Twitter comments basis for a Internet defamation lawsuit
Courtney Love
Twitter comments (along with others) have now become the basis for a Internet defamation lawsuit.
Courtney Love, always a class act, has been posting “tweets” about fashion designer Dawn Simorangkir, also known as Boudoir Queen. Simorangkir claims that Love failed to pay money that was owed to her. Love claims otherwise, and refered to Simorangkir as a “nasty lying hosebag thief”, as well as accusing her of being a drug addict and a prostitute, according to the Associated Press.
Assuming the comments were false, the statements are clearly defamatory, but the case will still present some interesting issues if it ever makes it to trial. Defamation is always about reputation, and defamatory remarks do not always translate to loss of reputation. Given the context of the statements and the person making them, will anyone believe that Simorangkir is guilty of the acts claimed by Love?
[Update] In March 2011, Love settled the Internet defamation lawsuit by paying Dawn Simorangkir a reported $430,000. So did Love learn anything from this experience? Apparently not.
Now she is being sued by her former attorney, Rhonda Holmes. Ms. Holmes is piqued that Love allegedly tweeted:
“I was fucking devastated when Rhonda J Holmes Esq of San Diego was bought off.”
Love is also alleged to have stated that she had been “hiring and firing lawyers” and claimed that Holmes had “disappeared” and stopped taking her calls after “they got to her.”
No reasonable person could interpret these statements as meaning anything other than Love was accusing Holmes of taking a bribe, but Love’s current attorney argued the point anyway. In a demurrer to the complaint he claimed that “there is no limit to one’s imagination regarding the possible meaning of a phrase like “they got to her.”
Right.
The Los Angeles Superior Court judge hearing the matter didn’t buy it either, and overruled the demurrer.
Nursing Student Dismissed Over Blog Posts
Happier Days at the Nursing School
Another reminder that you will be judged by what you write.
A student dismissed from the University of Louisville’s nursing school because of her Internet postings has sued the university, alleging that it violated her First Amendment rights.
The nursing school expelled Nina Yoder on March 2, saying her MySpace postings “regarding patient activities and identification as a University of Louisville School of Nursing student violates the nursing honor code which you pledged to uphold,” according to a copy of her dismissal letter, which was attached to the suit.
In her blog postings, copies of which she attached to her own complaint, Yoder makes caustic comments about Christians and blacks. I attempted to go to the website to make my own determination about the appropriateness of her comments, but she appears to have taken down her MySpace page.
According to an article posted at courier-journal.com, the nursing school is upset because some of Yoder’s postings are about specific patients (although they are not mentioned by name). In one of her postings, she wrote about a birth she witnessed: “Out came a wrinkly bluish creature, all Picasso-like and weird, ugly as hell … screeching and waving its tentacles in the air.” I’m not sure a patient would want the miracle of her child’s birth described in that way by someone who should, like any medical professional, respect her privacy, but I can also see that as a failed attempt to humorously describe what she had seen.
But there was far more. The school officials were probably equally unimpressed when Yoder wrote about how the nursing school is in downtown Louisville, adjoining an area “inhabited by humanoids who have an IQ of 10 and whose needs and actions are basically instinctive. As in, all they do is ––––, eat, –––– and kill each other.” She did, however, graciously concede, “OK, maybe I am generalizing yet again.”
As discussed in my prior blog posting, Yoder and her supporters are using the “there’s so much trash on the Internet you can’t hold my trash against me” defense. As Yoder wrote in her letter requesting reinstatement to the nursing program, “If profanity was grounds for dismissal for the School of Nursing, the nursing school would go bankrupt.”
The court has not yet set a hearing date on Yoder’s request that the nursing school be ordered to reinstate her. We’ll know then if the trash defense worked.
[UPDATE] Thanks to Web Savy Med Student for providing me with an update on this case. I was unable to find the court’s ruling, but according to Web Savy and other sources, Yoder took the case to court and was reinstated to the nursing school. The court dodged any free speech issues, and instead decided the matter strictly on the honor code. Although her comments were “objectively distasteful”, according to the court those comments did not deal with her profession and did not violate any confidentiality since the patient could not be identified.
