Posts Tagged ‘Defamation’

Michael Mann Brief Lays Out Climate Change Defamation Theory – Climate Science Watch

climate change defamation

 

In a brief filed today in the DC Court of Appeals as part of his defamation lawsuit against the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michael Mann once again argued his case and requested that the Court proceed to adjudicate the merits of Defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. The stated intention of Dr. Mann’s request is to expedite moving to trial on a case that has been long-delayed in procedural tangles.

Source: www.climatesciencewatch.org

This climate change defamation case has been an interesting one to follow. It was falsely assumed by many that the suit would not survive an anti-SLAPP motion because it is based on a dispute over global warming, and that is a hotly-debated issue. However, the anti-SLAPP motion failed because the defamation arises from the claim that the research was conducted fraudulently. That is an allegation that can be proven true or false, and therefore is not opinion.

See on Scoop.itCalifornia SLAPP Law

Share

Chink in Armor of Communications Decency Act?

Sarah Jones

Former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones won her defamation lawsuit against the gossip website TheDirty.com on Thursday in federal court, winning an award of $338,000. Whether she will ever collect any money is a different issue, but some see the decision as groundbreaking since the Plaintiff got around the Communications Decency Act.

Jones, 28, sued in 2009 after TheDirty.com published comments alleging she had slept with all of the Bengals, and had sexually transmitted diseases. The first trial ended in a deadlock, when the jurors were unable to unanimously agree whether the posts about Jones having sex with all the Bengals players and likely having sexually transmitted diseases were substantially false.

The case caught the attention of defamation attorneys after U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman ruled the website was not shielded from liability by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. Many thought the ruling was a departure from all other rulings protecting website operators who use third-party content, and no doubt you will see this case reported as the first chink in the CDA’s armor, but I’ll explain why it is nothing new.

Whomever posts a defamatory comment on a website is always liable for the posting. The CDA protects a website operator from liability for third-party postings, but the website operator is still liable for his own postings, and that was the case here. The “shtick” of TheDirty is for visitors to post horrible comments about people, and the host, Nik Richie, then throws in his two cents worth. It was Richie who commented that Jones had slept with every player on the team, so of course he can be held liable for his own comments.

As evidenced by the first mistrial, on a different day with a different jury, the result could have been very different, and this could very well be reversed on appeal. As I have stated here many times, context is everything. A statement is only defamatory if it is offered as a true fact as opposed to being a joke or satire. When Richie makes the claim that Jones has slept with every player on the team, how would he be in a position to know that, and can it really be taken as a true statement that she slept with EVERY player on the team?

Complicating the matter is Jones’ history. I wrote here about the cannibal who sued because he was called a thief. It’s hard to argue that you have lost reputation for being falsely accused of being a thief when you are an admitted cannibal. Here, plaintiff is same Sarah Jones who gained national attention as a teacher for her dalliances with an under-aged student, for which she was sentenced to two years in prison (suspended).

Share

Reporting a Fact is Never Defamatory

Facts are not defamatoryIt is never defamation to report a fact, even if that fact is that a person was charged with a crime they did not commit. I understand why callers sometimes don’t understand this distinction. The completely innocent caller was falsely arrested, so it seems like a newspaper that reports the arrest is somehow making a false statement that the caller committed a crime. But look closer, caller. The paper did not report that you committed the crime, the paper reported that you were ARRESTED for the crime. Truth is an absolute defense to any defamation claim, and it is true that you were arrested.

I also see this come up often in the context of an expunged criminal conviction. The caller was arrested and convicted for some youthful indiscretion, and later had the conviction expunged. Years later, the caller was either fired from or denied a job because a background investigation revealed the conviction. “But I had that expunged, so they shouldn’t be able to report it to my employer!”, the caller exclaims. The caller wants to sue for defamation, because in his mind the offense was expunged, and therefore it never happened. Since it never happened, it must be defamatory to claim that it did, right?

Not so much. Expungement does not change reality. The caller was arrested and convicted, so it is not a false statement to report that fact, and therefore there is no basis for a defamation claim. Note, however, that I am only talking about defamation claims. There are Labor Codes that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of expunged criminal convictions. Go here for a discussion of those Labor Code sections.

What I don’t understand is how so many attorneys miss this point and pursue doomed defamation claims for their clients.

A recent example of this that caught my eye is a case out of Nevada. As reported by the Las Vegas Sun, the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche was hired to perform an audit of a company called Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc., which is a publicly traded company that provided cash access services to the Nevada gaming industry.

