As most of you know, Lise and I have been unable to comment on the lawsuit while it was in progress. And you know we like to comment on things.
Obviously, we're extremely pleased with the outcome. We thought iBrattleboro was operating properly as a service for people to post their own stories and comments, and the judgement confirms this. Now that we are free to speak on the matter, we thought we'd answer some of the questions people have been asking.
How The Site Works
Story submissions are placed in a queue and we get to see them before they go up. This is primarily to prevent spam, unoriginal stories that are simply cut and pasted from somewhere else, and unsigned inflammatory pieces. You, the reader, don't see how much we filter out for you.
We don't edit stories for content, and we don't filter stories to make sure everyone agrees with us. If a story submission contains an original thought, has a local angle, and follows the policies it goes up. We occasionally help with formatting, such as breaking up long single paragraphs into smaller ones to make your submission easier to read.
Only registered users, i.e., people who have contacted us and provided an email address, can comment. Comments go up immediately unfiltered. We see them when you see them. We cannot edit comments, but we can delete them. Our preference is that everyone write in such a way that we never have to delete a thing - and this is increasingly true of the site. We are extremely happy to see everyone keeping the site fun, useful, and engaging.
The vast majority of the nearly 9,000 stories and 50,000 comments to date are helpful, relevant, on topic, and un-provocative. We see most of the comments, but not all, and rely on the community to help provide feedback. Registered users can use the "report abusive" button to flag comments for us to look at. Our policy asks that you contact us by phone or email if there is something on the site that bothers you.
Did Anyone Ever Ask You To Take Dunn's Signed Comment Down? Did You Refuse?
By the time we saw the comment, we knew that others had seen it too and the cat was out of the bag. We were somewhat stunned and didn't really know what to do. David Dunn was a public figure. To take down the comments would likely have prompted additional comments on the site to the effect of "what happened to those comments about Rescue?" eliciting more attention and discussion (and speculation) by other site users. So we let them stand. Others must have felt as we did because no one reported the comment as abusive. The first we were made aware that Ms. Mayhew had a problem with Mr. Dunn's comments was when a deputy served us with a lawsuit.
Once we saw the lawsuit, we made copies of the offending remarks and took them off the site.
What Did You Think Of The Comment?
We have no way of evaluating its truth, but it's not the type of thing we encourage on iBrattleboro. We want local stories by local folks about local issues done in a spirit of making this a better place for everyone. We all have to live here with one another. As Obama said "We can disagree without being disagreeable."
If it had been submitted as a story, we would have contacted the author, but Dunn's words appeared as a signed comment in response to another story.
As Mr. Dunn was a public figure involved in a rather public falling out with Rescue, Inc.., as reported in the local paper, his statement was newsworthy. When he made his allegations on the site, that action in itself was newsworthy. We did expect that there would be ramifications for Mr. Dunn.
Her lawsuit says it is not true; his says it is true. We have no way of knowing, and really don't think it's any of our business knowing.
What's It Like Being Sued?
Even though we were confident that we had done nothing wrong, and that all established law was in our favor, it is depressing to have front page headlines in your local paper making it appear that you are a very bad person, or do bad things. It was unclear to us why, with the law so well established, the paper would take the position they chose to take. Happily, community support was extremely high and that boost kept us going.
Being sued takes a lot of time. Initially there is a lot of communication - figuring out what's going on, thanking people for support, explaining that we can't discuss the matter yet, and reading what everyone has to say. Many people from around the country were interested in this case, as it would have had a profound effect on Internet law had we lost.
A lawsuit makes holidays a bit less fun. It makes going out to see people in meetings harder for a while. Slowly things become more normal, but there is always a cloud following you around and you are hoping the sun will break through, but you just aren't certain.
Jim Maxwell was great. As soon as we saw the suit, we thought of no one else. We had been very impressed with his work with radio free brattleboro and felt that he would be both prepared and interested in this sort of case. He not only helped us get through the paperwork and legal responses, but also made us feel comfortable and helped us to relax. He explained each step of the process, answered our questions, and kept us up to date. Hire him! (We're working on details for a fundraiser - stay tuned.)
What Does The Ruling Mean?
A few things. On a basic level, it affirms that individuals are responsible for their words and actions and makes it clear that iBrattleboro is not a legitimate target of a libel lawsuit for third-party comments posted on the site.
Our defense was that we provide an interactive computer service that facilitates online sharing of news and info -- and that according to all established law, we are not liable for what is posted there by other people. If we had written the comment, sure, we'd could be held liable. But we didn't write it. And section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explains it all clearly.
It's a bit like when someone makes a harassing call to you. The person making the call can get in trouble, but not the phone company, or the maker of the phone. They didn't do it - they provided a service but didn't generate the call.
This is not a "victory for free speech," however, and is not a free speech case. It is about who is liable for libel.
It is important to note, again, that this does not show that anyone can say anything on the Internet. It isn't a free-for all. It says that the person responsible is the person writing the words. In other words, it simply assigns the responsibility to correct entity.
Does It Mean Anything Goes? Can I Now Go Wild?
