defamation – Social Media Legality

Destroying Defamation

The explosion of Fake News spread among social media sites is destroying a plaintiff’s ability to succeed in a defamation action. The recent proliferation of rushed journalism, online conspiracy theories, and the belief that most stories are, in fact, “Fake News” have created a desert of veracity. Widespread public skepticism about even the most mainstream social media reporting means plaintiffs need help convincing jurors that third parties believed any reported statement to be true. Such proof is necessary for a plaintiff to prove the elements of defamation.

Fake News Today

Fake News is any journalistic story that knowingly and intentionallyincludes untrue factual statements. Today, many speak of Fake News as a noun. There is no shortage of examples of Fake News and its impact.

- - Pizzagate: During the 2016 Presidential Election, Edgar Madison Welch, 28, read a story on (then) Facebook that Hilary Clinton was running a child trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizzeria. Welch, a self-described vigilante, shot open a locked door of the pizzeria with his AR-15.
  - A study by three MIT scholars found that false news stories spread faster on Twitter than true stories, with the former being 70% more likely to be retweeted than the latter.
  - During the defamation trial of Amber Heard and Johnny Depp, a considerable number of “Fake News” reports circulated across social media platforms, particularly TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube, attacking Ms. Heard at a disproportionality more significant rate than Mr. Depp.

What is Defamation?

To establish defamation, a plaintiff must show the defendant published a false assertion of fact that damages the plaintiff’s reputation. Hyperbolic language or other indications that a statement was not meant to be taken seriously are not actionable. Today’s understanding that everything on the Internet is susceptible to manipulation destroys defamation.

Because the factuality of a statement is a question of law, a plaintiff must first convince a judge that the offending statement is fact and not opinion. Courts often find that Internet and social media statements are hyperbole or opinion. If a plaintiff succeeds in persuading the judge, then the issue of whether the statement defamed the plaintiff heads to the jury. A jury faced with defamation must determine whether the statement of fact harmed the defendant’s reputation or livelihood to the extent that it caused the plaintiff to incur damages. The prevalence of Fake News creates another layer of difficulty for the Internet plaintiff, who must convince the jury that the statement was true.

Defamation’s Slow and Steady Erosion

Since the 1960s, the judiciary has limited plaintiffs’ ability to succeed in defamation claims. The decisions in Sullivan v. New York Times and Gertz increased the difficulty for public figures, and those with limited public figure status, to succeed by requiring them to prove actual malice against a defendant, a standard higher than the mere negligence standard allowed for individuals who are not of community interest.

The rise of Internet use, mainly social media, presents plaintiffs with yet another hurdle. Plaintiffs can only succeed if the challenged statement is fact, not opinion. However, judges find that statements made on the Internet are opinions and not points. The combined effect of Supreme Court limitations on proof and the increased belief that social media posts are mostly opinions has limited the plaintiff’s ability to succeed in a defamation claim.

Destroying Defamation

If the Supreme Court and social media have eroded defamation, Fake News has destroyed it. Today, convincing a jury that a false statement purporting to be fact has defamed a plaintiff is difficult given the dual issues of society’s objective mistrust of the media and the understanding that information on the Internet is generally opinion, not fact. Fake News sows confusion and makes it almost impossible for jurors to believe any statement has the credibility necessary to cause harm.

To be clear, in some instances, fake News is so intolerable that a jury will find for the plaintiffs. A Connecticut jury found conspiracy theorist Alex Jones liable for defamation based on his assertion that the government had faked the Sandy Hook shootings.

But often, plaintiffs are unsuccessful where the challenged language is conflated with untruths. Fox News successfully defended itself against a lawsuit claiming that it had aired false and deceptive content about the coronavirus, even though its reporting was, in fact, untrue.

Similarly, a federal judge dismissed a defamation case against Fox News for Tucker Carlson’s report that the plaintiff had extorted then-President Donald Trump. In reaching its conclusion, the judge observed that Carlson’s comments were rhetorical hyperbole and that the reasonable viewer “‘arrive[s] with the appropriate amount of skepticism.”‘ Reports of media success in defending against defamation claims further fuel media mistrust.

The current polarization caused by identity politics is furthering the tendency for Americans to mistrust the media. Sarah Palin announced that the goal of her recent defamation case against The New York Times was to reveal that the “lamestream media” publishes “fake news.”

If jurors believe that no reasonable person could credit a challenged statement as accurate, they cannot find that the statement the plaintiff asserts is defamatory caused harm. An essential element of defamation is that the defendant’s remarks damaged the plaintiff’s reputation. The large number of people who believe News is fake, the media’s rush to publish, and external attacks on credible journalism have created a problematization of truth among members of society. The potential for defamatory harm is minimal when every news story is questionable. Ultimately, the presence of Fake News is a blight on the tort of defamation and, like the credibility of present-day news organizations, will erode it to the point of irrelevance.

Is there any hope for a world without Fake News?

Jonesing For New Regulations of Internet Speech

From claims that the moon landing was faked to Area 51, the United States loves its conspiracy theories. In fact, a study sponsored by the University of Chicago found that more than half of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory. While this is not a new phenomenon, the increasing use and reliance on social media has allowed misinformation and harmful ideas to spread with a level of ease that wasn’t possible even twenty years ago.

