Ask the average citizen or child if they know that lying to ruin someone’s reputation is wrong and could get you in big trouble and they’ll probably say yes. However, a jury of their peers says that didn’t stop some ostensibly intelligent and honorable adults, including several from Utah, from doing exactly that. Now, after twelve years, a federal court jury in Salt Lake City has awarded Proctor and Gamble $19.25 million from the former Amway distributors accused of spreading a rumor via voice mail that P&G was funding satanic cults.

P&G’s relationship to satanism is an urban myth that’s been around as long as those alligators living in New York City’s sewers. To believe the world’s largest manufacturer of cleansers, detergents and other household products is a rapacious clan of devil-worshippers is as credible as the “east-coast liberal media conspiracy” theory that right-wingers have perpetuated for decades (which we should have sued somebody for). The defendants claimed, among other things, that the rumors did not hurt P&G, that P&G is a corporation, not an individual and therefore cannot be defamed, and that P&G has plenty of money and is using their unlimited resources to beat down the little guy. All that may be true. But all sides being equal under the law, it comes down to one thing: malice.

Bloggers should read this case closely because it won’t be long before more of us get sued for doing the same thing. If you deliberately or “maliciously” lie about someone, even a company, with the goal of hurting their reputation or business, which is what this jury decided, it’s called defamation or, in this case, false advertising. Even an apology or retraction, as the distributors made later (even though their attorney still says there’s no proof his clients spread the rumor), may not get you off the hook. The distributors’ Utah attorneys succeeded in knocking P&G’s suit down to a single claim of unfair competition and false advertising. That the distributors were in business competition with P&G was key to this judgment. But it’s clear the jury reacted emotionally and punitively to the larger issues of fairness and malice.

Malicious and unsubstantiated attacks made on-line and elsewhere by individuals are also subject to laws like misappropriation of copyrighted and intellectual property, as Google and YouTube found out after Viacom sued them for posting clips of Viacom properties’ programs, like Comedy Central and MTV, gleaned by YouTube’s members. As blogging evolves and our audience and power grows, bloggers need to be careful not only what they say but how they say it. It’s Journalism 101 but most people never take that course.

After thirty years as a professional reporter and executive in the news business, and having avoided any lawsuit, I know. No matter who you are or if your post is seen by one or one million people, you could get sued if what you say is deliberately or recklessly false or appropriated without attribution. The only sure defense is the truth. But even that won’t prevent you from getting sued. This is a public service announcement from your friendly, neighborhood former journalist. Now, repeat what you said about environmentalists being proof that Democrats had sex with woodchucks…