Anonymous Posters Are Not Immune from Defamation Claims
Liskula Cohen striking a pose
There is a saying in the legal profession that “bad facts make bad law.” More often, bad descriptions of a case lead to the perception of bad law. The case of the hot cup of McDonald’s coffee is cited to this day as an example of out-of-control personal injury cases because people erroneously believe it was only about a foolish woman putting a cup of hot coffee between her legs. Now, the case of an offended model may turn out to be to defamation what the coffee case was to personal injury.
Here’s the background. Model Liskula Cohen was clowning around at a party where some less than flattering photos were taken. (America’s Next Top Model has taught us that models look very different without their makeup.) Those photos ended up on a blog and the author of the blog published the following:
I would have to say that the first place award for “Skankiest in NYC” would have to go to Liskula Gentile Cohen. How old is this skank? 40 something? She’s a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her age, skank.
Yeah she may have been hot 10 years ago, but is it really attractive to watch this old hag straddle dudes in a nightclub or lounge? Desperation seeps from her soul, if she even has one.
Enjoy the pic.
This case is being reported as the one where “a model is suing because someone called her a skank.” Thus, if she is ultimately awarded damages, this will be the case that is cited as evidence that the civil justice system is out of control because you can sue if someone says you are unattractive.
Look carefully at the comments. Defamation arises when someone falsely accuses someone else of, basically, illegal, immoral or unethical conduct. The comments don’t charge her merely with being a skank, but claim she is psychotic, a liar and a whore. The action would never have survived review if all that had been said is that she is a skank. That term is ill-defined and nebulous enough that arguably one could from the pictures form the opinion that word is an appropriate description. But what is the justification for the remainder of the remarks? What is the factual basis for calling her psychotic, or saying she is a lying whore? The comments go far beyond calling her a skank.
Call her thin-skinned if you want, but the case is about whether Google can be compelled to turn over the name of the blogger who made these unjustified remarks. Reports say Cohen buried her head in her hands and broke down in a Manhattan court this past Wednesday, crying as vulgar insults about her were read aloud from the “Skanks in NYC” web site.
Anne Salisbury, a lawyer for the blogger, is seeking to characterize the statements about Cohen as nothing more than “youthful, jocular, slangy” comments which are common on the Internet. And therein lies the rub; the fact that so much trash exists on the Internet is not justification for more trash. We need to defend the right of people to post anonymously on the Internet, but if we are going to fight for their rights, they should be prepared to accept responsibility when the comments step over the line into defamation.
The case was argued on March 11, 2009, and the judge is expected to issue a ruling in a few weeks. For a great description of the courtroom scene, go to Obscenities Fly In “Skank” Hearing. (Note that, once again, the title refers only to the “skank” remark.)
[Update] As I predicted, the Judge ruled in favor of Liskula Cohen, holding that “the thrust of the blog is that [Cohen] is a sexually promiscuous woman”, entitling her to the information she was seeking and to pursue her legal action.
The creator of the site and the comments turned out to be a Rosemary Port, who claimed through her attorney that Google “breached its fiduciary duty to protect her expectations of anonymity.” Port claimed she was going to sue Google for millions of dollars, but apparently someone explained that such a suit would never fly, and she never pursued the action.
After revealing Rosemary Port’s identity, Cohen decided to drop her legal action, stating, “This is about forgiveness. It adds nothing to my life to hurt hers. I wish her happiness.” Sounds pretty classy and un-skank like to me.
Blogger Can’t Sue for Defamation on His Own Site
Lord of the Rings
In a fun bit of irony, a blogger has been hoisted on his own petard. This was a UK case, but the common law principles would likely yield the same result here.
First a little defamation law. Defamation is based on one’s loss of reputation, so you can never defame someone to them self In other words, if you send a letter to Joe telling him what a liar he is, Joe can’t claim defamation because it is not possible that your letter caused him to lose reputation. (If it makes him realize what a liar he is, that’s just too bad.)
Further, if Joe then shows the letter to someone, you still can’t be held liable because it was Joe that published the statement to a third party.