Individuals with a large platform can express an opinion that creates a harm to the people that are personally implicated in the ‘information’ being spread. Presently, a plaintiff’s best option to challenge harmful speech is through a claim for defamation. The inherent problem is that opinions are protected by the First Amendment and, thus, not actionable as defamation.

This leaves injured plaintiffs limited in their available remedies because statements in the context of the internet are more likely to be seen as an opinion. The internet has created a gap where we have injured plaintiffs and no available remedy. With this brave new world of communication, interaction, and the spread of information by anyone with a platform comes a need to ensure that injuries sustained by this speech will have legal recourse.

Recently, Alex Jones lost a defamation claim and was ordered to pay $965 million to the families of the Sandy Hook victims after claiming that the Sandy Hook shooting that occurred in 2012 was a “hoax.” Despite prevailing at trial, the statements that were the subject of the suit do not fit neatly into the well-established law of defamation, which makes reversal on appeal likely.

The elements of defamation require that the defendant publish a false statement purporting it to be true, which results in some harm to the plaintiff. However, just because a statement is false does not mean that the plaintiff can prove defamation because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, false statements still receive certain First Amendment protections. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Court held that “imaginative expression” and “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language” is protected by the First Amendment.

The characterization of something as a “hoax” has been held by courts to fall into this category of protected speech. In Montgomery v. Risen, a software developer brought a defamation action against an author who made a statement claiming that plaintiff’s software was a “hoax.” The D.C. Circuit held that characterization of something as an “elaborate and dangerous hoax” is hyperbolic speech, which creates no basis for liability. This holding was mirrored by several courts including the District Court of Kansas in Yeagar v. National Public Radio, the District Court of Utah in Nunes v. Rushton, and the Superior Court of Delaware in Owens v. Lead Stories, LLC.

The other statements made by Alex Jones regarding Sandy Hook are also hyperbolic language. These statements include: “[i]t’s as phony as a $3 bill”, “I watched the footage, it looks like a drill”, and “my gut is… this is staged. And you know I’ve been saying the last few months, get ready for big mass shootings, and then magically, it happens.” While these statements are offensive and cruel to the suffering families, it is really difficult to characterize them as something objectively claimed to be true. ‘Phony’, ‘my gut is’, ‘looks like’, and ‘magically’ are qualifying the statement he is making as a subjective opinion based on his interpretation of the events that took place.

It is indisputable that the statements Alex Jones made caused harm to these families. They have been subjected to harassment, online abuse, and death threats from his followers. However, no matter how harmful these statements are, that does not make it defamation. Despite this, a reasonable jury was so appalled by this conduct that they found for the plaintiffs. This is essentially reverse jury nullification. They decided that Jones was culpable and should be held legally responsible even if there is no adequate basis for liability.

The jury’s determination demonstrates that current legal remedies are inadequate to regulate potentially harmful speech that can spread like wildfire on the internet. The influence that a person like Alex Jones has over his followers establishes a need for new or updated laws that hold public figures to a higher standard even when they are expressing their opinion.

A possible starting point for regulating harmful internet speech at a federal level might be through the commerce clause, which allows Congress to regulate instrumentalities of commerce. The internet, by its design, is an instrumentality of interstate commerce by enabling for the communication of ideas across state lines.

Further, the Federal Anti-Riot Act, which was passed in 1968 to suppress civil rights protestors might be an existing law that can serve this purpose. This law makes it a felony to use a facility of interstate commerce to (1) incite a riot; or (1) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot. Further, the act defines riot as:

[A] public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

Under this definition, we might have a basis for holding Alex Jones accountable for organizing, promoting, or encouraging a riot through a facility (the internet) of interstate commerce. The acts of his followers in harassing the families of the Sandy Hook victims might constitute a public disturbance within this definition because it “result[ed] in, damage or injury… to the person.” While this demonstrates one potential avenue of regulating harmful internet speech, new laws might also need to be drafted to meet the evolving function of social media.

In the era of the internet, public figures have an unprecedented ability to spread misinformation and incite lawlessness. This is true even if their statements would typically constitute an opinion because the internet makes it easier for groups to form that can act on these ideas. Thus, in this internet age, it is crucial that we develop a means to regulate the spread of misinformation that has the potential to harm individual people and the general public.

Don’t Throw Out the Digital Baby with the Cyber Bathwater: The Rest of the Story

This article is in response to “Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?” which discussed law enforcement’s use of social media to apprehend people. The article provided a provocative topic, as seen by the number of comments.

I believe that discussion is healthy for society; people are entitled to their feelings and to express their beliefs. Each person has their own unique life experiences that provide a basis for their beliefs and perspectives on issues. I enjoy discussing a topic with someone because I learn about their experiences and new facts that broaden my knowledge. Developing new relationships and connections is so important. Relationships and new knowledge may change perspectives or at least add to understanding each other better. So, I ask readers to join the discussion.

My perspectives were shaped in many ways. I grew up hearing Paul Harvey’s radio broadcast “The Rest of the Story.” His radio segment provided more information on a topic than the brief news headline may have provided. He did not imply that the original story was inaccurate, just that other aspects were not covered. In his memory, I will attempt to do the same by providing you with more information on law enforcement’s use of social media.

“Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?”

