<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources (Forbes Cross-Post)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:55:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Twibel Ruling: Tweeting That Someone is “Fucking Crazy” is Not Defamatory &#124; Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-603</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Twibel Ruling: Tweeting That Someone is “Fucking Crazy” is Not Defamatory &#124; Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2014 20:55:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-603</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources (Forbes Cross-Post) [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources (Forbes Cross-Post) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The Laws of Linking &#124; PC Memoirs		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-602</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The Laws of Linking &#124; PC Memoirs]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 03:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-602</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] you are making a claim that might lead to a complaint, make sure you have a source and that you link to that source. You also have to make sure that when you are linking your source, your phrasing doesn’t give [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] you are making a claim that might lead to a complaint, make sure you have a source and that you link to that source. You also have to make sure that when you are linking your source, your phrasing doesn’t give [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Science Fiction Community Generates This Weekend's Bufoonish Defamation Threat &#124; Popehat		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-601</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Science Fiction Community Generates This Weekend's Bufoonish Defamation Threat &#124; Popehat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Feb 2014 17:15:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-601</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Here, the Dot has not materially changed the meaning of Fodera&#039;s words. Frankly I don&#039;t think they&#039;ve changed the meaning at all. Moreover, they&#039;ve linked the words so the reader can review them directly. The Supreme Court&#039;s discussion of misquotes was premised in part on the notion that the misquote misleads the reader and gives them no notice that the quote might not be exactly what the speaker said; the Dot&#039;s article serves up a way for the reader to read the underlying words if the paraphrase or partial quote interests them. Courts increasingly recognize that linking to one&#039;s sources for a challenged statement makes it less likely that it will be treated as &#8230; [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Here, the Dot has not materially changed the meaning of Fodera&#039;s words. Frankly I don&#039;t think they&#039;ve changed the meaning at all. Moreover, they&#039;ve linked the words so the reader can review them directly. The Supreme Court&#039;s discussion of misquotes was premised in part on the notion that the misquote misleads the reader and gives them no notice that the quote might not be exactly what the speaker said; the Dot&#039;s article serves up a way for the reader to read the underlying words if the paraphrase or partial quote interests them. Courts increasingly recognize that linking to one&#039;s sources for a challenged statement makes it less likely that it will be treated as &#8230; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Republishing Defamatory Content: Hyperlinking is OK? &#171; Mirsky &#38; Company, PLLC		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-600</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Republishing Defamatory Content: Hyperlinking is OK? &#171; Mirsky &#38; Company, PLLC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:27:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-600</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Eric Goldman recently commented about all of this in his blog, wherein Professor Goldman also republished the offending statement.  (These things do tend to get around, although Goldman’s mention was obviously fair use commentary – mine too.  Right?  I mean, it has to be, right?)  Ok, assuming the statement is in fact untrue, what then – typically – happens if someone re-publishes the statement?  First, didn’t the Associated Press republish the statement?  Well, not exactly. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Eric Goldman recently commented about all of this in his blog, wherein Professor Goldman also republished the offending statement.  (These things do tend to get around, although Goldman’s mention was obviously fair use commentary – mine too.  Right?  I mean, it has to be, right?)  Ok, assuming the statement is in fact untrue, what then – typically – happens if someone re-publishes the statement?  First, didn’t the Associated Press republish the statement?  Well, not exactly. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Kent Madin		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-599</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kent Madin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-599</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I wonder if there is a source of discussion available on the issue of hyperlinks found at archive.org?  I&#039;ve had the experience of linking to a Wayback machine link, one that proved that false content had existed on a website, even though it was not on the current website.  But then the wayback link was removed and the process for how that happens is rather opaque.  It seems that archive.org takes that path of least resistance and removes on just about any request.  A boon to those who have created false information and are trying to cover their tracks.  What about citing screen grabs of websites removed but stored on your own website?  Has anyone looked at the admissability of those?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if there is a source of discussion available on the issue of hyperlinks found at archive.org?  I&#8217;ve had the experience of linking to a Wayback machine link, one that proved that false content had existed on a website, even though it was not on the current website.  But then the wayback link was removed and the process for how that happens is rather opaque.  It seems that archive.org takes that path of least resistance and removes on just about any request.  A boon to those who have created false information and are trying to cover their tracks.  What about citing screen grabs of websites removed but stored on your own website?  Has anyone looked at the admissability of those?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: 9th Circuit Issues a Blogger-Friendly First Amendment Opinion&#8211;Obsidian Finance v. Cox &#124; Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-598</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[9th Circuit Issues a Blogger-Friendly First Amendment Opinion&#8211;Obsidian Finance v. Cox &#124; Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 19:43:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-598</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources (Forbes Cross-Post) [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources (Forbes Cross-Post) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Blawg Review 325.6 &#124; Popehat		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-597</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blawg Review 325.6 &#124; Popehat]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Nov 2013 04:12:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] the Technology &#038; Marketing Law Blog Eric Goldman uses a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New &#8230; Goldman notes that the targeted post had linked other posts to &#034;show its work&#034; &#8212; that is, to [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] the Technology &amp; Marketing Law Blog Eric Goldman uses a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New &#8230; Goldman notes that the targeted post had linked other posts to &quot;show its work&quot; &#8212; that is, to [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: j.r.mchale : Recommended:		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2013/10/want-to-avoid-defaming-someone-online-link-to-your-sources-forbes-cross-post.htm#comment-596</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[j.r.mchale : Recommended:]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Nov 2013 17:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=10976#comment-596</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources: Law Professor Eric Goldman at the Technology &#038; Marketing Law Blog. See also, his recent post on California&#8217;s new &#8220;do-not-track&#8221; law: How California’s New ‘Do-Not-Track’ Law Will Hurt Consumers. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Want To Avoid Defaming Someone Online? Link To Your Sources: Law Professor Eric Goldman at the Technology &amp; Marketing Law Blog. See also, his recent post on California&#8217;s new &#8220;do-not-track&#8221; law: How California’s New ‘Do-Not-Track’ Law Will Hurt Consumers. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