No. You've never had permission to do that. The same rules apply as always. If you slander or libel someone on iBrattleboro, you can still be sued. As far as we know, only our portion of the case was dismissed. Dunn and Mayhew have more to work out.
The big difference now is that it should be clear that we won't be a part of those types of suits if they arise. But you as a contributor might be, and we don't want that. We'll be posting some links to resources to help people improve and check their skills, to avoid these problems in the future.
What if Chris or Lise Edits Something - Isn't iBrattleboro Then Guilty?
No. The judge made it clear by using case examples that show that even if we did edit stories or comments, which we do not do, we still would not be held liable. The law recognizes that site owners can try to keep things in order, but aren't responsible if they fall short of keeping everything in order at all times.
How Does It Change the Site?
The judgement says we are following the law, and that no changes are necessary. Most people noticed that we didn't change our Policies or the way we do things while the suit was going on, and we plan to continue doing our best to provide Brattleboro with the best online news and information source for the town.
It is an opportunity, however, to remind everyone to be responsible with your writing. Long-time users know that we allow great leeway with topics and discussions, and try to err on the side of freedom and openness, but our number one concern is that contributors try to be civil. The fastest way to get in trouble on iBrattleboro is to attack other users personally. Debating ideas is fine; calling each other names is not.
Why Did It Take So Long?
We asked for a ruling. We wanted to hear once and for all whether we could do what we were doing.
The judge clearly took the time to consider our arguments, and the ruling shows he was very well-versed in this part of Internet law, which takes time. We hope it was interesting for him, and helps others. He certainly pointed out a few things we hadn't come across.
What Would Have Happened If You Lost?
Ah, hypotheticals. We were prepared to keeping fighting this through appeals had we lost. It was our understanding that if the ruling was against us, many significant-sized internet companies would then want to sign on, as it would impact how the entire web operates.
Had we then lost all appeals, we would have shut down the site. Probably much of the internet would rapidly shut down, too. Google wouldn't want to be responsible for all the sites they link to, for example.
What Did You Think of the Reporting On This?
Web media folks understood all along; newspapers often missed the mark with their editorials and attempts to find controversy where there really was none.
iBrattleboro contributors "got it" right away. They are good at knowing when information is reliable and when it isn't. They knew the back story, saw it for what it was, and quickly found legal examples that supported us. Thank you. You were as liable as we were.
Vermont bloggers were great. While we were unable to comment, we were very happy to see others let loose. Thanks to everyone at Green Mountain Daily, 7Days, Candleblog, 802 Online, She's Right, FiveBeforeChaos, Vermont Daily Briefing, Front Porch Forum, and others who really nailed it. We're happy to return to them a small token of our appreciation -- a ruling that re-confirms that Vermont is a great place for internet news operations.
National blogs, too, did a good job of alerting others. Thank you Techdirt, DailyKos, MediaShift Idea Lab, and especially David Ardia at the Citizen Media Law project.
As for newspapers, most seemed to get it wrong. We couldn't tell if this was ignorance or intentional. Many confused an interactive service with the role of a publisher. Where they got it wrong was in their assignation of status of publisher to us - individuals using the site are the "publishers" in the etymological sense of "making information public." We're more like the maker of the press.
It was interesting to see, for example, "serious" stories from Paul Heintz in the Reformer that left out that he and other reporters use the site -- many have registered over the years. He seemed to go out of his way to cast any sort of doubt -- and the best he came up with was someone in the midwest who was on the losing end of a suit who felt the law wasn't fair.
Dan Barlow's piece for the Rutland Herald was probably the best newspaper piece, but even he forgot to mention that he uses the site on occasion, or did. We like reporters and want them to be a part of iBrattleboro, so we hope their bosses let them return now and participate. It's good advertising, if nothing else. We used to enjoy hearing from our man Dan in Montpelier.
Those who misunderstood the most, sadly, were those writing the editorials. Almost all tried to compare us to newspapers, and what they do. Some lectured us, as if we were their students. It led to ridiculous sentences such as "This line of questioning is not to knock Grotke and LePage. They are doing good work, but they are not immune to libel law," and "the bulk of the content on iBrattleboro is opinion posted by mostly anonymous contributors." This was from our friends at the Reformer, suggesting in an unsigned editorial that we apologize for something someone else did and swiping at "anonymous contributors" with their "opinions." Maybe they were trying to cheer us up with a good joke?
What's Next?
We are extremely grateful to everyone who has been supportive over the last few months. We're excited to be able to re-dedicate ourselves fully to the site again -- we have a regional Job Market job board starting soon and want to get out to hold some community sessions to answer questions and help people get the most out of iBrattleboro.
We also want to raise some money to cover the costs. While we don't expect to recoup our lost time (buy an ad!), we do want to do our best to pay Jim Maxwell for his time. Hard legal expenses came to $1120. If you'd like to make a donation specifically for this, Feed the Kitty or send a check and add an extra .01 to the end of your payment so we know it is for Jim. We'll also try to plan an iBrattleboro night out soon.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask them below. We'll do our best to answer.