Dear Author: Romance Book Reviews, Author Interviews, and Commentary

On Tuesday, Barbara Bauer’s defamation suit against Wikipedia/Wikimedia was dismissed on the grounds that the CDA provided a safe harbor for websites that host content created by others. I thought that this would be the ruling

“To date, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has begun to be interpreted fairly broadly to immunize websites from the actions of its commenters (and in Wikipedia’s case, the actions of the webizens who edit it).”

Claims still exist against 19 individuals and the SFF Writers of America.

Thanks to Jia.

Barbara Bauer, named one of the publishing industry’s 20 Worst Literary Agents, has sued over 19 bloggers and website administrators for allegedly defaming her. The New Jersey Star-Ledger has reported on it, in part because Bauer is a local resident. Wikipedia and Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America website have been named as well as Preditors & Editors. I’m glad that Wikipedia lawyers are getting involved. They have alot of experience in this realm. To date, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has begun to be interpreted fairly broadly to immunize websites from the actions of its commenters (and in Wikipedia’s case, the actions of the webizens who edit it).

The individuals responsible for editing and commenting, however, do not have the same protections. The problem I think for Bauer is in defamation suits, an absolute defense of libel is the truth. Any of the defendants would have the right to prove that Bauer had no good reputation from her own acts. Her whole life will be under the microscope now ala Roger Clemens and his multitude of affairs that are now seeing the …

Individuals who are, or once were, associated with PublishAmerica are suing  the Preditor & Editors site for libel. Barbara Bauer is an agent who claims that P&E libeled her by calling her a scammer.  Victor E. Cretella, an attorney with PublishAmerica and a member of the Maryland Bar, is suing P&E for harming his reputation.

Barbara Bauer is on SFWA’s twenty worst agents list.   NielsonHayden also noted that Barbara Bauer is a “well known scam agent” and so did Miss Snark.  As everyone and their cousin on these sites note, calling someone a scam agent is defensible if it is the truth.  (I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that it is not libel if it is the truth. Truth is just an absolute defense to libel).

On the P&E website, it claims that Victor E Cretella infringed on a contract.  I am not sure how you can infringe on a contract.  You can breach a contract.  You can tortiously interfere with a contract but infringe?  In any event, this is a bit more interesting.  Apparently some had made complaints to the Maryland Bar Association regarding Cretella’s activities as PublishAmerica’s attorney.  Any complaint made to an …

“The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.”
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

NY Times v. Sullivan

Beginning in 1964, the New York Times v. Sullivan case began extending greater protection to the right of free speech, arguing that to allow the standard defamation law to continue without change would have serious negative impact on the importance of civil discourse. New York Times v. Sullivan is one of the most important cases in the legal history of the defamation. In it, the Supreme Court raised the bar for suits brought against media defendants. As stated in the previous article, this bar was extended to include all suits brought by public individuals. The bar was the requirement that the person accusing someone of defamation had to prove that the accused acted with “malice” even if the information was false.

In the NYT v. Sullivan case, a public official brought suit against the Times for an editorial advertisement entitled “Heed Their Rising Voices.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 256 (1964). The advertisement contained accusations that in the effort to enforce desegregation, …

One of the things that make defamation cases so difficult is that most of the time, the person filing suit is a public figure. Defamation suits have been crippling to the publishing industry. Newspapers, book publishers and so forth faced extinction at the hands of these suits. Recently a publisher filed for bankruptcy due to the legal fees incurred defending three libel suits.

While truth is always a defense in a defamation case, the mere fact that it is false is not enough to prove defamation. Where a publication is made about a public figure, the MeanGirl has what is called a “qualified privilege” regarding false statements that are published. In order for a public figure to be successful in a defamation case against a MeanGirl, the public figure must overcome that “privilege” by showing that the statement or statements were made with malice

Public Figure Identified.

