Seven Days ran a story this week about the iBrattleboro brouhaha over some allegedly libelous words that were posted in the comments section of that citizen journalism blog.  The story's author, Patrick Ripley, had emailed me asking for my opinion last week and at the time, I honestly didn't know much about the story except what I'd read at 802 Online.  So I did some reading -- on blogs, in the Brattleboro Reformer and in the Times Argus.  It's an interesting case that is utterly without merit in my opinion (though obviously, IANAL).

The short version of the facts (for those of you who don't want to get into the whole thing) is that some unflattering remarks were posted in the comments section of iBrattleboro and the subject of those remarks is suing the commenter and the publishers of iBrattleboro for libel. 

I'm chiming in because I think Ripley's story misses the mark.  In his piece, Ripley paints the story as grudge match between newspapers, who think bloggers need to grow up and enter the real world of legal liability and who are upset over their slagging sales, and bloggers, who just think newspapers are jealous of them.  Ripley cites a couple of editorials in the papers that side with the plaintiff in the libel case and quotes a couple of bloggers (VT political bloggers Philip Baruth, John Odum and JD Ryan) who think iBrattleboro should not have been named in the suit.  The pull-quote they used for the piece (in the print edition) sums up its tone.  It's from Baruth, who said...

It didn't surprise me that both papers jumped on the opportunity to say, "You blogs have been having a grand old time, but remember, there's a piper to pay."

The implication is that the tension is between Old Media, which is jealous of these upstart blogs and is happy to see them get a rude awakening ("You damned kids get off my lawn!"), and New Media, which just complains that Old Media is jealous ("Shut up, old man!  Gawd you're so square!").  There may be something to that tension, but I don't think it explains the pro-plaintiff editorials. 

The real tension, I think, is between bloggers, who get the internet, and newspaper editors, who generally don't.  Every opinion I've seen expressed that supports iBrattleboro being named in the libel suit seems to miss the fundamental differences between blog comments and letters to the editor in newspapers.  Perhaps more importantly, they miss the fact that this is very covered ground.  Blogging is still fairly new to Vermont but online unmoderated forums are not that new to the legal system.  That the relevant case law that's being debated is eleven years old is telling. 

This whole controversy is a tempest in a Vermont-shaped teapot.  No, your band that plays regular gigs at Franny O's isn't going to get a major record deal and no, the film you shot in you parents' basement isn't going to get into Sundance and no, your libel suit against a blog isn't going to get to the Supreme Court.