In the UK case, the plaintiff had created a blog to tell about how he was molested by a Catholic priest. To make the story more interesting, the priest also happened to be son of writer JRR Tolkien, author of Lord of the Rings. The defendant posted a comment on the plaintiff’s blog, claiming plaintiff had created the story in order to extort money from the Catholic Church. Plaintiff brought legal action for defamation.
“No can do,” said the court. Since the blogger had the ability to screen comments (whether he had chosen to do so or not), he was responsible for publishing the content. Under common law defamation, the situation was no different than Joe showing the defamatory letter to a third party.
Dude, who’s my plaintiff? — Courts allow anonymous plaintiffs
On August 12, 2008, the Second District U.S. Court of Appeals reaffirmed the national and local trend toward recognizing a litigant’s right to proceed anonymously through the courts. In order to sue under a pseudonym, plaintiff’s generally must show that the need for confidentiality outweighs the public’s right to know and any prejudice suffered by defendant due to the secretive pleading. While not necessarily a light burden for plaintiffs, the real strain of the increasingly minted right is on defendants.
Depending on the context of the suit, major public backlashes could be directed at defendants helpless to stop the tide. For instance, defendants sued civilly (publicly) for sexual abuse stand to lose much in the way of reputation, and eventually income, no doubt due in large part to the public’s natural inclination to distance themselves from what might be a perpetrator. While public scrutiny of the would be victim once would serve as a blow-off valve to some extent, now defendants are not only left to deal with an unrelenting public reaction, but will dually reap heightened scrutiny for the same allegations as plaintiffs who have convinced the court of the need for confidentiality will have generally shown that they would face unwarranted injury should their identities be disclosed. In other words, defendants will have no way to call public attention to a plaintiff’s credibility, and the public will be informed, or may very well assume, that defendants or their associates had posed a threat to the plaintiff prior to or during the litigation.
Defendants’ aggressive depiction of all factors assessed by courts of their jurisdiction in deciding whether or not to permit plaintiffs to act incognito is the only recourse afforded to diminish the risk of anonymous lawsuits. Particularly, considering the public has a well established right to know who is using the court system, focusing on the lack of need to preserve a plaintiff’s identity and the severe damage that could be inflicted on a defendant’s personal and/or professional reputations as a result of the anonymous lawsuit would be key. Also, seeking an anonymous designation as a defendant may also assist in preventing unfair prejudice. Ultimately, regardless of a defendant’s choice of tactics the courts have once again increased the need to vigorously litigate cases at the earliest of stages, which requires a heightened state of readiness, and can make litigation all the more daunting.
1. Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendants, Docket No. 06-1590-cv (Dist. 2d, 2008).
2. Id. at 7-8.
Lawyers Still Ignorant of Communications Decency Act
There are still many attorneys making money representing clients on Internet defamation cases that can’t be won. They are either ignorant of the law, or ignoring it. My firm has been schooling others on the Communications Decency Act for years. See, for example, Winning the Fight for Freedom of Expression on the Internet and A Victory Against Spam. But there are still a number of firms that still need an education. A case just came down in New York, where someone tried to sue a web host for the comments posted on his website.
Let’s all say it together. If a website is created that allows visitors to post their comments, under the Communications Decency Act the host of that website cannot be held liable for any defamatory remarks that others post. The law is very black and white in this area. The myth still continues that if the defamed party makes the website operator aware of the defamatory material, he somehow becomes liable for failing to take it down. That is simply not true.
There is a lot of abuse on the Internet, and ideally a web host should respond to requests to remove defamatory posts, but if that were made the law then the ability to host a community forum would disappear in almost all instances.
Consider a helpful, innocent person who decides to start a restaurant forum, discussing the local businesses. Someone goes on and leaves a post that a local sushi restaurant is using old fish. The sushi restaurant contacts the host, and insists that the post be taken down, claiming they use nothing but fresh fish. How would our hypothetical web host go about investigating such a claim? Is he required to go to the restaurant and inspect the receipts to determine the freshness of the fish? Must he insist that the poster provide proof of the old fish?
Most likely, if faced with civil liability, the host would simply take down the post. And when reviewing all the protests became too time consuming, the forum would disappear. The day Congress passes a law requiring website operators to verify all the claims made by visitors to their sites is the day that most free speech ends on the Internet. Many would prefer that, but in my opinion the open approach is the better approach.
