anonymity provided by the internet is gradually lifting just as the wild west was tamed. Interestingly enough now, our local newspaper recently ran a story about the "Anonymity" issue. http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=336989&sc=30 and there are still some that think they can say/do what they want online. It is interested as well when looking through websites how many do not include TOS and Privacy Policies. Without having a TOS that clearly defines the jurisdiction where such cases have to be filed, these types of bloggers may have to spend thousands of dollars just jetting around the countryside defending themselves from such lawsuits. And while these things are not a total protection, it does spell out some guidelines.