The accounting firm uncovered information from an FBI bulletin which claimed that the two men who founded the company – Robert Cucinotta and Karim Maskatiya – were involved in criminal activity. As they were required to do by law, Deloitte & Touche disclosed this information to the audit committee. Cucinotta and Maskatiya were not happy with this disclosure, and felt it amounted to defamation because they were never convicted of any crimes and there was no evidence that they did anything criminal. They sued Deloitte & Touche, claiming that the disclosure cost the company $400 million in market capitalization and cost them $100 million personally.

But can you see why the comments by Deloitte & Touche were not actionable defamation? The accounting firm simply reported information that was contained in the FBI bulletin, as it was required by law to do. Certainly if those allegations against two principals of the company proved to be true it would greatly impact the value of the company, so that information was quite properly reported.

The Nevada Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Michael Cherry, said, “We agree with our sister jurisdictions that those who are required by law to publish defamatory statements should be privileged in making such statements.” In this case the court said Deloitte’s communication to the audit committee of the cash access company was required by the federal securities law.

Share

The Litigation Privilege and Collateral Defamation Actions

Spawning Litigation Actions
I get the same question a couple of times a week, so I decided that a article on the litigation privilege is in order, so I will have a place to send potential clients for a detailed discussion.

The question from potential clients almost always comes up in the context of wanting to start a collateral action* for defamation in response to something that is being said in some other court action. Here are the most common examples:

— A husband is going through a divorce, and his wife or a witness or the wife’s attorney filed a declaration with the court stating that he was physically abusive to the children. He wants to file an action against his wife (or the witness or the attorney) for defamation for the false claims made in the declaration.

— Someone is seeking or has obtained a restraining order against the caller, and in support of the request for a restraining order the person filed false declarations and gave false testimony in court. The caller has absolute proof, including emails and recordings, showing that the statements were false. The caller wants to sue for defamation because of all the false statements, which are now a matter of public record.

— An attorney sent a letter to an employee’s employer, claiming that the employee stole property and trade secrets from his former employer, and threatening to sue if the property is not returned or if the employer makes use of any of the trade secrets. Based on the letter, the company fires the employee rather than to run the risk of a lawsuit. The employee did not take any property from the former employer and is not using any trade secrets, and wants to sue the former employer and its attorney for defamation.

— An employee is suing for wrongful termination, and the deposition of one of his former co-workers is taken. At that deposition, the co-worker falsely claims that she was sexually harassed by the employee suing for wrongful termination. As a result of this claim, the court grants a motion for summary judgment and throws out the action, and the employee’s marriage is severely strained because of the claim of infidelity. The employee wants to sue the co-worker for defamation for what she said at her deposition.

— A person is sued for fraud, and in the complaint there are dozens of false allegations, stating that the defendant engaged in illegal conduct and made misrepresentations to the plaintiff in order to cheat her out of money. After the complaint is served, the plaintiff dismisses the action, but the complaint is now a matter of public record, and anyone doing a search on the Internet can find this complaint with all its lies. The defendant wants to sue for defamation.

Statements Made in Conjunction with Litigation are Privileged

None of the above circumstances would permit an action for defamation. A quick definition is necessary to explain why. Defamation requires an UNPRIVILEGED false statement. Therefore, if a statement is privileged, it cannot be defamatory.

The statements that are privileged are set forth in Civil Code section 47, which states in part:

47. A privileged publication or broadcast is one made . . . (b) In any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law . . . .

Thus, any statement made in conjunction with a “judicial proceeding” is privileged, and cannot form the basis of a defamation action. It’s that simple.

When I explain this to potential clients, I typically get a response that goes something like this:

“So you’re telling me, they can falsely accuse me of rape, and there’s NOTHING I can do about it?!”

“Well, your question was whether you could sue them for defamation, and no, you cannot sue them for defamation.”

“But I can prove that they knew what they said was false.”

“It’s not a question of being able to prove it’s false, you can’t sue them for defamation if the statement is made in conjunction with litigation.”

“So you’re telling me, they could falsely claim I murdered 50 people, and there’s NOTHING I can do about it?!”

And so it goes, with the caller coming up with greater and greater examples of outrageously false statements, apparently thinking that I will ultimately see the foolishness of what I am claiming, and respond, “Oh, well, if he falsely accuses you of killing 20,000 people, then THAT would be enough to sue for defamation.”

