This should be an interesting case which involves a dead blogger and possible inflammatory remarks he made prior to his death. It seems that the dead guy had posted some remarks that the victim didn’t think were fair. But the remarks, blog, can not be removed since the dead blogger left no one in charge of his web site. The victim is suing not for money, but to force Google to take down the web site.

In a recent article is also explains that:

The complaint alleges that Sean Healy created a blog at unknowncolumn.blogspot.com and posted defamatory content about speedskater Shani Davis’ mom, Cherie Davis. [I believe the post in question is at http://unknowncolumn.blogspot.com/2006/02/memo-to-cherie-davis.html -- I'm not going to link to it, but it did show up as my first search result for "Cherie Davis"]. The complaint further alleges that Healy is now deceased, so he can no longer remove the content on Cherie’s demand, and he did not have a “probate estate” to take over his blog. As a result, Cherie feels like she has nowhere to turn to clean up the alleged defamation, so she is suing Google’s Blogspot for a takedown injunction.

On the face of it, the lawsuit is clearly preempted by 47 USC 230, and Google ought to get a quick and unambiguous win. However, there are some lurking policy issues about dealing with online content posted by now-deceased individuals:

* Presumably the content and the account passed through Healy’s estate. Even if there was no “probate estate,” whatever that means, there is still a legal protocol for succession of Healy’s assets–including the copyrights in his blog. So someone now owns Healy’s blog, and it should be possible to determine who that is.

Which made me wonder? What if I said something that offended someone? Could I be forced to take it down without the offending party proving that what I said was untrue? How does the constitution fit into this mess? Namely freedom of the press or does it even apply? 

Comments welcome.

Source.