Defamation and New Media

From Baruchnewmedia

1 Introduction
2 What is Defamation?
3 Laws Governing Internet Defamation
4 Landmark Defamation Court Cases
5 Sources

Introduction

New media has become the way for society to speak their mind with little inhibitions. We all see the reason why new media has become popular, but have we considered the dark side of new media? Yes! The side where reputations can be ruined and gossip is started. Welcome to the world of internet defamation.

What is Defamation?

Defamation is the act of making an untrue statement to a third party that damages the subjects reputation. There are different subdivisions of Defamation being Libel and Slander. Libel refers to be being defamed in a written form such as newspapers, magazines, or blogs. Slander is the spoken form of defamation and it refers to statements made specifically to another person(s), or broadcast over a radio or television.

This does not mean that every statements this made is automatically defamatory. Statements can not be considered to be defamatory unless it follows this set of criteria [1]:

1. A false statement regarding another;

2. Unprivileged publication of the claim to the third party;

3. Rising, in the case of matters of public perception, to at least negligence by the publisher, or worse

4. Statements are proven to be damaging to the subject.

Laws Governing Internet Defamation

The Communications Decency Act of 1996

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 also known as CDA, was established to deal with the publication of pornography and other adult content freely and widely available on the internet. The act was created to combat any indecent and defamatory content found on websites and other online publications [2].

Section 230 of the CDA

Section 230 of the CDA deals with an ISP's(Internet Service Provider) liability to content that is stored on their servers. Section 230 contends that an ISP is not responsible for the information published by their users unless they are informed of any infringement; it is at this point that the ISP must act to remove the content or they can be faced with legal consequences.

Statute of Limitations

An important aspect to point out in regards to the CDA is that a statute of limitations exists for online content. The statutes will vary from state to state, but the most common statute lasts for a time period of 12 months. This time period starts from when the comment is first posted online since claims that publishing on the internet is the equivalent of continuous publication have already been rejected by most courts.

Landmark Defamation Court Cases

Scheff v. Bock (2006)

Carey Bock hired Sue Scheff's company, Parents Universal Resource Experts (PURE) which provides referral services for families of teenagers with behavioral problems, to help withdraw her sons from a boarding school in Costa Rica. Scheff put Bock in touch with a consultant, who helped her remove her sons from the school. Unsatisfied with the help she received, Bock posted negative comments about Scheff in a forum for parents with troubled kids called "Fornits.com."

Scheff and PURE sued Bock for defamation in Florida state court on December 31, 2003. According to filings in the case, Bock made statements accusing Scheff of being a "crook," a "con artist," and a "fraud."

According to USA Today, Bock hired a lawyer, but he left the case when she no longer could afford to pay him. After Bock didn't offer a defense, the court entered a default judgment against her and submitted the issue of damages to the jury. On September 19, 2006, the jury awarded Scheff $11,300,000.

On July 25, 2007, the court upheld the verdict on Bock's motion to set the verdict aside [3].

Stuart Pivar v. Seed Media, Myers (2007)

In August 2007, Stuart Pivar sued science blogger P.Z. Meyers and Seed Media Group, LLC (SMG) for defamation in federal court in New York.

According to the complaint, Pivar is an "industrial, inventor and scientist" who edited a book called Lifecode, which puts forth a theory of "biological self-organization." Myers, an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota at Morris, posted critical comments about Pivar's work on his blog, "Pharyngula," which is hosted on SMG's ScienceBlogs.com. Specifically, Myers allegedly referred to Pivar as a "classic crackpot."

Pivar's complaint included claims for defamation and tortious interference with business relations. He sought injunctive relief and $60 milion in compensatory and punitive damages.

Extensive blog commentary on the case was largely derisive of both Pivar and his claims. Only eleven days after filing the complaint, Pivar voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit [4].

Cohen v. Google (Blogger) (2009)

In January 2009, Fashion model Liskula Cohen petitioned a New York state court for "pre-action" discovery from Google Inc. (on behalf of its subsidiary Blogger.com), seeking the identity of the anonymous operator of the Skanks in NYC blog. The blog consists of only 5 posts, all posted on the same day in August 2008, and all making derogatory comments about Cohen. According to court documents, Cohen alleges that the blog entries, including photographs, captions to photographs, and commentary describe her as a "skank" and a "ho," and otherwise depict her as sexually promiscuous, dishonest, and unclean. She claims that these postings are libelous per se because they impugn her chastity and negatively reflect on her qualifications as a model.

On January 5, the court issued an "order to show cause," which required Google to appear before the court on January 26 for argument about whether disclosure of the blogger's identity should be ordered. On January 26, the court ordered Google to notify the anonymous blogger of the pending discovery request. Through counsel, the anonymous blogger filed a brief in opposition to Cohen's application for pre-action discovery. In a futile attempt to have the suit dropped, the mysterious blogger closes her blog site. It appears that this tactic did not change the outcome of the suit as the court granted Cohen's petition, ruling that the statements on the blog were reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning. The anonymous blogger is named to be a young woman named Rosemary Port, an acquaintance of Liskula Cohen [5].