It doesn’t work that way. The litigation privilege is absolute, and once you understand the public policy behind this rule, you will probably agree that it is essential. I will also show you why it really doesn’t make any difference in the grand scheme of things.

A World Without the Litigation Privilege

Imagine a legal system without the litigation privilege. Let’s put you into a garden variety personal injury action as an example. You went to a bar and had a couple of beers, but you were there for many hours, so you were stone cold sober on your drive home. When you stopped for a red light, someone rear-ended you, and you are now suffering serious back problems as a result. You are suing the person who rear-ended you for your medical expenses and pain and suffering.

During discovery before the trial, the attorney representing the defendant who rear-ended you contacts your family members and employer, and asks them about your “drinking problem.” Following the conversation with the attorney, your boss calls you in and says you will no longer be permitted to use the company car, because he has concerns about your drinking.

The bartender is deposed and testifies that he saw you drinking before the accident, and recalls that you had ten beers, when in fact you only had two.

At trial, the defendant testifies that you stopped abruptly in the middle of the road for no reason, and that is what caused the accident. He claims that when you got out of the car, you apologized for the accident, stating that you were too drunk to be driving. Both statements are false.

As a result of the testimony of the bartender and the defendant, the jury finds in favor of the defendant. In the hallway following the verdict, the jurors all tell you that you should seek help for your drinking problem. You have to pay thousands in court costs to the defendant.

In this world without a litigation privilege, what do you do? Well, you can’t let stand all those false claims, so you file two more actions, suing the bartender and the defendant for defamation. For good measure, you file a third action against the attorney for talking to people about your alleged drinking problem.

Thus, your one action has now spawned three more. Now, when you testify in those three actions that the bartender, defendant and attorney were all lying, how should they respond? They can’t allow those accusations to go unchallenged, so they each file lawsuits back against you for calling them liars. Our original personal injury action has now spawned six new actions. In fact, since you claimed that the person who rear-ended you was negligent, and he proved that he wasn’t, he probably already sued you for lying about him in the first action.

And there is a collateral effect. The bartender testified to what he thought was the truth. He remembered you as having ten beers, but he had confused you with someone else and was just wrong. For coming to court and telling what he thought was the truth, he bought himself a lawsuit. He now must pay an attorney thousands of dollars to defend him against your defamation action. Would anyone ever agree to testify in court if they could be sued for what they say? They could be compelled to attend with a subpoena, but you can bet they are going to testify that they don’t remember anything in order to avoid being sued.

Thus the reason for the ABSOLUTE litigation privilege. If you allow anyone to be sued for what they say in conjunction with a lawsuit, the system would fall apart. Every action would spawn many more, and the courts would be unable to keep up. No one would be willing to testify, so cases would often be impossible to prove.

The frustration of the callers is understandable, especially when they have proof that the statements were false. They understand generally the reasons for the litigation privilege, but feel that there must be an exception when there is irrefutable proof that the other side knowingly make false statements. But consider that for a moment. If there was an “I have absolute proof that the witness knew he was lying” exception, how would that work? That exception would defeat the rule, because then anyone could file an action claiming to be in possession of such proof. The action would still have to be litigated in order to look at the proof.

The only “exception” is that the statements have to made in furtherance of litigation. Anything said in court or in a court document is obviously privileged, but so too are the statements by the attorney when he contacted potential witnesses.

Collateral Actions Accomplish Nothing.

Before you rail against this necessary public policy, claiming that there should be a consequence for lying, understand also that it really doesn’t make much difference. Here is why.

A caller will tell me that during divorce proceedings, his wife lied about him abusing the children, and as a result he got limited visitation. He wants to sue for defamation for all the lies about the abuse.

But wait a minute. “Didn’t you explain during the divorce proceedings that you did not abuse the children?”, I ask.

“Yes, and all my family members testified that I was a wonderful father who never hit my children, the children testified that I never hit them, and we had an expert witness, a social worker who testified that there was no indication that I ever abused the children.” But my wife testified that I did beat the children, some of her friends testified that long before the divorce she had told them about me beating the children, and her expert witness testified that the behavior of the children was indicative of abuse by the father. For whatever reason, the judge believed her witnesses and not my witnesses.”

“OK, so with every opportunity to tell your side of the case, the judge did not believe you and you lost. Why would the result be different in a new case?”

“Well I have more witnesses, and she introduced hospital records of one of my children being taken to the hospital for a broken finger, and claimed that I broke that finger, but I can prove that I was away on business on that day.”

