<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>LibertyVoice &#187; Defamation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.libertyvoice.net/tag/defamation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net</link>
	<description>Freedom and internet</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:49:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Six interesting technology law issues raised in the Facebook IPO</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-02/six-interesting-technology-law-issues-raised-in-the-facebook-ipo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-02/six-interesting-technology-law-issues-raised-in-the-facebook-ipo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:55:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Evan Brown (@internetcases)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nonpracticing entities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent trolls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right of Publicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=2815</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patent trolls, open source, do not track, SOPA, PIPA and much, much more: Facebook&#8217;s IPO filing has a real zoo of issues. The securities laws require that companies going public identify risk factors that could adversely affect the company&#8217;s stock. Facebook&#8217;s S-1 filing, which it sent to the SEC today, identified almost 40 such factors. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-02/six-interesting-technology-law-issues-raised-in-the-facebook-ipo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Everybody&#8217;s Public to Somebody?: Social Media and the Public/Private Divide</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/everybodys-public-to-somebody-social-media-and-the-publicprivate-divide/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/everybodys-public-to-somebody-social-media-and-the-publicprivate-divide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sharkey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right of Publicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=d66ff0e94f39c3a9804ed1b07aaf18eb</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

First Amendment doctrine is sort of obsessed with the idea of a public/private divide – the idea that we can clearly slice society up into those things that are &#34;public&#34; (about which we want robust discussion, so we protect that discussio...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/everybodys-public-to-somebody-social-media-and-the-publicprivate-divide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A New Heavyweight Steps in the Ring as Round 2 Begins in Obsidian v. Cox</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/a-new-heavyweight-steps-in-the-ring-as-round-2-begins-in-obsidian-v-cox/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/a-new-heavyweight-steps-in-the-ring-as-round-2-begins-in-obsidian-v-cox/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:25:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Arthur Bright</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=ec4cb8c354ca3e800eef3084459978cf</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Given the hoopla it caused a few weeks ago, you may already be aware of the somewhat notorious ruling in the Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox case.  That's the case where an Oregon federal judge rejected blogger Crystal Cox's contention that she was a m...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/a-new-heavyweight-steps-in-the-ring-as-round-2-begins-in-obsidian-v-cox/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Promoting Vetted News Content on Social Media (or, How Not to Give Your Lawyer a Heart Attack)</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/promoting-vetted-news-content-on-social-media-or-how-not-to-give-your-lawyer-a-heart-attack/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/promoting-vetted-news-content-on-social-media-or-how-not-to-give-your-lawyer-a-heart-attack/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 19:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey P. Hermes</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=e7c3a34c72151e7118508c05f311fa29</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
By now, it is a given that many journalists have a regular presence on social networking services.  The value of social media for gathering information, developing the journalist’s public persona, and promoting the journalist’s work is well-recogn...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2012-01/promoting-vetted-news-content-on-social-media-or-how-not-to-give-your-lawyer-a-heart-attack/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No, the Sky is Not Falling: Explaining that Decision in Oregon</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-12/no-the-sky-is-not-falling-explaining-that-decision-in-oregon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-12/no-the-sky-is-not-falling-explaining-that-decision-in-oregon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:34:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric P. Robinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shield Laws]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=eb2d3ceec7901668feca66bb9b42855a</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
There's been a lot of buzz online (and now in the New York Times) about a decision by a federal judge in Oregon last week that held that blogger Crystal Cox
is not protected by Oregon's reporters shield law, thereby leading to a $2.5 million verdict a...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-12/no-the-sky-is-not-falling-explaining-that-decision-in-oregon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oregon media shield law did not protect blogger from having to reveal her sources</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-12/oregon-media-shield-law-did-not-protect-blogger-from-having-to-reveal-her-sources/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-12/oregon-media-shield-law-did-not-protect-blogger-from-having-to-reveal-her-sources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 03:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Evan Brown (@internetcases)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom of the Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shield law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetcases.com/?p=2607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334 (D.Or. November 30, 2011) Plaintiff filed a defamation lawsuit against defendant, who self-identified as an &#8220;investigative blogger&#8221; and a member of the &#8220;media.&#8221; Defendant asked the court to protect her from having to turn over the identity of the sources she spoke with in connection with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-12/oregon-media-shield-law-did-not-protect-blogger-from-having-to-reveal-her-sources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Blogs Can&#8217;t Be Trusted, or: &#8216;Statements Made Here Are Not Likely Provable Assertions of Fact&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-11/why-blogs-cant-be-trusted-or-statements-made-here-are-not-likely-provable-assertions-of-fact/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-11/why-blogs-cant-be-trusted-or-statements-made-here-are-not-likely-provable-assertions-of-fact/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 19:38:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Sharkey</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Text]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=17314ac2ddb44a614a3c68a1fb766558</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

The refrain that bloggers can't be trusted to produce accurate, factual information and reporting is a familiar one. Now, though, courts are beginning to give the cliche some legal bite. While in the short run those cases are wins for the individual ...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-11/why-blogs-cant-be-trusted-or-statements-made-here-are-not-likely-provable-assertions-of-fact/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Net not a defamation-free zone</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-10/net-not-a-defamation-free-zone/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-10/net-not-a-defamation-free-zone/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 17:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David Canton</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In the press]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://canton.elegal.ca/?p=2685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For the London Free Press &#8211; October 3, 2011 Read this on Canoe ONLINE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT DECISION DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IMPUNITY The Ontario Superior Court recently decided that a blog comment must pass a higher threshold before it&#8217;s considered defamatory than statements made in other places. Defamation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-10/net-not-a-defamation-free-zone/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>$60,000 Ruling Against Truthful Blogger Tests Limits of the First Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-09/60000-ruling-against-truthful-blogger-tests-limits-of-the-first-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-09/60000-ruling-against-truthful-blogger-tests-limits-of-the-first-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Itai Maytal</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Text]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=d16ca07e2c68ca5b695fedf01f8082c4</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
One of the first things I learned as a journalist, and later again as a media lawyer, was that under the First Amendment the &#34;truth&#34; could not be subject to a viable defamation claim. True statements are simply constitutionally immune and pl...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-09/60000-ruling-against-truthful-blogger-tests-limits-of-the-first-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Zen and the Constitutionality of Twitter &#8216;Cyberstalking&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-09/zen-and-the-constitutionality-of-twitter-cyberstalking/</link>
		<comments>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-09/zen-and-the-constitutionality-of-twitter-cyberstalking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:34:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Justin Silverman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CyberLaw]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cyberstalking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Text]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.libertyvoice.net/?guid=aa032c0446c76cb74e49a63e50529f8e</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
 If you thought a spat between Buddhists couldn't devolve into a federal cyberstalking case of dubious constitutionality, consider the following.


William Lawrence Cassidy joined Kunzang Palyul Choling (KPC), a Maryland-based Buddhist organization, i...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.libertyvoice.net/2011-09/zen-and-the-constitutionality-of-twitter-cyberstalking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