The article title served its purpose by grabbing our attention. Neither cyberbullying or police brutality are acceptable. Cyberbullying is typically envisioned as teenage bullying taking place over the internet. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that “Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation”. Similarly, police brutality occurs when law enforcement (“LE”) officers use illegal and excessive force in a situation that is unreasonable, potentially resulting in a civil rights violation or a criminal prosecution.

While the article is accurate that 76% of the surveyed police departments use social media for crime-solving tips, the rest of the story is that more departments use social media for other purposes. 91% notified the public regarding safety concerns. 89% use the technology for community outreach and citizen engagement, 86% use it for public relations and reputation management. Broad restrictions should not be implemented, which would negate all the positive community interactions increasing transparency.

Transparency

In an era where the public is demanding more transparency from LE agencies across the country, how is the disclosure of the public’s information held by the government considered “Cyberbullying” or “Police Brutality”? Local, state, and federal governments are subject to Freedom of Information Act laws requiring agencies to provide information to the public on their websites or release documents within days of requests or face civil liability.

New Jersey Open Public Records

While the New Jersey Supreme Court has not decided if arrest photographs are public, the New Jersey Government Records Council (“GRC”) has decided in Melton v. City of Camden, GRC 2011-233 (2013) that arrest photographs are not public records under NJ Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) because of Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 69 which exempts fingerprint cards, plates and photographs and similar criminal investigation records from public disclosure. It should be noted that GRC decisions are not precedential and therefore not binding on any court.

However, under OPRA, specifically 47:1A-3 Access to Records of Investigation in Progress, specific arrest information is public information and must be disclosed to the public within 24 hours of a request to include the:

Date, time, location, type of crime, and type of weapon,
Defendant’s name, age, residence, occupation, marital status, and similar background information.
Identity of the complaining party,
Text of any charges or indictment unless sealed,
Identity of the investigating and arresting officer and agency and the length of the investigation,
Time, location, and the arrest circumstances (resistance, pursuit, use of weapons),
Bail information.

For years, even before Melton, I believed that an arrestee’s photograph should not be released to the public. As a police chief, I refused numerous media requests for arrestee photographs protecting their rights and believing in innocence until proven guilty. Even though they have been arrested, the arrestee has not received due process in court.

New York’s Open Public Records

In New York under the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), Public Officers Law, Article 6, §89(2)(b)(viii) (General provisions relating to access to records; certain cases) The disclosure of LE arrest photographs would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s personal privacy unless the public release would serve a specific LE purpose and the disclosure is not prohibited by law.

California’s Open Public Records

Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) a person has the statutory right to be provided or inspect public records, unless a record is exempt from disclosure. Arrest photographs are inclusive in arrest records along with other personal information, including the suspect’s full name, date of birth, sex, physical characteristics, occupation, time of arrest, charges, bail information, any outstanding warrants, and parole or probation holds.

Therefore under New York and California law, the blanket posting of arrest photographs is already prohibited.

Safety and Public Information

Recently in Ams. for Prosperity Found. V. Bonta, the compelled donor disclosure case, while invalidating the law on First Amendment grounds, Justice Alito’s concurring opinion briefly addressed the parties personal safety concerns that supporters were subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence. He cited Doe v Reed which upheld disclosures containing home addresses under Washington’s Public Records Act despite the growing risks by anyone accessing the information with a computer.

Satisfied Warrant

I am not condoning Manhattan Beach Police Department’s error of posting information on a satisfied warrant along with a photograph on their “Wanted Wednesday” in 2020. However, the disclosed information may have been public information under CPRA then and even now. On July 23, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a law amending Section 13665 of the CPRA prohibiting LE agencies from posting photographs of an arrestee accused of a non-violent crime on social media unless:

The suspect is a fugitive or an imminent threat, and disseminating the arrestee’s image will assist in the apprehension.
There is an exigent circumstance and an urgent LE interest.
A judge orders the release or dissemination of the suspect’s image based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate LE interest.

The critical error was that the posting stated the warrant was active when it was not. A civil remedy exists and was used by the party to reach a settlement for damages. Additionally, it could be argued that the agency’s actions were not the proximate cause when vigilantes caused harm.

Scope of Influence

LE’s reliance on the public’s help did not start with social media or internet websites. The article pointed out that “Wanted Wednesday” had a mostly local following of 13,600. This raised the question if there is much of a difference between the famous “Wanted Posters” from the wild west or the “Top 10 Most Wanted” posters the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) used to distribute to Post Offices, police stations and businesses to locate fugitives. It can be argued that this exposure was strictly localized. However, the weekly TV show America’s Most Wanted, made famous by John Walsh, aired from 1988 to 2013, highlighting fugitive cases nationally. The show claims it helped capture over 1000 criminals through their tip-line. However, national media publicity can be counter-productive by generating so many false leads that obscure credible leads.

The FBI website contains pages for Wanted People, Missing People, and Seeking Information on crimes. “CAPTURED” labels are added to photographs showing the results of the agency’s efforts. Local LE agencies should follow FBI practices. I would agree with the article that social media and websites should be updated; however, I don’t agree that the information must be removed because it is available elsewhere on the internet.

Time

Vernon Gebeth, the leading police homicide investigation instructor, believes time is an investigator’s worst enemy. Eighty-five percent of abducted children are killed within the first five hours. Almost all are killed within the first twenty-four hours. Time is also critical because, for each hour that passed, the distance a suspect’s vehicle can travel expands by seventy-five miles in either direction. In five hours, the area can become larger than 17,000 square miles. Like Amber Alerts, social media can be used to quickly transmit information to people across the country in time-sensitive cases.