There are two types of public figure: First, there are the individuals who through fame and notoriety are public figures for all purposes; and second, there are individuals who inject themselves or are drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby become public figures for a …

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; but he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed. William Shakespeare, Othello, Act III, scene iii.
When I started writing about defamation a couple of weeks ago, I quickly realized that it was much too complicated of a topic to stuff into one large blog post. It’s not just complicated but it is also confusing with technical issues that can make or break a case but are not easily understood.
One major element of a defamation case is determining if the defamation is "per se" or "per quod". The easiest case to prove is the defamation per se. The hardest, by contrast, is defamation per quod. Here’s the difference in pratical terms. The courts have decided that there is a certain set of words that is just so bad that just merely uttering the …

This is the second part in How to Fling About Legal Insults Like a Lawyer. One of the questions last week wondered whether free speech was simply unfettered. Absolutely not and I don’t mean for this series to imply that, but I do know that over the space of a year and a half, I’ve had more than one person threaten legal action. I always take those threats seriously because they implicate not only me, but also my dear blogging partners. Further, these threats can intimidate others who are less familiar with the law into taking down posts, apologizing for perceived wrongdoing, and so forth.

The First Amendment is not intended to protect every utterance. Instead, what the court, any court, has to do is weigh the balance between the right of a person to be free of something injurious and harmful or, in other words, to be free of defamation, and the right of the press and the public to engage in critical discourse. As one legal scholar has said, hurt feelings are not to be redressed in the court of law: “Although scathing characterizations can be …

Source: Snuffle Guppy

It has occurred to me, from my years of online inhabitation, that people love to fling about the threat of a lawsuit but never really follow through. The sad truth is that most people apparently can’t tell their ears from their eyes when demanding reparations. The most frequent accusation that I’ve seen is that we bloggers are slanderers. I don’t know why the word “slander” has become shorthand for defamation but it seems to be the most commonly used term when someone has something dislikeable uttered about her or him.

I felt it was worthwhile to do a couple of posts on the law of defamation so that when people become unhappy with what I have written, they can consult these series of posts to correctly phrase their legal threat. Or maybe bloggers can realize that there are some defenses.

Defamation = Libel or Slander

Defamation is a legal term which is defined as the untruthful statements of fact made to a third party that causes damage to a person’s reputation. From the Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:

An intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures …

Nesya Shapiro Blue worked on the documentary “Against Pornography” but that didn’t keep Amazon from listing two hardcore porn films, “Fantasy in Blue” and “Dreams of Candace Heart” as part of her producing credits. The correct producer is Nancy Blue but despite repeated requests for correction, Amazon, the owner of IMDB.com, never responded. Shapiro Blue is suing Amazon based on claims that her reputation was “severely tarnished” and that she lost out on film opportunities because of the errors.

This case has really interesting ramifications if it is ever litigated given that IMDB relies, in part, on user added information. IMDB does promise to correct errors if brought to its attention.

Sometimes, especially when two or more people have similar or identical names, correct credits can be associated to the wrong person. If this is the case, please identify all the credits that belong to one of them and we’ll move the incorrect ones to the other person(s) sharing the same name

Ultimately the court may decide whether a website owner can be held responsible for the dissemination of inaccurate information which could be harmful to a person’s reputation. In the past, this …

Holly Lisle has contacted me and accused us of engaging in libel. She has claimed that we have lied and misconstrued her statements in the post that was published last week. We suggest that you readers, if you have any question in your mind about what she said, read her blog posts here, here and here. Dear Author does not believe in succumbing to intimidation and threats. We know that the First Amendment and subsequent case law interpreting the First Amendment protects us from challenges to our right to post our views and opinions. We remain committed to protecting this site from censorship and from any attempts to stifle our legitimate voice.

We did get one fact wrong. In the original post, I stated that Holly Lisle’s career was in danger. Holly Lisle has kindly informed us that she is in no danger of having her career killed at the moment.

Ms. Lisle has emailed me a laundry list of complaints and accusations which I invite her to post on her own blog or I will post them here, if she likes.

EDITED TO ADD: Ms. Lisle did …