(3) Websites and "publication"
A defamatory statement is not actionable unless it is published. Unfortunately for webmasters, when libel lawyers say "published", they mean communicated to one person (not including the person defamed). You can libel someone by writing about them on a personal blog, providing at least one person accesses the defamatory material.
That is not to say that a defamatory publication on your personal blog carries the same risk as a defamatory publication on, say, the BBC website. Libels on high-traffic sites are more likely to be discovered by the person attacked than libels on low-traffic sites. Also, potential libel claimants may let a libel pass if it hasn't been widely disseminated - knowing that a court case would itself ensure the widest possible audience for the slur.
www.seqlegal.com/blog/10-things-you-should-know-about-libel
Stratton Oakmont vs. Prodigy (1995)
After having relieved much of the responsiblity of a network service provider in regards to liability, one might have expected a similar judgment to have been passed in the case of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy. Again, an instance of libelous remarks over a public on-line forum triggered a company to sue a network service provider. On a widely read financial matters forum called "Money Talk," a Prodigy user had posted about Daniel Porush, the president of Stratton Oakmont, a investement securities firm, and his employees. Porush, the poster claimed, was "soon to proven criminal," and further, Stratton Oakmont, Inc., was a "cult of brokers who either lie for a living or get fired." After reading this posting on Prodigy, Porush filed suit against the network service claiming Prodigy liable for this poster's libelous claims. Prodigy, on its legal behalf, claimed the status of a distributor (as in the case of Cubby vs. CompuServe). However, Stratton Oakmont argued that due to Prodigy's editorial control over content, Prodigy should be more correctly classified as a publisher. In essence, this is because Prodigy made clear to all users that it retained the right to edit, remove, and filter messages in its system in order to ensure a "family" atmosphere on-line. Because of these claims, the court classified Prodigy as a publisher and awarded damages to Stratton Oakmont.
www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~eroberts/cs...precedent/cases.html
On the Internet, where abnormal behavior is the status quo, tempers
can flare in the heat of debate and word wars can last for days or
even weeks. It's not uncommon for users to ridicule, harass or insult
those who disagree with them.
But if you damage someone's reputation by trying to embarrass them in
a public forum, you could be sued for libel or defamation. After all,
there's no reason to assume that the messages you send through
cyberspace are immune from lawsuits.
"The Internet culture right now is for users to refute speech with
speech," says Dave Marburger, the attorney who represented Brock Meeks
in one of the first defamation lawsuits in the United States involving
the Internet. "But as the Internet culture gets more diverse, users
will start refuting speech with lawsuits."
There have only been a handful of libel and defamation lawsuits filed
involving the Internet so far, but as the Net grows, the number of
lawsuits will probably increase. If the few court battles that have
been decided involving libel and defamation on the Net are any
indication of how the law will be applied to the Internet in the
future, it's worth your time to learn what's libelous or defamatory on
the Internet and what's not.
Other users have the right to sue you for defamation if they can prove
you damaged their reputation or good name with false information. You
can be sued for libel if another user can prove you have distributed
defamatory statements about them in a public area -- such as a news
group or mailing list..........
www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/defamation-in-cyberspace.html
Is truth a defense to defamation claims?
Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.
www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
(And as previously posted)
Defamation
In a nutshell, defamation relates to the making of untrue derogatory public comments, which are damaging to an individual or organisation.
The two most common forms of defamation are held to be slander and libel, but a general accusation of defamation in itself is a serious matter.
In the USA, webmasters may be protected on the issue of publishing defamatory comments by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This means that the poster – not webmaster – may be legally responsible for the comments made.
However, in the UK, the law will hold the publisher liable as well. And unlike most English laws, an act of defamation is presumed to be false, unless it can be proven otherwise.
www.internetbusiness.co.uk/2005/12/23/le...ities-of-webmasters/
The viewing figures number in the millions 