“Did something prevent you from introducing those travel records to the judge in the divorce action?”, I ask.

“Well, no, but it was so obvious that I did not abuse the children I didn’t think I needed to.”

So you see why a collateral action, even if permitted, would not accomplish anything. If the party could not prove their position in one court, there is no reason to believe they will have a different result in another. And if there was more evidence that could have been presented, it should have been presented in the first action. The strong public policy supporting the litigation privilege does not need to bend to give you a second bite at the apple – just put on all your evidence in the first action. If despite all your evidence the judge gets it wrong, then you should appeal from that case, not file a new one.

Be honest with yourself, and you will have to admit the real reason you want to bring a collateral action.

If the following does not apply to you, then don’t be offended. In the vast majority of cases, when someone calls wanting to sue for defamation for something said in a court document, their real motive has nothing to do with wanting to clear their name. Conceptually, it makes no sense to bring a separate action to prove the falsity of a statement made in pending litigation, for all the reasons already stated. If you didn’t abuse the children, prove it in the divorce proceeding.

Indeed, the oft-stated reason for bringing the action is because all the lies told in court are now a matter of public record, and the caller wants to clear his name. If so, then his name needs to be “cleared” in the same action, so anyone seeing that public record will see the truth. Winning in a separate action would do nothing to correct the record in that other action.

The real reason the person is calling wanting to file a separate action — one that they will often deny — is they are seeking leverage. They reason that if they can file a separate action and expose the witness or party to civil liability, or just the cost and annoyance of having to deal with the second action, that will pressure the person to alter or withdraw the testimony. That is not a proper purpose for legal action.

Does that mean you are completely without remedy?

Lying on the stand or in a declaration is perjury, which is a criminal offense. If you can prove that the person knew what they were saying was false, then by all means file a police report. The police cannot become a back-door court of appeal, deciding who was lying, so the standard remains the same. If you could not prove your point in the first action, then the lie that you claim was perjury will probably not be black and white enough for the police to pursue it.

Also, the statement is only privileged if it is made in conjunction with the litigation. That is a very broad definition. The statement does not need to be in a court document, but it must advance the litigation. That is why the attorney talking to the family members about your drinking problem was privileged. But if that same attorney calls a press conference and discusses your alleged drinking problem, you could then sue for defamation since that does nothing to advance the litigation.

A few words about limited privileges.

Thus far, I have discussed only the litigation privilege, which is absolute. There are a number of privileges, and some of them are only limited privileges. With a limited privilege, the person can be sued for defamation if it can be shown that the statement in question was made with malice. In those cases, it is not enough to show the statement was false, you must show that the person made the statement with malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

The Common Interest Privilege is the most prevalent privilege with only limited immunity. This privilege is set forth in Civil Code section 47(c), which provides:

A privileged publication or broadcast is one made: . . .

(c) In a communication, without malice, to a person interested therein, (1) by one who is also interested, or (2) by one who stands in such a relation to the person interested as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing the motive for the communication to be innocent, or (3) who is requested by the person interested to give the information. This subdivision applies to and includes a communication concerning the job performance or qualifications of an applicant for employment, based upon credible evidence, made without malice, by a current or former employer of the applicant to, and upon request of, one whom the employer reasonably believes is a prospective employer of the applicant. This subdivision authorizes a current or former employer, or the employer’s agent, to answer whether or not the employer would rehire a current or former employee. This subdivision shall not apply to a communication concerning the speech or activities of an applicant for employment if the speech or activities are constitutionally protected, or otherwise protected by Section 527.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure or any other provision of law.

As you can see, this is a very broad privilege, giving limited immunity to anyone who is speaking to another, so long as they have a good faith belief that the person to whom they are speaking is interested in the subject matter.

Note also that this section destroys the cherished belief held by many that when you look for work and your prospective employer calls for a reference, your former employer can’t say anything bad about you. Also in the employment context, this is the section that prevents you from suing an employee for telling lies about you to management (unless you can show those lies were told with malice).

Here is the actual jury instruction on the limited (also referred to as the “qualified privilege”):

1723. Qualified Privilege (Civ. Code, § 47(c))

Under the circumstances of this case, [name of plaintiff] cannot recover damages from [name of defendant], even if the statement(s) [was/were] false, unless [he/she] also proves that [name of defendant] acted with hatred or ill will toward [him/her].

