internet boggler

[randymain]

I'm having trouble finding information on a particular hypothetical legal situation. an internet site (lets say "A" for the sake of this argument) posted information on their site which they aquired from another site(lets say "B"). site A then posts the TM of site B without B's approval. Anyway, the inormation from site B turns out to be false and a suit is filed against site A for libel/slander because of a criminal act that was commited against another party. where could I find some helpful info regarding the defense of site "A"? please help!!!

 

[Michael Wechsler]

It's difficult to answer the question without knowing more facts and information. We don't know how A reported the facts stated by B and whether the facts were merely attributed to B's having said them. For example, if site A stated "The NY Times reported yesterday that Mr. X allegedly committed 4 acts of theft in New Hyde Park," that would likely not be actionable. I'm not sure how a criminal act comes into play here and I'm assuming you are referring to a similar situation above.

 

[randymain]

site A is a news broadcaster. it posted names and addresses of of child sex offenders as part of its "community service for the public" and they set there own standards by promoting themselves as "the most accurate newsite in the area". well they got there information from another web site ,Site b, and used that info along with the trademark symbol of site B without site b's permission. the information turned out to be false and site A never botherd to check the accuracy of Site B's information. As a result of the false info a third party was assalted by an activist against child sex offenders when in reality the address that was posted was wrong on site A's website. So site A is being sued for libel and slander by the third party. Can anything be done for site a or is it, as I have found so far, a lost cause.

 

[jon_]

They can implead site B as being the responsible party. However, if Site A promoted itself as you say, it would seem that it put its own foot in its mouth since Site B may have disclaimers up front and Site A is claiming it is telling you the truth and may have no good defense in this action.

This is very fact specific and only a compelte consultation with an attorney will be able to accurately apprise you of all valid defenses that may be available.