THE DUTY NOT TO CONTINUE DISTRIBUTING YOUR OWN LIBELS.

INTRODUCTION 316 I. REASONS FOR THE DUTY 319 II. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DUTY 323 III. THE EXISTING DUTY NOT TO CONTINUE DISPLAYING POSTS ON PHYSICAL PROPERTY 325 IV. SCOPE [...]
Say something I wrote about you online (in a newspaper, a blog, or a social media page) turns out to be false and defamatory. Assume I wasn 't culpable when I first posted it, but now I'm on notice of the error. Am I liable for defamation if I fail to remove or correct the erroneous material? Surprisingly, courts haven't settled on an answer, and scholars haven't focused on the question. Libel law is stuck in a time when newspapers left the publisher's control as soon as they are printed--even though now an article or a post can be seen on the publisher's site (and can do enduring damage) for years to come. This Article also deals with a related question: Say I wrote about your having been indicted for a crime, but montlis or years later you are acquitted; am I liable for defamation if I fail to update the original story to reflect the new legal developments? That too is legally unresolved. This Article argues that existing common-law principles allow for a limited duty to stop hosting material that one learns is defamatory; and that legislatures can further supplement that duty.