Live-Streaming Drunk Driving Leads to an Arrest

When Whitney Beall, a Florida woman, used a live streaming app to show her drinking at a bar then getting into her vehicle. The public dialed 911, and a tech-savvy officer opened the app, determined her location, and pulled her over. She was arrested after failing a DWI sobriety test. After pleading guilty to driving under the influence, she was sentenced to 10 days of weekend work release, 150 hours of community service, probation, and a license suspension. In 2019 10,142 lives were lost to alcohol impaired driving crashes.

Family Advocating

Social media is not limited to LE. It also provides a platform for victim’s families to keep attention on their cases. The father of a seventeen-year-old created a series of Facebook Live videos about a 2011 murder resulting in the arrest of Charles Garron. He was to a fifty-year prison term.

Instagram Selfies with Drugs, Money and Stolen Guns

Police in Palm Beach County charged a nineteen-year-old man with 142 felony charges, including possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, while investigating burglaries and jewel thefts in senior citizen communities. An officer found his Instagram account with incriminating photographs. A search warrant was executed, seizing stolen firearms and $250,000 in stolen property from over forty burglaries.

Bank Robbery Selfies

Police received a tip and located a social media posting by John E. Mogan II of himself with wads of cash in 2015. He was charged with robbing an Ashville, Ohio bank. He pled guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. According to news reports, Morgan previously served prison time for another bank robbery.

Food Post Becomes the Smoking Gun

LE used Instagram to identify an ID thief who posted photographs of his dinner at a high-end steakhouse with a confidential informant (“CI”). The man who claimed he had 700,000 stolen identities and provided the CI a flash drive of stolen identities. The agents linked the flash drive to a “Troy Maye,” who the CI identified from Maye’s profile photograph. Authorities executed a search warrant on his residence and located flash drives containing the personal identifying information of thousands of ID theft victims. Nathaniel Troy Maye, a 44-year-old New York resident, was sentenced to sixty-six months in federal prison after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft.

Wanted Man Turns Himself in After Facebook Challenge With Donuts

A person started trolling Redford Township Police during a Facebook Live community update. It was determined that he was a 21-year-old wanted for a probation violation for leaving the scene of a DWI collision. When asked to turn himself in, he challenged the PD to get 1000 shares and he would bring in donuts. The PD took the challenge. It went viral and within an hour reached that mark acquiring over 4000 shares. He kept his word and appeared with a dozen donuts. He faced 39 days in jail and had other outstanding warrants.

The examples in this article were readily available on the internet and on multiple news websites, along with photographs.

Under state Freedom of Information Laws, the public has a statutory right to know what enforcement actions LE is taking. Likewise, the media exercises their First Amendment rights to information daily across the country when publishing news. Cyber journalists are entitled to the same information when publishing news on the internet and social media. Traditional news organizations have adapted to online news to keep a share of the news market. LE agencies now live stream agency press conferences to communicating directly with the communities they serve.

Therefore the positive use of social media by LE should not be thrown out like bathwater when legal remedies exist when damages are caused.

“And now you know…the rest of the story.”

If I were to sue “Gossip Girl.”

If you grew up in New York and were a teenager in the early 2000s, you probably know the top-rated show “Gossip Girl.” “Gossip Girl” is the alias for an anonymous blogger who creates chaos by making public the very intimate and personal lives of upper-class high school students. The show is very scandalous due to the nature of these teenagers’ activities, but what stands out is the influence gossip girl had on these young teenagers. And it makes one think, what could I do if Gossip Girl came after me?

Anonymity

When bringing a claim for internet defamation against an anonymous blogger, the trickiest part is getting over the anonymity. In Cohen v. Google, Inc., 887 N.Y.S.2d 424 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009), a New York state trial court granted plaintiff, model Liskula Cohen, pre-suit discovery from Google to reveal the identity of the anonymous publisher of the “Skanks in NYC” blog. Cohen alleged that the blog author defamed her by calling her a “skank” and a “ho” and posting photographs of her in provocative positions with sexually suggestive captions, all creating the false impression that she is sexually promiscuous. The court analyzed the discovery request under New York CPLR § 3102(c), which allows for discovery “to aid in bringing an action.” The court ruled that, under CPLR § 3102(c), a party seeking pre-action discovery must make a prima facie showing a meritorious cause of action before obtaining the identity of an anonymous defendant. The court acknowledges the First Amendment issues at stake, and citing Dendrite; the court opined that New York law’s requirement of a prima facie showing appears to address the constitutional concerns raised in the context of this case. The court held that Cohen adequately made this prima facie showing defamation, finding that the “skank” and “ho” statements, along with the sexually suggestive photographs and captions, conveyed a factual assertion that Cohen was sexually promiscuous, rather than an expression of protected opinion.

In Cohen, the court decided that Kiskula Cohen was entitled to the pre-suit discovery under CPLR § 3102(c). To legally obtain “Gossip Girl’s” true identity under this statute, we would have to prove that the statement posted on her blog against us is on its face defamatory and not simply an expression of protected opinion.