If [name of defendant] acted without reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the statement(s), this is a factor you may consider in determining whether [he/she] acted with hatred or ill will toward [name of plaintiff].

Note that the jurors are specifically instructed that they cannot award damages even if the statements were false, unless the plaintiff proves that the defendant acted with malice. Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff, and that is a tough burden to meet since it involves getting into the defendant’s head.

I see this often in the sexual harassment context. A woman reports to HR that she is feeling sexually harassed by a coworker, and as a result of that report, the coworker is investigated and possibly even fired. The report by the woman is privileged because HR would certainly want to know if an employee is sexually harassing another. It may be that the coworker did something innocent like offering to get the woman a cup of coffee, but if the woman took that as sexual harassment, the fact that she was 100% wrong does not translate her reporting the incident into a malicious act, and she would be protected by the limited privilege.

Finally, note that the quantum of harm does not determine whether a defamation action exists. If the common interest privilege applies and no malice can be shown, then the fact that the false report of sexual harassment destroyed the coworker’s marriage and caused him to be fired, does not create a defamation action. Again, defamation requires an UNPRIVILEGED statement, so if the statement was privileged, then it can never be morphed into defamation no matter how much damage it caused.

* Collateral Action or Attack — A legal action to challenge a ruling in another case. For example, Joe Parent has been ordered to pay child support in a divorce case, but he then files another lawsuit trying to prove a claim that he is not the father of the child. A “direct attack” would have been to raise the issue of parenthood in the divorce action.

Share

Suing Someone for Suing Will Almost Always be a SLAPP

Anti-SLAPP attorneyI’ve been writing about SLAPP actions and anti-SLAPP motions for so long that I start to believe that surely by now attorneys must be aware of what constitutes a SLAPP. Apparently not.

When a client wants me to get defamatory content removed from the Internet, they normally ask me to send a cease and desist letter. Normally, I refuse. Most attorneys will happily take the client’s money and send a cease and desist letter, but I have seen hundreds of such letters, brought to me by clients asking me to do something about the defamation after another attorney sent an unsuccessful cease and desist letter. Long ago I learned that cease and desist letters are very ineffective. Often, the defamer will even post the letter as a badge of honor, to show that he succeeded in getting the victim’s goat, to the point that he retained counsel.

I think the reason cease and desist letters are so ineffectual is because they are perceived as toothless threats. In most instances, the defamer will ignore the letter and sit back and wait to see if the victim is really willing to pursue the matter in court. But if you send that cease and desist letter along with the complaint, giving the defamer five days to comply, they become very effective. Now he knows that the victim has already taken the time and expense to have the attorney draft the complaint, and is ready to pull the trigger.

So I followed this draft complaint approach for a client who had terrible things published about him on multiple blogs, and I could not believe how the defamer’s attorney responded. When the defamer did not comply within the five day deadline, we filed and served the complaint, and the defamer’s attorney responded with an answer and cross-complaint. The attorney brought an action for the emotional distress his client was suffering as a result of my demand letter, the draft complaint and the subsequent legal action.

This was the quintessential SLAPP, but there was a problem. The cross-complaint was so poorly drafted, I worried that if I filed the anti-SLAPP motion it might fail just because we could not determine exactly what the defamer was suing for. I needed the defamer’s attorney to better state his SLAPP, so I demurred to the cross-complaint pointing to the lack of specificity in the allegations.

The defamer’s attorney fell into the trap. Not only did he amend the cross-complaint to make very clear that cross-complainant was suing for the emotional distress he suffered from the demand letter and draft complaint, he added a new cause of action for abuse of process. Follow this logic. He contended that since my demand letter and draft complaint were sent to the defamer with the intent to make him take down the defamatory posts, the complaint was only then filed because he refused to do so. Therefore, the defamer’s attorney reasoned, the complaint was filed for an improper purpose. Instead of seeking damages, the complaint was seeking to have the defamatory comments removed, and therefore was an abuse of process. (The complaint did, of course, seek damages, but counsel contended that since the cease and desist letter had not demanded damages, then the complaint was not really intended to recover damages.) You can’t make this stuff up.

