So, say you don't like someone's book. You review it on your blog - negatively. You're gobsmacked by just how bad it is. You talk about its offensiveness once or twice, and then you move on. And then you get served.
GalleyCat carried this story, which reminded me of the "shield law," which serves to protect journalists and others who write for pay, and which is a hot topic in our state. I am of the opinion that the blogger in question is only being sued because they blog for a firm which has a goodly amount of cash. What about people who don't have the resources to be sued for $15 million in damages? Does this affect your thinking about how you review books at all?
Guardian UK arts blogger Peter Bradshaw longs for the days of gimlet eyed, bloody dinosaurs, while the Telegraph laments what could be the end of a great literary tradition -- because, of course, the smoke ban.
Lots to see and read but Blogger is behaving stupidly today, so I'm off for a bit...
So, that's, um. Horrifying? However, I can't see that we wouldn't be protected under freedom of speech. Libel and slander only apply to the actual person, right? Not the work?
I'm with the guy who said it's a PR stunt.
Post a Comment