Slashdot Mirror
CA Court: Message Boards Are Opinions, Not Facts
Masem writes: "According to this Newsbytes story, a CA appeals court has issued a ruling that says that typical messages posted to internet message boards can not be considered as libel or slander, as they inheritently are framed as opinions and not as statements of fact. The case stems from rather negative comments posted by defendants about a computer reseller company on the internet; the company sued for libelous comments; lower courts did initially rule for the company, but the appeals court has overturned this. While not every message posted in a public forum is safe, the court's decision seems to convey that unless the message is framed as a form of fact, then any message posted to a public internet forum should be considered as opinion, and thus cannot be considered as a libelous comment."
it would have been nice if they extended this ruling to include personal web pages, which have been under attack constantly by lawsuits claiming libel and slander, etc.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Actually an interesting aspect of this ruling is what if somebody posts confidential intellectual property or illegal material to a message board...DeCSS for example?
Check out this article. A VW dealership is suing for a post on a message board. Both the poster and the message board have been named in the trial.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
There was a case back a year or so ago (I don't have the linke, but it was popular enough to be on some TV news magazines) about a teenager that had to pay 6-figure fines to the SEC for pumping up stocks on message boards then dumping them when the price went up. I wonder if this case will allow him to get is money back?
probably not. the stock-price-inflater's action qualifies as willful manipulation of financial markets, which, of course, is illegal. :) even if he'd lost money it would have been illegal.
on the other hand, if he'd been making derogatory comments specifically for the purpose of manipulating the markets, and the appeals court said it was okay, then he might get his money back.
is this the 9th appeals court? they seem to have a history of being reversed...
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
And for a great example of a case of this going on right now, head on over to Fucked Company where some dot.bomb is trying to get FC to reveal the names of some anonymous posters who said bad things about the company and the CEO's wife.
The most interesting implications for this will be in the area of "libel per se."
Despite popular belief, truth is not a complete defense against libel. If the comment is sexual in nature (e.g. "This prostitute is not a virgin," "This hairy-palmed fifteen year old masturbates feverishly") then it can be brought to court as libel without the plaintiff having to prove or disprove anything.
The reason that I am more familiar than I would like to be with this is because I wrote a satirical "news" story on my LiveJournal once about a fictional kid who masturbated too much, and I assigned the kid a pseudonym that happened to be the real AIM screen name of a person I knew in real life. Stupid, I know. Even though only seven words were devoted to linking the pseudonym to the fictional character, the kid eventually found it and his mother threatened to sue. The story has since been erased.
If a similar thing happened on a message board after this ruling, I wonder if the poster could still be brought up on libel charges?
- Adam
Um. First, it's pretty easy to sue someone. Anyone watch West Wing last night? It was an old rerun where they talk about lots of lawsuits against the President, from crackpots who want the government to stop letting aliens broadcast through their fillings, to someone blaming the President for the fact their spouse didn't wear a seatbelt and died in a car accident. Lunatic lawsuits are not uncommon. They might lose, or you might give in because hiring a lawyer to defend you is expensive. But in this case, Adam wasn't actually sued.
Second, Adam wrote about a "fictional kid" who masturbates to much and had the personally identifiable information as a real person, who presumably doesn't do what he described the "fictional kid" doing. In other words, truth wouldn't be a defense, because Adam wasn't telling the truth.
Now let's pretend for a moment that the "fictional kid" with a real kid's AIM name really is a compulsive masturbator. Then his story wouldn't be libel, but he still might get sued.
Invasion of privacy, and in particular "public disclosure of private facts" is against the law in most states in the US. The law varies from state to state, but the tort "invasion of privacy" in most places is something like:
I think in most cases, the publication of a claim that a person is a compulsive masturbator would meet the "highly offensive to a reasonable person" standard.
Truth is a complete defense against libel. But that has nothing to do, as far as I can tell, with Adam's situation. I could be wrong - state law on this varies. But that's how I see it.
Liza
These opinions are my own. My employer is not aware of them, does not endorse them, and is not responsible for them.