Now the cross-complaint was ripe for an anti-SLAPP motion. In opposition to my motion, defense counsel argued that the facts were identical to Flatley v. Mauro, where an attorney’s demand letter was found not to be protected by the litigation privilege because it amounted to extortion. One problem though – the cease and desist letter did not ask for any money. Thus, defense counsel was arguing that my cease and desist letter was extortion even though it did not ask for money, and the subsequent complaint was an abuse of process because the cease and desist letter had not asked for money. Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Of course the court granted the anti-SLAPP, and the attorney moved to be relieved, leaving the client to fight the motion for attorney fees in pro per. Wow. It was an interesting motion to draft, because I did not need to say one word about the falsity of the statements published by the defamer. The first prong of the SLAPP analysis was easily met because the cross-complaint dealt with my client’s seeking redress, and the second prong was equally automatically met since the cross-complainant could never show a likelihood of succeeding because his action was barred by the litigation privilege.

Yes, some SLAPPs can be harder to spot than others, but to all attorneys, if you find yourself preparing a cross-complaint based on the fact that someone sued your client, that’s probably a SLAPP. Malicious prosecution is still a viable cause of action, but only after having successfully defended the original action, and only then if all the elements can be met. Here is another attorney who learned that lesson the hard way.

Share

Judge Orders Man to Apologize to Ex-Wife on Facebook

Facebook Censorship

Clients sometimes ask me to seek a letter of apology as part of a defamation settlement. I have managed to do so on a number of occasions, but I usually recommend a letter of retraction as opposed to a letter of apology, because the latter is often a deal breaker.

In our society, a true apology is a big deal (as opposed to an “I apologize if you were offended” type of apology). Many defendants would rather pay money than to apologize, which is somehow viewed as weak. After all, a real apology seeks forgiveness from the other side, so it sticks in the craw of most defamers that they are basically asking the victim to pass judgment on them.

With this mind set in mind, one can fully appreciate the frustration of Mark Byron. He and his wife were divorcing and fighting over the custody of their son. When the judge issued an order limiting his custody, he went to his Facebook page to vent, posting:

“… if you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband’s life and take your son’s father away from him completely — all you need to do is say that you’re scared of your husband or domestic partner… , “

But there was a problem. The judge had also ordered Byron not to do “anything to cause his wife to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.” His wife was blocked from his Facebook page, but she got wind of the posting anyway and her attorney charged into court seeking a contempt order, asserting that the posting violated the protective order.

The judge agreed that it violated the order, and gave Byron a choice. The normal result for violation of a court order is a fine and/or some time in jail. The judge told Byron he could go to jail for 60 days for the violation of the order OR he could post an apology on Facebook. Byron decided he’d eat a little crow and post the apology rather than to sit in jail for two months. Here is what he posted:

I would like to apologize to my wife, Elizabeth Byron, for the comments regarding her and our son … which were posted on my Facebook wall on or about November 23, 2011. I hereby acknowledge that two judicial officials in the Hamilton County Domestic Relations Court have heard evidence and determined that I committed an act of domestic violence against Elizabeth on January 17, 2011. While that determination is currently being appealed, it has not been overturned by the appellate court. As a result of that determination, I was granted supervised parenting time with (my son) on a twice weekly basis. The reason I saw (my son) only one time during the four month period which ended about the time of my Facebook posting was because I chose to see him on only that single occasion during that period. I hereby apologize to Elizabeth for casting her in an unfavorable light by suggesting that she withheld (my son) from me or that she in any manner prevented me from seeing (my son) during that period. That decision was mine and mine alone. I further apologize to all my Facebook Friends for attempting to mislead them into thinking that Elizabeth was in any manner preventing me from spending time with (my son), which caused several of my Facebook Friends to respond with angry, venomous, and inflammatory comments of their own.

This case is being reported as a judge who trammeled on the free speech rights of a party, but I really don’t see it that way. Would it have been better for the judge to jail Byron with no offer of an alternative? There was another case where a judge told a shoplifter he could go to jail or stand in front of the store wearing an apology sign for a day. People also got up in arms about that verdict, but I think so long as it is offered as an alternative to normal jail time. For the record, to judges everywhere, if you are about to send me to jail, please offer me some crazy punishment as an alternative. On the other hand, if the judge had simply ordered the apology, I would have a problem with that result.

Where I think the judge got it wrong was his determination that Byron had violated the order. The judge had ordered him not to do anything to cause his wife “to suffer physical and/or mental abuse, harassment, annoyance, or bodily injury.” His Facebook posting was an absolutely true statement, and it only became “about” his wife if the reader was familiar enough with the circumstances to connect the dots. The comments were not even addressed to his wife, since she was blocked. To order someone not to say anything that might “annoy” someone else, and then hold them in contempt for doing so, is not appropriate in this country.

