Internet libel laws

Factual Questions
1

After reading some comments in thread from another messageboard, I got to thinking about whether or not libelous internet statements could be punishible by law.

To make a long story short, the guy was calling one of his high school teachers gay, making fun of her, calling her a bitch, and saying she is a terrible teacher, etc. Having studied journalism in college, I’m aware of the libel/slander laws as they pertain to print, but I’m less informed about the laws regarding the internet. Had something like that been printed in a school paper, I think it might be cause for a libel case.

The teacher thread is certainly not the first time I’ve seen something questionable, and I’ve had things said about me over the last two years that I think could be construed as libel, so that’s why I’m interested in the topic.

Here’s my research thus far:

From–http://www.efl-law.com/int_lib.html

Quote:
The Law
Defamation Generally
The reason for having defamation laws as a civil remedy in tort is because ‘A person has the right to his good name’. Defenses are nevertheless available for balancing the interest of freedom of speech, such as the defense of fair comment and justification.

What is defamatory?
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. Alternatively speaking, the matter tends to make the plaintiff shunned or avoided by right-thinking members of society. The meaning of the defamatory nature of the statement can be literal or by inference

Libel and Slander distinguished
A distinction has to be drawn between libel and slander. Libel: are publications in permanent form while slander are publications by spoken word or other transient means. Unlike slander, damage is presumed in libel actionable without proof of special damage.

Meaning of 'Permanent form"
Permanent form can be something in writing or in other permanent form. Examples are electronic communications via e-mail, newsgroups, message board, homepages are matters of permanent form. Broadcast by radio, TV, Internet, public performance, film soundtrack, CD, tape-recording also meet the requirement of ‘permanent form’.
Requirement of Publication
The statement must be published by communicating to at least one person other than the person defamed.

Examples on the Internet are:
Usenet posting / e-mail to a third party, such as by cc. copy / message board / chat room /world wide web /

Defenses
Fair comment / justification / absolute privilege / qualified privilege / apology and payment into court / unintentional defamation / innocent dissemination /
Sounds to me like it was libel, not that someone is likely to sue over such a matter, but they could.

I am really interested in what it would take to have a real libel case against someone who posted lies about someone on the internet. Anyone know the parameters for a case like this? Opinions are welcome too.

Thanks.

2

I’s hate to be the judge calling that one. Talk about a chilling effect! If a judge ruled that anything said in a chat room or on a bulletin board was permanent and libelous, we’d have to shut down the Pit in a hurry! :eek:

If I were the judge, I’d rule bulletin boards and the like “transient,” just to get away from the “proof of special damage” stuff. This might be an interesting question to raise over in GD. My law experience is strictly with business law, and as an undergrad at that, so I have no professional idea at all. Good catch…let GD have a crack at it.

3

MOD can move if this would be better off in a different forum. Thanks!

4

I think it makes a difference whether you state an opinion about a person or claim something about them as a fact.

Lawyers: Aren’t opinions pretty much protected speech?

5

There have been many libel suits for statements made on the Internet. I did a paper for a law school class last year tangentially related to this. The paper was actually on personal jurisdiction for such suits, so none of the cites I have handy are exactly on point, but they’re close enough to show that you do indeed need to be careful what you say on the Net:

Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F.Supp. 44 (D. D.C. 1998) (The infamous Matt Drudge article falsely accusing White House aide Sydney Blumenthal of spousal abuse).

Bochan v. La Fontaine, 68 F.Supp.2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999) (D accused P of pedophilia, homosexuality, and other sexual deviancies in a typical Usenet flame war).

Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir 2002) (suit by former FBI assistant director, accused by Internet kook of foreknowledge of Pan Am flight 103 bombing).

6

Libel work exactly the same in the Internet as they do in physical print. Like anything else, it’s a question of whether any damages were actually caused, etc., just like in print.

Some idiot trash talking generally doesn’t count because it usually has no discernable effect on the target. And if the effect is real but small, probably not worth the court case trouble.

Exactly the same as print.

7

There’s been at least one case in the UK of an (ex-)teacher suing one of their former pupils for libel over remarks the latter posted on the Friends Reunited website.