Defamation

Now that we may have uncovered our anonymous blogger, “Gossip Girl,” aka Dan Humphrey now we may dive into the defamation issue. There are two types of defamation: 1) Libel is the written form of defamation, and 2) Slander is the oral form of defamation. Because Gossip Girl’s choice of media is a written blog, our case would fall under Libel. But does our claim meet the legal elements of defamation?

In New York, there are four elements that the alleged defamation must meet:

A false statement;
Published to a third-party without privilege or authorization;
With fault amounting to at least negligence;
That caused special harm or ‘defamation per se.’

Dillon v. City of New York, 261 AD2d 34, 38, 704 NYS2d1 (1999)

Furthermore, our defamation claim for the plaintiff must “set forth the particular words allegedly constituting defamation and it must also allege time when, place where, and the manner in which the false statement was made, and specific to whom it was made.” Epifani v. Johnson, 65 A.D.3d 224, 233, 882 N.Y.S.2d 234 (2d Dept. 2009). The court simply means that we must provide details such as: what specific words were used? What were the terms used? Was the plaintiff labeled a “how” or “skank” like in Cohen, or did they simply call you “ugly”? When? The time said words were spoken, written, or published. Where? The place where they were spoken, written, or published (platform). How? The manner in which they were spoken, written, or published. Lastly Whom? The party or source to whom the statement was made to.

The plaintiff’s status determines the level of burden of proof in defamation lawsuits in N.Y. Is the plaintiff considered a “public” figure or a “private” citizen? To determine this status New York State courts use the “vortex notion.” This term simply means that a person who would generally qualify as a “private” citizen is considered a “public” figure if they draw public attention to themselves, like jumping right into a tornado vortex. Defamation for a “public” figure has a higher preponderance of evidence in defamation lawsuits. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant acted with actual malice (reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statement). For defamation of a “private” citizen, the plaintiff the N.Y. court apply a negligence standard of fault for the defendant unless the statements were related to a matter of legitimate public concern.

When the plaintiff is a private figure, and the allegedly defamatory statements relate to a matter of legitimate public concern, they must prove that the defendant acted “in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties.” Chapeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 28 N.Y.S.2d 196, 199 (N.Y. 1975) This standard focuses on the objective evaluation of the defendant’s actions rather than looking at the defendant’s state of mind at the time of publication.

If the statements Gossip Girl published are so inherently apparent, we may explore defamation per se. There are four elements to defamation per se in New York:

Statement charging a plaintiff with a serious crime.
Statements that tend to injure another in his or her trade, business, or profession
Statements imputing a loathsome disease on a plaintiff, &
Statements imputing unchastity on a woman

Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 435, 605 NE2d 344, 590 NYS2d 857 (1992). If the statements meet these elements, the court may find that the statements were inherently injurious that the damages to the plaintiff’s person are presumed. Another option to consider is defamation per quod which requires the plaintiff to provide extrinsic and supporting evidence to prove the defamatory nature of the alleged statement(s) in question that is not inherently apparent.

Privileges and Defenses

After concluding that Gossip Girl defamed the plaintiff, we must ensure that the defamatory statement is not protected under any privileges. New York courts recognize several privileges and defenses in the context of defamation actions, including the fair report privilege (a defamation lawsuit cannot be sustained against any person making a “fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other official proceeding.”) N.Y.Civ.Rights §74, the opinion and fair comment privileges, substantial truth (the maker cannot be held liable for saying things that are actually true), and the wire service defense. There is also Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which may protect media platforms or publishers if a third party, not acting under their direction, posts something on their blog or website that is defamatory. Suppose a statement is privileged or defense applies. In that case, the maker of that statement may be immune from any lawsuit arising from those privileged statements.

Statute of Limitations

A New York plaintiff must start an action within one (1) year of the date the defamatory material was published or communicated to a third-party CPLR § 15 Sub 3. New York has also adopted a law directed explicitly to internet posts. The “single publication,” a party that causes the mass publication of defamatory content, may only be sued once for its initial publication of that content. For example, suppose a blog publishes a defamatory article that is circulated to thousands of people. In the case above, the blog may only be sued once. The Statute of Limitations begins to run at the time of first publication. “Republication” of the allegedly defamatory content will restart the statute of limitations. A republication occurs when “a separate aggregate publication from the original, on a different occasion, which is not merely a ‘delayed circulation of the original edition.'” Firth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 463, 466 (N.Y. 2002). Courts examine whether the republication was intended to and actually reached new audiences. Altering the allegedly defamatory content and moving web content to a different web address may trigger republication.

Damages

Damages to defamation claims are proportionate to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff is awarded damages, it may be in the form of compensatory, nominal, or punitive damages. There are two types of compensatory damages 1) special damages and 2) general damages. Special damages are based on economic harm and must have a specific amount identified. General damages are challenging to assess. The jury has the discretion to determine the award amount after weighing all the facts. Nominal damages are small monetary sums awarded to vindicate the plaintiff’s name. Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and are meant to deter the defendant from repeating defamatory conduct.

When Gossip Girl first aired, the idea of a blog holding cultural relevance was not yet mainstream. Gossip Girl’s unchecked power kept many characters from living their lives freely and without scrutiny. After Gossip Girl aired, an anonymous blog, “Socialite Rank,” emerged. It damaged the reputation of the targeted victim, Olivia Palermo, who eventually dropped the suit she had started against the blog. The blog “Skanks in NYC” painted a false image of who Kiskula Cohen was and caused her to lose potential jobs. In the series finale, after the identity of Gossip Girl is revealed, the characters laugh. Still, one of the characters exclaimed, “why do you all think that this is funny? Gossip Girl ruined our lives!” Defamation can ruin lives. As technology advances, the law should as well. New York has adopted its defamation laws that were in place to ensure that person cannot hide behind anonymity to ruin another person’s life.

