A former Bill Clinton aide dropped a US$30 million lawsuit Tuesday against cyber-gossip Matt Drudge, bringing to an end one of the highest profile cases ever involving online news.
Sidney Blumenthal signed an agreement before a federal magistrate in Washington, D.C., in which he agreed to pay Drudge's attorneys $2,500 in travel expenses in return for Drudge's agreeing not to counter-sue.
Drudge ran a report in 1997 that suggested Blumenthal beat his wife, Jaqueline, who was also a Clinton aide at the time. Blumenthal brought a libel suit even though Drudge apologized and retracted the story shortly after it appeared on his Web site, the Drudge Report.
Drudge Not Journalist
Though a federal judge had ruled earlier in the case that Drudge was not a "reporter, news gatherer or journalist," Drudge attorneys said the concession was a victory for freedom of speech for online "individuals."
"This result vindicates our position that, in defamation cases, the First Amendment's protection extends to individuals operating in new mediums, no less than to traditional journalists in corporate newsrooms," said Drudge attorney Manny Klausner.
The litigation lasted for nearly four years and at one time involved America Online, which also was sued by Blumenthal and his wife. AOL argued that it was not acting as a publisher for Drudge, neither supervising nor editing him but merely printing his report. A judge later agreed and dropped AOL from the lawsuit.
Third-Party Posters
Legal experts following the case were less than enthusiastic about the First Amendment implications for online news.
"It's a victory for the First Amendment, I guess, but as far as responsible online journalism, this isn't something they're going to hold up as an example," University of Kansas professor Ann Brill told NewsFactor Network.
The case helped clarify the difference between legitimate news gatherers and "third-party posters." Courts have ruled in the past that Internet service providers and news sites are not liable for postings by third parties, such as chat room and message board users.
"This was really one of the first tests of that," said Brill, who
studied the case as a law student and now teaches its ramifications to
her students. "But, it still makes online media very nervous -- the
definition of who is posting what and are they responsible for it?"
Frivolous Lawsuit?
Drudge has made frequent mention of the lawsuit's origins, when
Blumenthal consulted first with then-President Clinton and
Vice President Al Gore.
It was Drudge's first dose of national publicity,
before he was the first to print the details of the Monica Lewinsky
story five months later. In big, bold type, Drudge ran a story of the
lawsuit ending on his Web site.
"This frivolous lawsuit, which was approved by a sitting president and vice-president
of the United States, comes to its wimpy conclusion with Mr. Blumenthal, I repeat Mr.
Blumenthal cutting a check," Drudge said in a story on his Web site.
"In return, I pay him nothing, and have agreed
not to countersue. The irony that Blumenthal has to pay me to let him
out of a lawsuit he brought says it all from my end."
Blumenthal 'Moving On'
Blumenthal told reporters that bringing the lawsuit was the "right
thing to do," but said the fact that the libertarian
Individual Rights Foundation paid for Drudge's legal costs was too much
to overcome.
"Unfortunately, he is backed by unlimited funds from
political supporters who use a tax-exempt foundation," Blumenthal told
reporters. "He'd like to see the lawsuit go on endlessly. Bad publicity
for him is good for his kind of business."
"Drudge has placed enough burden on our family for four years and we're moving on with our lives."
|