What are the Elements of Defamation?
We can answer all your questions about defamation, but sometimes if you have a general understanding of the law, you can ask better questions about the facts of your case. Some attorneys think a defamation action is like a personal injury case, but the proof necessary for a defamation action is very different. As a nation, we put such a value on free speech that the burden is high to prove defamation.
Defamation is the inclusive term, including both slander and libel. In other words libel and slander are both defamation, but libel is printed and slander is spoken. Defamation occurs when someone makes a false, unprivileged statement about someone to a third party, which attacks the person’s professional character or standing, claims that an unmarried person is unchaste, claims the person has a sexually transmitted disease, or that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude. Stated another way, to constitute defamation the statement must falsely accuse the plaintiff of immoral, illegal or unethical conduct. Generally, the statement must harm the reputation of the person, but in the case of per se defamation, damages will be presumed. This last point is very important, because if a plaintiff had to prove actual damage, the burden of proof in most cases would be nearly impossible.
Let’s examine each element more closely:
1. False Statement of Fact
Truth is an absolute defense to a claim for defamation. No one can prevent you from telling the truth, even if that truth harms someone else. Further, the statement of an opinion generally will not constitute defamation, since it is not offered as a statement of fact. For example, it a food critic states that a restaurant serves horrible food, that is not defamation since taste will always be an opinion. Even if the restaurant brought 100 witnesses to court to attest that the food is wonderful, the critic is still entitled to his opinion.
On the other hand, some believe that they can escape liability by casting a fact as an opinion. A number of clients have come to us for a second opinion after another attorney has told them a statement is not defamatory because it was stated as an opinion. Adding the word “opinion” to a defamatory statement does not automatically shield the speaker from liability. The determining factor is whether the “opinion” is about a verifiable fact. For example, as stated above, a food critic is protected when he offers his opinion about the food, but if he says, “in my opinion the food was horrible and the restaurant has rats,” the statement about rats is defamation (assuming it is false) because it is a verifiable fact. Similarly, “In my opinion, he cheats on his taxes” is a defamatory statement since it is the assertion of a fact, even though it is called an opinion.
2. Unprivileged
There are many statutes that afford a “privilege” to someone to speak, and in those cases the person is shielded from defamation. (See Civil Code section 47.)
For example, say you are looking out your window one day, and you see someone break a window in the house across the street, and climb into the house through that broken window. Thinking a burglary is occurring, you call the police who soon arrive and drag the suspect out of the house at gun point, only to discover that the person owns the house, and had been forced to break in when he locked himself out. You’ve just made a false statement to a third party, claiming that your neighbor was breaking the law. Can you be sued for defamation?
No, because there is a statutory privilege afforded to anyone making a good-faith report to the police. There is also a very strong litigation privilege, protecting witnesses from anything they say in court or in commencement or furtherance of the action. We often get calls from people wanting to sue a witness because “he lied on the stand” or submitted a false declaration. But the court system would come to a grinding halt if witnesses could be sued for what they say, so the law shields them with a privilege (although a witness who testifies falsely can be criminally prosecuted for perjury). Many clients have trouble with this concept, especially in the context of a custody suit, because the court will appoint an evaluator and of course the parent disagrees with everything contained in the report. They want to sue the evaluator for the “lies” contained in the report. Such actions are barred in almost every case because of the litigation privilege. The solution is not to sue, but rather to introduce your own evidence to show that the evaluator is wrong.
One privilege that really surprises people is the right your former employer has to tell prospective employers what a bad employee you were. An urban legend has appeared, stating that an employer is only allowed to confirm the employment of a former employee, without offering any opinion about job performance. Quite to the contrary, California Civil Code section 47 provides that an employer may offer such an opinion and is immune from suit unless it can be shown that false information was given out of malice.
3. Statement made to a third party
No statement, no matter how false and vile, can constitute defamation if it is made only to the person that is the basis of the statement. Defamation arises from a loss of reputation. How can you lose reputation if the statement is made only to you. And if you repeat the slander or show someone the libelous statement, the speaker or publisher remains free from liability, because you are the one that “published” the statement.
