February 5, 2007

A Better Way To Deal With Online Defamation

UCLA constitutional law professor and legal issues blogger Eugene Volokh says that instead of trying to restrict free speech for bloggers, the way two Tennessee legislators - state Rep. Rob Briley and state Sen. Jaime Woodson - were trying to do last week (by making it much harder for them to defend against defamation claims), they should tweak existing Tennessee to enhance free speech. Volokh says Tennessee Code section 29-24-103, which I cited in my initial post last week, is designed to encourage the publishers of "periodicals" to issue "prompt retractions" of false and defamatory information.

Volokh:

This is an extra protection offered speakers, which encourages them to publish prompt retractions by offering to limit the liability to which they would otherwise be constitutionally exposed. The Tennessee legislature seems to think it's good enough for newspapers and periodicals. Why not make it clear that it applies to online publications as well?

The retraction statute already might cover bloggers, if you read "periodical" to include blogs, as a California Court of Appeal decision does. But given that the matter is not completely clear, it would be good if Tennessee legislators - and legislators in other states that have similar laws - made it clear.