very well then: part III

Since initially disagreeing with Hugh Hewitt's rather cautious remarks about blogging and defamation law, I've taken it upon myself to research the issue. I trundled down to TESC's library this afternoon, and came away with a cache of useful material. (Yes, I consider this fun.) My weekend reading, to complement lesson planning and grading:


Ken Kraus and Dan Polatsek, "Enforcement of foreign media judgments in the aftermath of Gutnick v. Dow Jones & Co." Communications Lawyer; Spring 2004; pp. 23-27.

Christopher J. Peters, "Dow Jones & Company v Gutnick: an opportunity foregone?" University of Queensland Law Journal; 2003; 22, 2, pp. 263-266.

Uta Kohl, "Defmation on the Internet--Nice decision, shame about the reasoning: Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly; Oct 2003; 52, 4; pp. 1049-1058.

Tomas A. Lipinski, Elizabeth A. Buchananan, and Johannes J. Britz, "Sticks and stones and words that harm: Liability vs. responsibility; section 230 and defamatory speech in cyberspace." Ethics and Information Technology; 2002; 4, 2; pp. 143-158.

Jonathan A. Friedman and Francis M. Buono, "Limiting tort liability for online third-party content under section 230 of the Communications Act." Federal Communications Law Journal; May 2000; 52, 3; pp. 647-665.

Thomas G. Ciarlone Jr. and Eric W. Wiechmann, "Cybersmear may be coming to a website near you: A primer for corporate victims." Defense Counsel Journal; January 2003; 70, 1; pp. 51-64

Eric M. D. Zion, "Protecting the e-marketplace of ideas by protecting employers: Immunity for employers under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act." Federal Communications Law Journal, May 2002; 54, 3; pp. 493-516.


I'll post an essay once I've slogged through all of them and have something coherent to say. My cursory take, though, is that Hugh's alarmist tone isn't entirely warranted.

See also:

very well then, I contradict myself
very well then: part II