I agree that the theft is highly suspect. But how can a court rule in such a strict manner considering the facts or a case and the damage done to the defendant. They must have had to troll the depths of the web to find those comments.
This comment below by the professor is also very troubling to me:
His organization has created an on-line course with Harvard Law School, City of New York School of Journalism and News University at the Poynter Institute at Northwestern University to educate bloggers about their legal rights and responsibilities.
“A lot of these cases could have been avoided if things had been worded just a little differently or if they had double sourced their information,” Cox said.
“Most of the time, these people are not trained journalists.”
Is her choice of speech not protected regardless of the form? Why should she have to word her views differently. Even if her views are factually incorrect, is she is still entitled to continue believing that she is right if she so chooses?
