Slashdot Mirror
Jury Awards $11 Million for Internet Defamation
dptalia writes "A woman in Florida has been awarded $11.3 million dollars in a defamation case. Apparently the defendant was unhappy with the plaintiff's referral service and posted complaints all over the internet. In a chilling slap at free speech, the jury decided that not only was this illegal, but that it was worth over $11 million. The defendant can't pay the judgement — she can't even pay for an attorney. The plaintiff says she doesn't care, but sued for the principle of the thing."
What's always been confusing to me is what needs to be true in publishing. Books have always seemed to be protected from people 'publishing whatever they want.' But the more I think about it, the more I realize that politicians usually have to put up with books containing allegations that aren't entirely provable. So, for the most part, I think that books are safe from large postings of defamation.
The same can be said about magazines & newspapers (usually) though--with the National Enquirer and tabloids--it certainly does have examples of blatant slander.
But anyone can say anything on the internet and get away with it--or so I thought. Considering what I read online, I'm certainly surprised there aren't more cases like this.
It seems the more volatile the medium is, the more 'free' you are to do whatever you want.
I haven't read the actual comments online that this woman posted but I would suggest that the defendant appeal to a higher court on the grounds of free speech and try to get her story out through the media. I mean, it looks like she's boned either way so she might as well appeal and represent herself if she has to. I'm pretty certain that this could be dismissed in a higher court. After all, it sounds like she was dissatisfied with the person's service so she is more than qualified to comment on the woman's business--unless she was telling explicit lies.
My work here is dung.
Sounds like i will have to be a little more carefull with my feedback on Amazon and Ebay.
Claiming that you did business with someone and that they ripped you off is not "expressing your opinion", it is deliberately trying to hurt someone's livelihood. Civil court is the proper place to defend oneself against that sort of attack. In the US, if you're telling the truth, you can certainly say it, but you may have to defend yourself in court.
Although the reward is certainly far in excess of any real damage that could have been done, the principle is sound. If you mouth off about someone, you had better make sure you can prove you're telling the truth and be prepared to do so in a court of law.
It could be worse. In many other countries (including my own) you can be successfully sued for defaming someone even if you can prove that what you said is the truth. Now that stifles free speech.
Anybody still beleive that Americans don't need anonymous internet options like Freenet? (Assuming, that is, that they EVER get the thing to work).
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
No, the news is that even casual speech on web forums is now considered to be the same as a newspaper article, or television advertisment.
While libel laws have always been around, the bar on what sort of speech is considered libel has been dramaticly lowered. Before, libel would have to be some outright slanderous speech made is a very public manner, and there was an extremly high bar for the person making the claim of libel... now, all you have to do is say something that pisses off a person with a lawyer, and you are commiting libel.
You are using the word "libel" to describe two completly different forms of behavior. It is like if I say "Terrorism has always recieved the death penalty, and that is why we need the death penalty for people who commit terroristic acts of jaywalking and spitting on the sidewalk". While it is true that libel has always been against the law, this is so stretching the definition of libel that I fail to see how anyone couldn't sue anyone else for saying something they don't like.