Do you feel protected against online defamation?

XOXO

How Defamation and Minor Protection Laws Ultimately Shaped the Internet

Kyiv, Ukraine – September 5, 2019: A paper cubes collection with printed logos of world-famous social networks and online messengers, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Telegram and others.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was originally enacted with the intention of shielding minors from indecent and obscene online material. Despite its origins, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is now commonly used as a broad legal safeguard for social media platforms to shield themselves from legal liability for content posted on their sites by third parties. Interestingly, the reasoning behind this safeguard arises both from defamation common law, and constitutional free speech laws. As the internet has grown, however, this legal safeguard has gained increasing criticism. However, is this legislation actually undesirable? Many would disagree as section 230 contains “the 26 words that created the internet.”

Origin of the Communications Decency Act

The CDA was introduced and enacted as an attempt to shield minors from obscene or indecent content online. Although parts of the Act were later struck down for first amendment free speech violations, the Court left section 230 intact. The creation of section 230 was influenced by two landmark court decisions of defamation lawsuits.

The first case was in 1991, and involved an Internet site that hosted around 150 online forums. A claim was brought against the internet provider when a columnist of one of the online forums posted a defamatory comment about his competitor. The competitor sued the online distributor for the published defamation. The courts categorized the internet service provider as a distributor because they did not review any content of the forums before the content was posted to the site. As a distributor, there was no legal liability, and the case was dismissed.

Distributor Liability

Distributor Liability refers to the limited legal consequences that a distributor is exposed to for defamation. A common example of a distributor, is a bookstore or library. The theory behind distributor liability is that it would be impossible for distributors to moderate and censor every piece of content that they disperse because of the sheer volume, and the impossibility of knowing whether something is false or not.

The second case that influenced the creation of section 230, was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., in which the court used publisher liability theory to find the internet provider liable for the third party defamatory postings published on its site. The court deemed the website a publisher because they moderated and deleted certain posts, regardless of the fact that there were far too many postings a day to regulate each one.

Publisher Liability

Under common law principles, a person who publishes a third-party’s defamatory statement bears the same legal responsibility as the creator of that statement. This liability is often referred to as “publisher liability,” and is based in theory that a publisher has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise control over the publication. For example, a newspaper publisher could face legal consequences for the content located within it. The court’s decision was significant because it meant that if a website attempted to moderate certain posts, it would be held liable for all posts.

Section 230’s Creation

In response to the Stratton-Oakmond case, and the ambiguous court decisions regarding internet services provider’s liability, members of Congress introduced an amendment to the CDA that later became Section 230. The Amendment was specifically introduced and passed with the goal of encouraging the development of unregulated, free speech online by relieving internet providers from any liability for their content.

Text of the Act- Subsection (c)(1)

“No Provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

Section 230 further provides that…

“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”

The language above removes legal consequences arising from content posted on their forum. Courts have interpreted this subsection as providing broad immunity to online platforms from suits over content of third parties. Because of this, section 230 has become the principal legal safeguard from lawsuits over sites content.

The Good

Section 230 can be viewed as being one of the most important pieces of legislation that protects free speech online. One of the unique aspects of this legislation is that it essentially extends free speech protection, applying it to private, non-governmental companies.
Without CDA 230, the internet would be a very different place. This section influenced some of the internet’s most distinctive characteristics. The internet promotes free speech and offers the ability for worldwide connectivity.
The CDA 230 does not fully eliminate liability or court remedies for victims of online defamation. Rather, it makes only the creator themselves liable for their speech, instead of the speaker and the publisher.

The Bad

Because of the legal protections section 230 provides, social media networks have less of an incentive to regulate false or deceptive posts. Deceptive online posts can have an enormous impact on society. False posts have the ability to alter election results, or lead to dangerous misinformation campaigns, like the QAnon conspiracy theory, and the anti-vaccination movement.
Section 230 is twenty-five years old, and has not been updated to match the internet’s extensive growth.
Big Tech companies have been left largely unregulated regarding their online marketplaces.

The Future of 230

While section 230 is still successfully used by social media platforms, concerns over the archaic legislation have mounted. Just recently, Justice Thomas, who is infamous for being a quiet Justice, wrote a concurring opinion articulating his view that the government should regulate content providers as common carriers, like utilities companies. What implications could that have on the internet? With the growing level of criticism surrounding section 230, will Congress will finally attempt to fix this legislation? If not, will the Supreme Court be left to tackle the problem themselves?

Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?

Police departments across the country are calling keyboard warriors into action to help them solve crimes…but at what cost?

In a survey of 539 police departments in the U.S., 76% of departments said that they used their social media accounts to solicit tips on crimes. Departments post “arrested” photos to celebrate arrests, surveillance footage for suspect identification, and some even post themed wanted posters, like the Harford County Sheriff’s Office.

The process for using social media as an investigative tool is dangerously simple and the consequences can be brutal. A detective thinks posting on social media might help an investigation, so the department posts a video or picture asking for information. The community, armed with full names, addresses, and other personal information, responds with some tips and a lot of judgmental, threatening, and bigoted comments. Most police departments have no policy for removing posts after information has been gathered or cases are closed, even if the highlighted person is found to be innocent. A majority of people who are arrested are not even convicted of a crime.

Law enforcement’s use of social media in this way threatens the presumption of innocence, creates a culture of public humiliation, and often results in a comment section of bigoted and threatening comments.

On February 26, 2020, the Manhattan Beach Police Department posted a mugshot of Matthew Jacques on their Facebook and Instagram pages for their “Wanted Wednesday” social media series. The pages have 4,500 and 13,600, mostly local, followers, respectively. The post equated Matthew to a fugitive and commenters responded publicly with information about where he worked. Matthew tried to call off work out of fear of a citizen’s arrest. The fear turned out to be warranted when two strangers came to find him at his workplace. Matthew eventually lost his job because he was too afraid to return to work.

You may be thinking this is not a big deal. This guy was probably wanted for something really bad and the police needed help. After all, the post said the police had a warrant. Think again.

There was no active warrant for Matthew at the time, his only (already resolved) warrant came from taking too long to schedule remedial classes for a 2017 DUI. Matthew was publicly humiliated by the local police department. The department even refused to remove the social media posts after being notified of the truth. The result?

Matthew filed a complaint against the department for defamation (as well as libel per se and false light invasion of privacy). Typically, defamation requires the plaintiff to show:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Here, the department made a false statement – that there was a warrant. They published it on their social media, satisfying the second element. They did not check readily available public records that showed Matthew did not have a warrant. Finally, Matthew lived in fear and lost his job. Clearly, he was harmed.

The police department claimed their postings were protected by the California Constitution, governmental immunity, and the 1st Amendment. Fortunately, the court denied the department’s anti-SLAPP motion. Over a year after postings, the department took down the posting and settled the lawsuit with Matthew.

Some may think that Matthew’s case is an anomaly and that, usually, the negative attention is warranted and perhaps even socially beneficial because it further de-incentivizes criminal activity via humiliation and social stigma. However, most arrests don’t result in convictions, many of the police’s cyberbullying victims are likely innocent. Even if they are guilty, leaving these posts up can increase the barrier to societal re-entry, which can increase recidivism rates. A negative digital record can make finding jobs and housing more difficult. Many commenters assume the highlighted individual’s guilt and take to their keyboards to shame them.

Here’s one example of a post and comment section from the Toledo Police Department Facebook page:

Unless departments change their social media use policies, they will continue to face defamation lawsuits and continue to further the degradation of the presumption of innocence.

Police departments should discontinue the use of social media in the humiliating ways described above. At the very least, they should consider using this tactic only for violent, felonious crimes. Some departments have already changed their policies.

The San Francisco Police Department has stopped posting mugshots for criminal suspects on social media. According to Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Reichel, “The decision was made in consultation with the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office who argued that the practice of posting mugshots online had the potential to taint criminal trials and follow accused individuals long after any debt to society is paid.” For a discussion of some of the issues social media presents to maintaining a fair trial, see Social Media, Venue and the Right to a Fair Trial.

Do you think police departments should reconsider their social media policies?

TWIBEL: WHO GOT IT RIGHT? THE U.S. OR INDONESIA?

By Dana Halber

Courtney Love, the grunge rock queen, spent eight days in court at the end of last month standing trial for “Twibel,” the commonplace term for “Twitter libel.” Twibel is the act of defaming another individual through a 140-character Twitter “tweet.” Love’s former attorney, Rhonda J. Holmes, sued Love for the publication of a reputation damaging Tweet, which implied that Holmes had been “bought off” as the reason for Holmes no longer acting as Love’s attorney.[1] Love argued that the mass dissemination of the tweet was inadvertent, as she only intended to send it two people, and once she realized it had been published to her 220,000 plus Twitter followers, she deleted the tweet.[2] Even more legally significant, Love claimed she believed the statement to be true at the time she sent the tweet, demonstrating that Love lacked the “knowingly false or doubting the truth” of the statement requisite to find her guilty of libel.[3] Ultimately, Love prevailed when the jury determined that she was not liable for defamation.

However, did the jury reach the right verdict? Although the Los Angeles Superior Court Judge made a precedential decision in holding 140-character or less tweets in California to the same standard as an article written for the Los Angeles Times, the jury clearly was not as strict. Their leniency can be especially dangerous in establishing precedent in this particular case as Love is a repeat tweet offender.

Venting her frustrations over social media seems to be Love’s pattern of behavior, and the reason she is involved in another pending defamation lawsuit brought by fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir for damaging comments Love made about her on Pinterest and the Howard Stern radio show.[4] How will Love learn to temper her tweets if she’s only sharing her “opinion”, however damaging it may be, and escaping liability? And, furthermore, what message does the result of Love’s twibel trial send to the American public? Perhaps it’s time to reevaluate our defamation law in conjunction with social media…

Meanwhile, at roughly the same time Love stood trial, on the other side of the world, Benny Handoko, an Indonesian Twitter user was found guilty of defamation for libelous comments made about an Indonesian politician via Twitter.[5] Handoko became popular on Twitter after publishing statements in which he referred to former Prosperous Justice Party member Mukhamad Misbakhun as a crook who played a vital role in Indonesia’s Central Bank bailout scandal in 2008.[6] Handoko was sentenced to one year probation for online defamation in violation of articles 27 and 45 of the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Law, which provides that “anyone found guilty of using electronic media, including social networks, to intimidate or defame others could be liable to six years in prison and a fine” that can amount up to approximately $105,000 U.S.D.[7] Handoko, refused to apologize for his statements, believing them to be true, as he based them on media reports.[8] Accessable.

[1] Eriq Gardner, Courtney Love Wins Twitter Defamation Trial, The Hollywood Reporter (Jan, 24, 2014, 5:03 PM), http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/courtney-love-wins-twitter-defamation-673972.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Mong Palatino, How One Twitter Defamation Case Casts a Shadow on Media in Indonesia, Mediashift (Feb. 11, 2014), http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2014/02/indonesia-twitter-defamation-case-casts-shadow-on-media-landscape/.

[6] Id.

[7] TechLoy Reporter, Indonesian reporter convicted of libel of Twitter, protest surges over draconian internet law, TechLoy (Feb. 4, 2014), http://techloy.com/2014/02/05/indonesian-man-convicted-libel-twitter-protest-surges-draconian-internet-law/.

[8] Palatino, id.

Yelp! at Your Own Risk

What is Yelp?

Yelp, Inc. is an American company that operates an “online urban guide” and business review site. The company’s website began as an email service for exchanging local business recommendations and later introduced social networking features, discounts, and mobile applications.[i] The company’s website contains a discussion forum and other social networking features. It requires reviewers to register and encourages them to create a user profile. It offers “praise and attention” to user reviewers plus special status and social events for its most popular, prolific and “elite” members.[ii]

Simple enough, right? So what’s all the fuss about?

It has become increasingly apparent that writing Yelp reviews may land you in some hot water, which begs the question “Why would writing a negative review get me sued?” The site asks for users to write honest, first-hand accounts of what their experience was like. Yet, when that honest review turns out to be negative/critical, some business owners may not take it so lightly. In the last week or so there have been at least two lawsuits dealing with Yelp reviews, which actually bookend the spectrum of potential outcomes arising from disgruntled reviews. On one end of the spectrum is a review that stated a contractor damaged and stole the reviewer’s property.[iii] The jury came back with a guilty verdict for defamation.[iv] On the other end of the spectrum was a review of a local dentist, who attempted to sue for defamation, but his claim was dismissed referencing California’s Anti-SLAPP Law.[v]

Ok, so the Anti-SLAPP Laws will protect me then?

Not necessarily. California provides a special motion to strike strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which is intended to put a quick end to nonmeritorious lawsuits designed to suppress speech on a matter of public concern.[vi] Public reviews of businesses, health care, restaurants and any other type of service provider, have been around since the first customer was served. Services like Yelp have made the dissemination of these reviews readily available to anyone willing to read them. One would think that every state would have an Anti-SLAPP statute protecting the public, but that is not the case, as 21 states have not enacted an Anti-SLAPP law.[vii] One of those states, Virginia, was home to the first review I mentioned where the defendant was found guilty of defamation after being sued by her contractor. Would an Anti-SLAPP statute have helped her? Should every state have a statute similar to California? It’s tough to say, but one could easily make the argument that Anti-SLAPP laws unnecessarily expand our First Amendment Rights.

[i] Yelp, Inc., wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelp,_Inc (last visited February 8, 2014).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Perez v. Dietz Development LLC, Va. Cir. Ct., CL 2012-16249, jury verdict 1/31/14.

[iv] Id.

[v] Rahbar v. Batoon, Cal. Ct. App., No. A136463, unpublished 1/31/14.

[vi] 23 HLR 221 (Issue No. 6, 02/06/14).

[vii] Public Participation Project, Anti-Slapp.org, http://www.anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/ (last visited February 8, 2014).

Are Bloggers Really the Same as Traditional Journalists?

The Ninth Circuit extended to bloggers the First Amendment freedoms enjoyed by traditional journalists. In Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, the Ninth Circuit ruled that New York Times v. Sullivan and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, when read together hold that journalists are protected by the First Amendment and therefore plaintiff’s must be able to show that journalists acted with a minimum of negligent intent, if not higher, in order to sustain a libel claim. Although one of first impression for the Ninth Circuit, the issue of whether the negligent standard applies to bloggers has been percolating among the circuits for some time. Are bloggers journalists for purposes of the Sullivan/Gertz standard?

The 9^th circuit noted that the case which “involves the intersection between Sullivan and Gertz, [is] an area not yet fully explored by this circuit in the context of the Internet. Both parties argued that Gertz only applies to institutional press. But the court disagreed. Writing for the Court, Judge Hurwitz opined, “as the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between institutional press and other speaker is unworkable.’

According to the circuit court, “the protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist …or went beyond just assembling others writings.” Therefore, bloggers for defamation purposes, should be subject to the same standards as traditional journalists in cases concerning defamatory statements.

Obsidian Finance Group is just another example of how 15 minutes of Internet fame can elevate an ordinary citizen to higher status for purposes of defamation law. Arguably, the “star” of a home video gone viral achieves public figure status for purposes of defamation law, so too, it seems, does the casual blogger.

Tag: defamation

If I were to sue “Gossip Girl.”

Subscribe By Email