Share

How India Deals with Twitter Defamation

Pooja Bedi suffers Twitter Libel

Pooja Bedi

I recently reported on a Twitter defamation case in Australia, and how strange things can get without a law like the Communications Decency Act. Now comes a case out of India.

India has a police unit called the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell (CCIC). Although I don’t want to see defamation criminalized, because that then gives the government the power to silence unpopular speech, I do admit the thought of an agency you could turn these things over to is slightly appealing.

In the case in India, the CCIC is investigating a complaint filed by actor Pooja Bedi against an anonymous Twitterer (Tweeter?, One who Tweets?), for allegedly defaming her on Twitter. According to Bedi’s complaint to the cyber crime unit, someone has been trying to tarnish her image on Twitter. Bedi has also alleged someone was threatening violence and writing ill about her.  “These things are serious in nature and need to be investigated,” said Bedi in her complaint.

However Bedi said after the police complaint was filed, the accused deleted her account and changed her Twitter ID to @missbollyB, even apologizing to Bedi through her posts. Cyber crime cell officers said they had registered a case of defamation based on Bedi’s complaint. The police have sent a request to US authorities to provide information necessary for the probe.

Share

Australian Defamation Case Illustrates Life Without the CDA

Internet Defamation on Twitter

"That J-Lo, she be crazy!"

I have frequently written here on the pros and cons of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”). Without it, no website could permit comments, but by the same token it allows unscrupulous website operators to encourage defamatory postings, and then use those postings to extort payments from the victims.

Because of the latter reality, many have suggested to me that they would like to see the CDA abolished. But a case out of Australia demonstrates just how ridiculous things get without the CDA.

Those Australians are people of few words, so I had to read a number of news accounts to piece together what had occurred. A blogger by the name of Marieke Hardy apparently picked up an anonymous on-line bully. For undisclosed reasons, Hardy decided that she had determined the identity of her mystery bully, so she posted the following comment on Twitter:

“I name and shame my ‘anonymous’ internet bully. Liberating business! Join me.”

The “tweet” then provided a link back to her blog, and there on the blog she identified Joshua Meggitt as the bully. Problem was, Meggitt was not the bully.

Meggitt sued for defamation. Hardy settled with him, allegedly for around $15,000. But Meggitt wants more. Meggitt is suing Twitter for defamation for the tweet by Hardy.

Do you see how absurd things quickly become without the CDA? If Twitter is responsible for every comment, then to avoid defamation it would have to put a delay on all comments, and hire thousands of employees to review the comments. As each comment passed in front of the reviewer, he or she would need to make a quick decision about whether that comment could possibly be defamatory, and only then clear it for publication.

I want you to imagine that scenario. You are one of the Twitter reviewers. Thankfully Twitter limits each tweet to 140 characters, so there is not much to review, but you must apply your best judgment to each comment to see if anyone could be offended. So up pops the following:

“That J-Lo. She be crazy.”

Do you hit the approve or disapprove button? Was the “crazy” comment meant in a good or bad sense? Even if the person making the comment meant only that the singer Jennifer Lopez is crazy good, if you approve the comment then every person in the world who goes by the name J-Lo could potentially sue for defamation, claiming that the post accuses them of having mental problems.

But the dispute between Hardy and Meggitt takes the scenario to an even more absurd level. Applying those facts to our hypothetical, what you really received was:

“That J-Lo. http://tinyurl.com/48y28m7″

What do you do with THAT?! Twitter requires you to review and approve or deny 120 tweets per hour. To keep your job you only have less than 30 seconds to make a decision. You quickly click on the link to see why J-Lo is crazy, and you are confronted with a four and a half minute video! Do you have to watch the entire video to make sure it contains nothing defamatory? You don’t have time for that. REJECTED!

And here, all the tweeter wanted to do was pass along a great video by J-Lo.

Under the best possible circumstances, Twitter would be relegated to approving only the most milk toast comments with no possible defamatory implication. In reality though, Twitter could not possibly exist if it could be held liable for every comment posted.

To all of you who just responded with a resounding, “Who cares about Twitter?”, that’s not really the point. I’m talking big picture here.

It will be very interesting to see how the courts in Australia handle this case.

Share

Anonymous Blogger Turns Case International, and Results in Anti-SLAPP Motion

International Anti-SLAPP MotionAn international defamation action has ended up here in California. Out of the UK, Tyneside councillors (that’s the way they spell it over there) are very upset that an anonymous blogger who calls himself “Mr. Monkey” has been defaming them.

