A thin line

Most of you are probably following the brouhaha over the blatant defamation of the Little Green Footballs weblog that’s been posted at MSNBC’s Weblog Central. If not, what’s happened is that MSNBC posted LGF on its Best of Blog list due to popular acclaim and was subsequently “alerted” to the “fact” that the site is “controversial.” Who exactly is responsible for the “alert” seems fairly evident, but I’ll leave that to you to decide for yourself. You can find plenty of discussion and analysis about this matter here and here and here and here and. . . well, you can find it all over the blogosphere at this point. Because something smells fishy here.

If you scroll through Blog Central, you’ll find something almost totally absent. Criticism. For page after page, you can read nice things about nice bloggers, funny bloggers, interesting bloggers and informative bloggers, but there’s not a word of qualification, not a hint of caution. Until the subject of Little Green Footballs comes up. Why is that?

Well, for one reason, Charles has many more readers and much broader exposure than the vast majority of the bloggers mentioned. But that’s not it, is it? Something else is going on here, and it isn’t funny. Not when a major cable network feels it can, with impunity, post this sort of vindictive and utterly baseless nonsense.

• Little Green Footballs - A popular but controversial Warblog focusing on militant Islam and terrorism. Is this news or hate?

Or this.

This site is the focus of considerable controversy for its focus (and particularly the focus of the constituents in its comments section) on Islamic culture and dogma as the source of Islamic terror. As a popular, active, and well presented site, it is worth checking out, but some may find its content hateful or even racist.

I’ve sent my own message to MSNBC. I hope they take it to heart.

I was pretty much appalled to see the obnoxious slurs you've now posted on your website in reference to Charles Johnson's weblog. "Is this news or hate?" "...some may find its content ... racist?" Are you kidding? Have you ever visited Charles' site or are you just relying on the comments of those who are enraged that someone would dare to criticize admirers of suicide bombers and Al-Qaida terrorists? I have never seen Charles advocate violence, hatred, bigotry or discrimination in any form. Have you?

I have, BTW, seen him make an appearance on his own comment board from time to time to remonstrate with those who do.

There's a little addendum to our Constitution called the First Amendment. It allows people to voice their opinions about issues of consequence (or issues of no consequence). It also allows people (and large cable networks) to voice their opinions about other people's opinions. Knowingly false statements that damage a person's reputation, liberty or livelihood, however, are another matter entirely. I suggest that you visit Little Green Footballs personally and make sure you're completely comfortable with your "amended" characterization of that site.

Knowingly or even recklessly false statements that tend to damage a person’s reputation, liberty or livelihood are called slander (when spoken) and libel (when written). And while Charles probably qualifies as a “public figure,” making the burden of proof on the issue just a little bit tougher, MSNBC is skating close to the edge, here. The more they’re alerted to the fact that they’ve published a false accusation on their website, the harder it would be for them to claim that leaving it up didn’t represent publication (or re-publication) with actual malice. So keep those emails rolling in to bestblog@msnbc.com.