Defamation

In recent news, a blogger found herself jailed (and under threat of being jailed again) for failure to promptly surrender her computer in an ongoing defamation case. Apparently, such legal bullying is becoming more common as lawyers discover that the laws written to regulate traditional press - just aren't a good fit (though a very profitable bad fit, if you play your cards right, apparently) for the blogging world.

In this instance, what appears to be yet another repugnant player (there appears to be no shortage) in the Anna Nicole Smith quagmire was publicly criticized by the blogger du jour - and proceeded to sue said blogger and as far as I can tell, everyone else in sight. Sort of a variant on the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) concept, to my eye, the player appears to be using litigation as the legal equivalent of a baseball bat to massage the crania of those who would utter disliked phrases.

Somehow, though, I think that holding individuals expressing their personal opinions and perceptions (barring actual malice) liable to the same standard of liability that a traditional media organization (at least VERY LOOSELY) adheres to, is less than entirely just or practical.

True, having a blogger running about the 'net declaring one is having illicit orgies with goats and gerbils is - annoying. But well before the full threat and majesty of the law is brought to bear, we need to consider such threats chilling effect on the First Amendment and beyond that, if any actual malice was involved in the given case.

This isn't the most profound or detailed post...more of a "gee, perhaps we should all think about this - particularly as we yet again near a polling place"...