In Batzel, the majority's test for immunity makes reference to the beliefs of the "reasonable person in the position of the service provider" (a.k.a., the blogger).

One open question is whether this reasonable requirement will result in more stringent standards for legal bloggers. That is, will legal bloggers be held to a higher pre-posting editorial integrity because they have legal training and should "know better"?

The answer, I believe, is no, because the majority's reference to the reasonable person is only in connection to the belief that the person who provided the defamatory information intended for that information to be published.

There are so many other open questions regarding this subject, some of which are surely addressed in LawPundit's 12/10 posting.