Regarding a retraction, some jurisdictions have retraction statutes that provide protection from defamation lawsuits if the publisher retracts the allegedly defamatory statement. For example, in some states, a plaintiff who fails to demand a retraction of a statement made in a newspaper or radio or television broadcast, or who demands and receives a retraction, is limited to getting “special damages”—the specific monetary losses caused by the libelous speech which is in addition to “general damages”. While few courts have addressed retraction statutes with regard to online publications, a Georgia court denied punitive damages based on the plaintiff’s failure to request a retraction for something posted on an Internet bulletin board. See: Mathis v. Cannon
While Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides a strong protection against liability for Internet “intermediaries” who provide or republish speech by others, see: 47 United States Code Section 230, a California court had held that the federal law does not apply to an online distributor’s liability in a defamation case, the case, Barrett v. Rosenthal, was overturned by the California Supreme Court (EFF filed an amicus brief in this case).
In looking at a Blog and how the courts look at the context of a statement, a court would likely start with the general tenor, setting, and format of the blog, as well as the context of the links through which the user accessed the particular entry. Next the court would look at the specific context and content of the blog entry, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the blog’s audience. The Context is critical, and WCBInjury.com intends to provide only the facts as evidenced in the NYS Workers’ Compensation e-Case records.
It is therefore my intent to provide you with the relevant substantial evidence and facts as to the individuals, Stockton, Barker & Mead, LLC and attorney Sarah Louise Merritt, defense counsel for the insurance carrier, Guard Insurance Company, a Berkshire Hathaway Company and its claims representative, Daniel Robert Hohal in their deceit, misrepresentation and fraud in Bad Faith on the New York State Workers’ Compensation system. You decide based on the facts not conjecture, intimidation or the capricious imagination of Ms. Merritt and Mr. Hohal.