Dec 152009
 
 December 15, 2009  Posted by  Court, Online

Eugene Volokh writes:

So held a Massachusetts trial court last year in Jenzabar, Inc. v. Long Bow Group, Inc. (PDF p. 4); I just ran across the case online, so I thought I’d mention it. Defendant had posted a Boston Globe article that mentioned certain allegations by one DiLorenzo; DiLorenzo had later retracted those allegations. The court held that Long Bow had no “continuing duty to investigate the accuracy of the Boston Globe article, i.e., whether DiLorenzo was still accusing the plaintiffs of inappropriate actions.”

Now compare that to a recent U.K. ruling (pdf) discussed on Out-Law.com:

A newspaper which continued to publish a defamatory article on its website after its subject was cleared in an investigation lost its right to claim a special journalistic defence against libel, the High Court has said.

The ruling makes it clear that while responsible journalism is given some libel protection, that protection can evaporate if the crucial facts of the case change. Web archives of stories must change to reflect this, the ruling said.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.