With scant legal guidance specifically addressing online retractions, we asked the Berkman Center to consider the matter. Berkman came back with the following information:
Generally, placement, timing and audience are key to effective retractions. State retraction laws typically require satisfactory retractions to be “as conspicuous and prominent” as the original piece that led to the retraction. Retractions need to be timely and they need to be positioned to reach substantially the same audience as the original content being corrected or retracted.
The Berkman memo recommends that online retractions or corrections be “printed in at least the same size type as the original story” and “visible to those accessing the piece in question from various avenues of approach. For example, an online publisher could create a boldface ‘RETRACTIONS’ section on the front page of the site, where many visitors will be directed from major search engines or by typing in the basic URL for the site. To address the issue of cross-linking that bypasses the front page of the site, an online publisher could link the retraction to the specific story itself, perhaps by noting it at the top of the page. If the online publication utilizes an RSS feed function, sending out corrections via RSS as soon as they are posted would help support a defendant’s argument that the retraction was disseminated in a timely manner and to substantially the same audience . . .”
Return to Rule 1.