Local Politics

Bill would require apologies for slanderous Web posts

Posted February 6, 2009
Updated March 9, 2009

North Carolina flag, NC flag, state flag, N.C. flag

— State lawmakers are considering a bill aimed at curbing outrageous comments posted online by requiring Web sites to post apologies or retractions.

Senate Bill 46 would give sites 10 days to correct any slanderous blog posts, online comments or public e-mails and to post apologies in the same location on the Web page.

General Assembly, lawmakers, legislature, legislators generic Bill aimed at slanderous Web posts

"There needs to be a sense of responsibility," said Sen. Steve Goss, D-Alexander, the sponsor of the bill. "It's about the speed of information and how quickly a person can be irreparably harmed."

Duke University freshman Mary Hannah Ellis said she learned how quickly a reputation can be trashed when posts on the Web site JuicyCampus.com said untrue things about her.

"At first, I really became devastated by it," Ellis said. "It's despicable, honestly."

JuicyCampus.com, which was started by a Duke alumnus, shut down this week, citing adverse economic conditions.

Goss said the initial draft of his bill, which is now before a Senate committee, called for a possible criminal penalty for online libel, but he said he plans to withdraw that section and allow offended parties to pursue civil suits against the posters.

"The bottom line of what I'm looking to do here is not even strengthen the libel laws that are in place but to make sure we are where we need to be," he said. "I personally am not convinced that we are keeping up with this Internet age."

Stuart Benjamin, a Duke law professor, said the Internet is subject to state and federal libel laws, and Goss' idea of requiring online apologies would face legal challenges.

"That's not going to be able to happen because of a federal statute that protects Web sites from liability from what people who post on those Web sites put on those Web sites," Benjamin said.

Another hurdle the proposal could face would be finding out the identity of an anonymous poster, he said.

"To find out who they are, you are going to have to get a court order to that Web site or to their Internet service provider to tell you their identity," he said.

Kevin Davis, a blogger on the Web site "Bull City Rising," said discouraging anonymous posting would have a chilling effect on the Internet.

"Sometimes, there's a real and clear need to have independent voices able to say what's on their mind," especially when questioning government officials and agencies, Davis said.

He said he would like to see more Web sites encourage responsible and productive dialog, "but I'm not convinced that a step like this (bill) is the right way to do that."


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • toffton Feb 9, 2009

    Our NC legislator votes on such important legislation. So important that things like thousands of people losing jobs and going broke cease to matter. I mean someone might get their feeling hurt. The House has other important issues too, such as lengthening their terms to 4 years.

  • kittiboo Feb 9, 2009

    Aren't there better things to be making laws about?

  • OrdinaryCitizen Feb 9, 2009

    Ok, who is gonna start on GOLO with the first apology?

  • FoxtrotUniformCharlieKiloakaCALM Feb 9, 2009

    ok this is a litte overboard. We're doing this for ONLINE websites but yet, kids are teased and bullied and NOTHING gets done about it. Yeah, that makes sense. We need to start with the foundation before we fix anything else.

  • yabbadabbadooo Feb 6, 2009

    I think we just found some candidates for downsizing in state government!

  • WRALwontdeletemyaccount Feb 6, 2009

    The government won't rest until it's ruined the web too.

    Too bad they're not smart enough to realize it's beyond their control...

  • Foxtrot Delta Tango Feb 6, 2009

    n00bs and the intarwebs.

  • missdawg Feb 6, 2009

    It sounds like our elected officials have too much free time on their hands.

  • RonnieR Feb 6, 2009

    Sounds as if it will be a law for whimps, as one should never apologize, as it is a sign of weakness.

  • renaizzanceman Feb 6, 2009

    This is a clear attempt to violate free speech.