« Important DMCA copyright decision | Main | Facebook firing »

Wednesday, 07 January 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5f1d53ef010536b0148c970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anonymous defamation:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

CyBerLaw

LiveJournal’s pro-libel policy is causing advertisers to look elsewhere.

LiveJournal’s terms of service prohibit the posting of libelous or defamatory material, but when LiveJournal receives a complaint about such material, all they do is alert their subscriber to the possibility of legal action.

Unlike WordPress, a competing blogging platform, LiveJournal does not remove defamatory content.

Several LiveJournal subscribers have posted a great amount of defamatory material about child therapists, making allegations such as:

* Involvement in Internet child trafficking

* Forcing parents to watch torture videos

* Having histories of violent crimes

Several advertisers, when alerted not only to the content being published on LiveJournal but also to LiveJournal’s refusal to do anything about it, have suspended their advertising campaigns with LiveJournal.

Others are considering doing the same.

Neither Anjelika Petrochenko, LiveJournal’s new North American manager, nor Mark Ferrell, LiveJournal’s abuse manager, could not be reached for comment. Petrochenko replaced Tupshin Harper, who managed LiveJournal for several years, and who appears to have been a key architect of the “hands off libelous content” policy that is now impacting LiveJournal’s bottom line.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Become a Fan

About the Author

  • Peter Black
    Lawyer, lecturer, blogger, geek and obsessive compulsive Twitterer

About this Blog

  • Archive
    View the full archive here.
  • Content
    This blog speaks freely about law, politics and the internet. While the focus is on Australia, developments in other nations around the world are considered as well.
  • Background
    The title of this blog is inspired by the Opinion of the US Supreme Court in Board of Education v Barnette 319 US 624 (1943): "But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Friendfeed Lifestream

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Freedom to Dither (Tumblr)