Editing Blog (section)

===Defamation or liability===
Several cases have been brought before the national courts against bloggers concerning issues of [[Slander and libel|defamation or liability]]. U.S. payouts related to blogging totalled $17.4&nbsp;million by 2009; in some cases these have been covered by [[umbrella insurance]].<ref>McQueen MP. (2009). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124287328648142113 Bloggers, Beware: What You Write Can Get You Sued]. ''The Wall Street Journal''.</ref> The courts have returned with mixed verdicts. [[Internet Service Provider]]s (ISPs), in general, are immune from liability for information that originates with third parties (U.S. [[Communications Decency Act]] and the EU Directive 2000/31/EC). In ''Doe v. Cahill'', the [[Delaware Supreme Court]] held that stringent standards had to be met to unmask the [[anonymous bloggers]] and also took the unusual step of dismissing the libel case itself (as unfounded under American libel law) rather than referring it back to the [[trial court]] for reconsideration.<ref>[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/delawarestatecases/266-2005.pdf Doe v. Cahill], 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).</ref> In a bizarre twist, the Cahills were able to obtain the identity of John Doe, who turned out to be the person they suspected: the town's mayor, Councilman Cahill's political rival. The Cahills amended their original complaint, and the mayor settled the case rather than going to trial.

In January 2007, two prominent Malaysian political bloggers, [[Jeff Ooi]] and [[Ahirudin Attan]], were sued by a pro-government newspaper, The New Straits Times Press (Malaysia) Berhad, Kalimullah bin Masheerul Hassan, Hishamuddin bin Aun and Brenden John [[Malaysian names#Indian names|a/l]] John Pereira over alleged defamation. The plaintiff was supported by the Malaysian government.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20489|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080608220312/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20489|archive-date=June 8, 2008|title=New Straits Times staffers sue two bloggers
|publisher=[[Reporters Without Borders]]|date=January 19, 2007|access-date=June 5, 2008}}</ref> Following the suit, the Malaysian government proposed to "register" all bloggers in Malaysia to better control parties against their interests.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21606|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080611025330/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21606|archive-date=June 11, 2008|title=Government plans to force bloggers to register|publisher=Reporters Without Borders|date=April 6, 2007|access-date=June 5, 2008}}</ref> This is the first such legal case against bloggers in the country. In the United States, blogger Aaron Wall was sued by Traffic Power for [[defamation]] and publication of [[trade secrets]] in 2005.<ref>{{cite news |first=David |last=Kesmodel |title=Blogger Faces Lawsuit Over Comments Posted by Readers |url=http://wsj.com/news/articles/SB112541909221726743 |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=August 31, 2005 |access-date=June 5, 2008}}</ref> According to ''Wired'' magazine, Traffic Power had been "banned from Google for allegedly rigging search engine results."<ref>[[Wired Magazine]], [http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/09/68799?currentPage=all Legal Showdown in Search Fracas], September 8, 2005</ref> Wall and other "[[white hat (computer security)|white hat]]" [[search engine optimization]] consultants had exposed Traffic Power in what they claim was an effort to protect the public. The case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Traffic Power failed to appeal within the allowed time.<ref>{{cite web |last=Sullivan |first=Danny |url=http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060413-084431 |title=SearchEngineWatch |website=Blog.searchenginewatch.com |date=April 13, 2006 |access-date=July 31, 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090204155628/http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060413-084431 |archive-date=February 4, 2009 }}</ref>

In 2009, [[NDTV]] issued a legal notice to Indian blogger Kunte for a blog post criticizing their coverage of the [[Mumbai attacks]].<ref name="hootbarkha">{{cite news
|title=Barkha versus blogger
|url=http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=3629&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=6&valid=true
|work=The Hoot
|access-date=February 2, 2009}}</ref> The blogger unconditionally withdrew his post, which resulted in several Indian bloggers criticizing NDTV for trying to silence critics.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.abhishekarora.com/2009/02/chyetanya-kunte-vs-burkha-dutt-ndtv.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090212101311/http://www.abhishekarora.com/2009/02/chyetanya-kunte-vs-burkha-dutt-ndtv.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=February 12, 2009 |title=Indian bloggers criticizing NDTV |website=Abhishekarora.com |date=February 8, 2009 |access-date=April 21, 2013 }}</ref>