Litigation

Arthur Alan Wolk v. Olson (E. D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2010)

By Ted Frank

Watch what you say about lawyers dept.: A Philadelphia attorney didn't like what a blogger wrote about the attorney's litigation record and the attorney's unsuccessful libel lawsuit, so he sued the blogger. And the blogger's innocent co-bloggers. Except the post was made in 2007, the lawsuit was filed in 2009, and the Pennsylvania statute of limitations is one year. It should be fairly obvious that the statute of limitations starts to run when a blog post is first published to the Internet, but the plaintiff argued that the statute shouldn't start to run until the plaintiff reads the blog post, which, of course, would destroy the statute of limitations for bloggers. No dice. One wishes the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decision in Arthur Alan Wolk v. Olson had also addressed the obvious First Amendment issues, but a good result is a good result, and bloggers everywhere should rejoice that courts continue to refuse to create double-standards. Congratulations to the defendants, White & Williams, and bloggers everywhere. (Shannon Duffy, "Discovery Rule for Libel Doesn't Apply to Blogs, Says Federal Judge", Legal Intelligencer, Aug. 6; White & Williams press release, Aug. 5).

Full post as published by Point of Law on August 06, 2010 (boomark / email).