4. Immoral, illegal or unethical conduct
A statement is not defamatory just because it is false, even if it arguably casts the person in a bad light. Your application to join the local bowling league is rejected, and you later find out that one of the people on the board stated you were a really bad bowler. In fact, you are an outstanding bowler. Nonetheless, it is not defamation since being a bad bowler is neither immoral, unethical or illegal.
5. Harm to reputation
Finally, even if all the elements for defamation are met, the facts can sometimes present a difficult case to prove. For example, assume that while at a party, a stranger approaches your spouse and falsely tells him or her that you are having an affair. If your spouse laughs it off, then how has there been a loss of reputation? The statement is defamatory, because it falsely accuses you of immoral conduct, but how were you damaged? If, on the other hand, your spouse storms from the party, drives home and puts all your belongings in the front yard, then what was your reputation to begin with? If your spouse was willing to believe such a statement from a stranger with no further investigation or collaboration, then he or she did not hold you in very high regard in the first place. You apparently did not lose any reputation, because it was not there to start. This is just one example of the nuances that arise in a defamation action.
What can I do?
Most attorneys think in terms of suing, and will want to run to court. At Morris & Stone, we carefully examine your goals to determine the best plan for your specific situation. We are ready and able to go to court if that is the best approach, but sometimes other approaches better fit your goal. For example, in one case our client was defamed by a newspaper. He walked around with a cloud over his head, knowing that many people had read and believed the horrible, false accusations printed about him in the paper. Even if the paper printed a retraction, it would be a little paragraph buried on page 12 that no one would read. Similarly, money damages would do nothing to restore his good reputation.
The solution? We prepared and served a complaint to apply pressure, and then negotiated a settlement that was beyond anything our client could have hoped for. In addition to paying our client damages, the paper agreed to provide four pages for our client’s use. He was free to use one page at a time over several weeks, or use all four pages at once, to publish a retraction of the things that were said about him. In other words, he was given a blank canvas to use however he wanted to clear his good name.
That was the perfect remedy for that client, and we will work to find the prefect solution for you.
Your reputation is priceless
Whether you respond with just a letter or go to a full blown lawsuit, you should never allow a defamatory statement to go unchallenged. Silence is perceived as acceptance. If you did nothing about what was being said about you, it must be true. The goal in a defamation action can be to recover damages, but often that is not the primary goal. The priceless value of a defamation action is to gain back your reputation. When someone says to you, “but didn’t I hear or read somewhere that you [fill in the blank]?”, you can answer, “yes, someone was spreading that lie, but I sued him and he was found liable for defamation and had to pay me damages.”
Subpoenas not subject to anti-SLAPP in Internet Defamation Case
Plaintiff obtained a pre-filing discovery order in Ohio to aid in his effort to learn the identities of the anonymous individuals who had posted statements about him on the Internet that he believed were defamatory. Defendants, who we will refer to as the Does, are the anonymous individuals who posted those statements. When Google, the subject of Tendler’s discovery order, refused to comply with Ohio subpoenas, Tendler filed a request for subpoenas in Santa Clara County Superior Court premised on the Ohio discovery order. The Does filed a motion to quash and a Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion). The threat of having to pay defendants’ attorney fees was sufficient for him to withdraw his request for subpoenas. Nonetheless, the Does proceeded on their section 425.16 motion to strike.
The trial court granted the Does’ anti-SLAPP motion to strike, and awarded them their attorney fees. The trial court concluded that a request for subpoenas was sufficient to trigger the anti-SLAPP procedure. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and concluded that a request for subpoenas does not fall within section 425.16, and therefore the trial court erred in granting the motion and in awarding attorney’s fees.
This was another example of a trial court misusing the anti-SLAPP procedure to try to clear its trial docket. In a standard action, where defendant tries to strike the complaint by way of an anti-SLAPP motion, the trial court must afford reasonable discovery so that plaintiff can try to find sufficient evidence to create a prima facie case. If a plaintiff could be subjected to an anti-SLAPP motion from the mere request for discovery, that would greatly reduce his ability to defend his reputation.
Tendler v. jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 802
