Back to Lesson Index



Lesson 35 - Libel 4:

Libel Online I

Last time we said that one reason public figures got less protection from libel law was that they had an easy opportunity to defend themselves. Because they had access to the media, they could easily rebut charges that were in fact false. This, the courts have said, distinguishes public figures from private persons, since private persons don't have as easy an opportunity to reply.

But what about people on the net? If I am libeled in an America Online chat room, not only do I have the opportunity to respond quite easily and cheaply, AOL in principle could determine most of the people who saw the libel. My reply could then be targeted at them. Thus my ability to reply in that context is better than a public figure's ability to reply. Does that means people on the net should be treated as public figures for purposes of libel law and given as little protection from libel as public figures?

Some have argued that they should, but no court has yet accepted that argument. And while libel law may need to be adjusted to fit cyberspace, it is unlikely that it will be changed so dramatically. Whether people on the net can defend themselves or not, courts are unlikely to make self- help the only remedy for libel. They believe the law as well should help. The ability to respond cheaply may affect how harmful any particular libel is, but we believe it is unlikely that that fact will convert net speech into a license to libel.

Next time we'll discuss other cyberspace-specific concerns.


authors:
Larry LessigDavid PostEugene Volokh



Back to Lesson Index

Copyright © 1999 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved