(c) 2004 west legal studies in business a division of thomson learning 1 defamation tort = state...

(c) 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning

1

Defamation

• Tort = State law, so differs state to state

• Based on common law, so very similar– Slander – spoken– Libel - written– Directed at goods or services =

Disparagement

• Must show four elements to prove case


2

1st Element of Proof Required

• A fact made about another’s reputation or business– Can be by direct evidence, innuendo,

insinuation, reference– Has to be understood to be about the plaintiff– No cause of action if plaintiff is deceased


3

2nd element

• Made to a third party– E-Mail is so accessible that plaintiff would

have a hard time proving he didn’t know others would see it


4

3rd element

• Must show some degree of fault or negligence– if public figure, must show actual malice

(reckless disregard of the truth)– if regular person, must show did not use

reasonable care (negligent)


5

4th element

• Must result in damages– with libel there is the presumption of damages– with slander, must prove, unless slander per se

• accusing another of committing a serious crime• accusing another of having a loathsome or communicable

disease• injuring another in their business or profession• in some state, accusing a woman of being unchaste


6

Defenses

• Truth

• Absolute Privilege

• Qualified Privilege


7

Absolute Privilege

– Furtherance of operations of government: judicial, legislative, and executive branches as they do their work


8

Qualified Privilege

• Rebuttal, within reason

• Reference for a job or other position

• Newsworthiness - when talking about a public figure or official – the press have this privilege to tell us about

the famous– for defamation, have to prove they told an

untruth with actual malice


9

Who is Liable for Defamation?

• In non-internet defamation cases the court distinguishes among the following:

– Common Carriers– Distributors– Publishers of the defamatory material


10

Common Carriers are not Liable for Defamation

– Common Carriers, telephone and telegraph, have been held to not have any control over the content of the material and therefore are not liable


11

Distributors, vendors or bookstores are not liable for defamation

• Smith v. California: proprietor of bookstore not liable for obscenity because didn’t know what was in the book– Can’t be liable for obscenity unless the vendor

knows what the content is (not that it is obscene)

– So can’t be liable for defamation if don’t know what is in the book


12

Publishers of books, newspaper, television, radio can be liable

• If they exercised control over the content


13

Are Online Service Providers Common Carriers?

• Are they common carriers? distributors, publishers?

• Lunney v. Prodigy: Prodigy was just a conduit, not a publisher of profane and threatening messages


14

What is a Publication in the Internet Environment?

• It’s in the Cards, Inc. v. Fuschetto: Question: was a computer subscription service accessible anytime by its users a periodical? and therefore a publication?.– Court said no because

• it did not appear on a regular basis, posting was random communication

• analogous to posting a written notice on a public bulletin board


15

Who is a Publisher?

• Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc.– Facts:

• Provides a service: CIS = General information or “electronic” library

• CIS subscribers can access over 150 special interest “forums” comprised of bulletin boards, interactive chat rooms, and databases = “Journalism Forum”

• Rumorville, USA is a daily newsletter available on a forum providing reports about broadcast journalism and journalists

• CompuServe hired Cameron Communications, Inc. (CCI) to monitor and control the Forum’s content in accordance with standards established by CompuServe


16

Publisher? Continued….

– Plaintiff Chubby competed with CompuServ by developing Skuttlebut, a computer database designed to publish and distribute electronically news and gossip about the television and radio industries

– Chubby sued CompuServe and Rumorville for publishing defamatory remarks about Scuttlebut on the Forum.

• Law– First Amendment says that a person has to have control over

content to be a publisher– CompuServe said it had no control over content, that it was a

distributor

• Holding: – Compuserve had no control over content – not a publisher


17

Publisher? Continued

• Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Company– Facts:

• Prodigy owns and operates a computer network with bulletin boards that can be accessed by its subscribers

• Prodigy did exercise control over content of messages posted on its BBs in trying to be responsible

• 1994 statements about plaintiffs appeared on “Money Talk” bulletin board

• Prodigy hired managers or board leaders to monitor and edit the content of the publications published on Money Talk.

• Defamatory remarks about Stratton, a securities investment banking firm and its president


18

Publisher? Continued…

• Stratton continued– Law:

• Publishers are libel for defamation, distributors are not

– Holding:• Prodigy controlled the board leaders, so it was a publisher


19

Independent Contractor v. Employee

• Independent Contractor runs the BB = no liability for employer

• Employee = Respondeat Superior


20

CDA Section 230

• No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

• Zeran v. AOL

• Sidney Blumenthal v. Matt Drudge and AOL, Inc.


21

Zeran

• Facts:– Defamatory info about Zeran and the Oklahoma bombing posted

on AOL BB– AOL did not close account of defamer– Radio station urged listened to protest to Zeran– Newspaper published that it was a hoax

• Law– Zeran sued AOL for defamation on its BB

• That AOL knew of content of messages on BB• AOL defended on grounds of CDA section 230

• Holding:– Suit filed two months after 230 became effective – AOL not liable


22

Blumenthal

– Facts:• Drudge is author of electronic gossip column• Drudge contracted with AOL to make his column available to

AOL members• AOL could remove content• AOL advertised that it was rumor and gossip• Defamation about Blumenthal – spousal abuse• AOL publisher?

– Law:• State defamation law versus CDA

– Holding • CDA gives absolute immunity even if ISP knows of content


23

After Blumenthal

• Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc.• Operator of a website found to be a content

provider and not protected by 230


24

Anonymous Speech and Defamation

• Usually protected by freedom of speech

• What about anonymous defamation?– Can plaintiffs force revelation of authors?

• Recording Industry Association of America v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc.

– To discover identity of subscriber who had downloaded 600 songs in one day

– Freedom of speech does not extend to copyright infringement

– Verizon appealed


25

Ct. Established Principles to Subpoena Identity of Anonymous Defamer

• Dendrite International Inc., v. John Doe– In order to subpoena the identity of the

anonymous defendant• Post a notice of the subpoena addressed to the

defendant (john doe) on the relevant message board• Provide the court with the content of the alleged

defamatory statements• Establish a prima facie case of defamation exists

against the defendant• Court must then weigh harm of defamation against

freedom of remaining anonymous


26

SLAPP Suits

• Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation– McDonald v. Paton

• Anti-SLAPP law applied to cyberspace• Defendant operated an interactive town forum Web site• Residents of the “town” could post their opinions• Plaintiff was a town selectman and candidate for

reelection who was referred to as a “Gestapo agent”• Plaintiff lost election and brought SLAPP suit• Defendant sought to dismiss under the anti-SLAPP

statute – won


27

Other Countries

• United Kingdom• Australia


28

ISP Liability for Defamation?

• Varies widely from country to country– U.S.– UK– Japan– Singapore


29

International Regulation of Online Defamation

• Occurs in country where material is accessed?– Ellis v. Time (1997)

• Act of State Doctrine applies

• Forum shopping by plaintiffs

(c) 2004 west legal studies in business a division of thomson learning 1 defamation tort = state...

Documents