The council has backed a three-year hunt to discover the identity of Mr. Monkey, with the legal fees now exceeding six figures. So far, since they did not retain Morris & Stone, the attempts to uncover the identity of Mr. Monkey have been unsuccessful.

Enter Coun Ahmed Khan, a councillor from a rival political party. The four plaintiff councillors successfully moved to have Khan’s personal computer records disclosed, because they apparently suspected him of being Mr. Monkey. Khan denies that he is the primate in question, but has cried “enough is enough”, and wants to put an end to the search.

To that end, he brought what I can only characterize as an offensive anti-SLAPP motion (not offensive as in crude, but as in the opposite of defensive). He intervened in the San Mateo Superior Court action and filed an anti-SLAPP motion, asserting that even though he is not Mr. Monkey, the comments of Mr. Monkey are protected and the action should therefore be dismissed.

Motion DENIED. Indeed, the court found the motion to be so frivolous that it awarded attorney fees of £40,000 to the plaintiffs. (I once obtained a judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court in British pounds. It’s worth it just to see the court clerks try to figure out how to enter it into the system and calculate interest and the like.)

Khan has now appealed the denial of his anti-SLAPP motion and the award of attorney fees. The complete story can be found here.

Share

Even Nuns Defame; Credibility Key to Any Trial

"Notre Dame des Anges" an 1889 painting by William-Adolphe Bouguereau. (Provided photo) / AL
The report of this defamation caught my eye because of the parties involved. There is a standard joke among attorneys, that if you find yourself suing widows, orphans or nuns, your practice has probably taken a bad turn. In this case, nuns were being sued for defamation.

It started when the nuns decided to sell an old painting they had laying around. The painting was in really bad shape, not even worth hanging, but it turned out to be by a well regarded artist, William-Adolphe Bouguereau. So the nuns had it appraised by an art dealer named Mark LaSalle. Based on his appraisal, the nuns agreed to sell the painting to Mark Zaplin for $450,000. Zaplin had the painting restored to its former glory, a fact that I think is crucial to this case, and turned around and sold it for $2.15 million, netting a tidy little profit.

The nuns sued LaSalle and Zaplin under a number of theories, claiming that Zaplin had been a straw buyer, and that LaSalle was working in concert with Zaplin and had conned the Daughters of Mary by intentionally under-appraising the painting in order to buy it at a bargain price. The two Marks counter-sued for defamation, because the nuns had made these same claims to the media. (In case you’re new here, you can never sue for defamation for things said in conjunction with a lawsuit, since those statements are privileged, but you can sue if the same statements are made to the media.)

Here is the part I find interesting and the main reason for this article. The nuns had a witness. An art dealer by the name of Paul Dumont claimed to know both LaSalle and Zaplin, and testified that LaSalle had told him that they could “make a handsome profit by giving the sisters a low appraisal value of between $350,000 and $450,000 and presenting a buyer who would pay the amount of our deliberate and intentionally inaccurate appraisal.” He claimed that LaSalle had asked him to find a “money man” who would act as a straw buyer.

Wow. Pretty strong stuff. So the nuns must have won, right? Actually, they went down in flames (can I say that about nuns?). A New York jury found against them on all of their claims, and instead awarded LaSalle $250,000 for defamation against Dumont and a church Bishop, and awarded Zaplin $75,000 against Dumont for defamation. LaSalle will also recover punitive damages.

But how can that happen with a witness who is specifically corroborating the story of the fraudulent appraisal and straw buyer? And therein lies the moral of this story. Read the rest of this entry »

Share
Aaron Morris, Attorney
Aaron Morris
Morris & Stone, LLP

Tustin Financial Plaza
17852 17th St., Suite 201
Tustin, CA 92780

(714) 954-0700

Email Aaron Morris
Latest Podcast
California SLAPP Law Podcast
SLAPP Law Podcast

Click on PLAY Button above to listen to California SLAPP Law Podcast, or listen on Stitcher Radio, iTunes and TuneIn Radio!

SiteLock
Section 6158.3 Notice
NOTICE PURSUANT TO BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 6158.3: The outcome of any case will depend on the facts specific to that case. Nothing contained in any portion of this web site should be taken as a representation of how your particular case would be concluded, or even that a case with similar facts will have a similar result. The result of any case discussed herein was dependent on the facts of that case, and the results will differ if based on different facts.