| As social networking sites and internet blogs | | | | anything posted which reflects falsely and |
| continue to increase in both popularity and use, | | | | negatively on a living person's reputation. Posting |
| the opportunities for defamatory and libelous | | | | false and explicit claims regarding a person will |
| actions increase proportionally. Defamation, | | | | generally be held as defamatory for purposes of |
| sometimes called "defamation of character", is | | | | liability. However, other issues arise concerning the |
| spoken or written words that falsely and | | | | anonymity of the person posting the information, |
| negatively reflect on a living person's reputation. | | | | and if known, the jurisdiction in which they are |
| Slander is generally spoken defamation, while 'libel' | | | | subject. |
| is written. Blogs or social networks in which | | | | Jurisdictional issues may arise in situations where |
| defamatory statements are written or recorded | | | | the poster had no reason to expect that the |
| present several potential sources of liability and | | | | effect of the posting would be felt in a certain |
| recovery for the person whose character was | | | | jurisdiction. However, in defamation cases |
| defamed. In cases where the defamation is | | | | jurisdictional disputes are liberally ruled upon in |
| proved, damages are presumed and often | | | | favor of the victim. In Griffis v. Luban, the |
| enforced with liberality. | | | | Minnesota court of appeals ruled that Alabama |
| Operators of blogs are generally immune from | | | | had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who |
| liability for defamatory statements posted on | | | | posted defamatory messages on the Internet. |
| their websites, as long as they did not contribute | | | | The defendant repeatedly posted messages on |
| to the posting. In 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of | | | | an Internet newsgroup attacking the plaintiff's |
| Appeals ruled that a listserv moderator and | | | | professional credentials. The plaintiff initially |
| operator of a website which allegedly published | | | | obtained a $25,000.00 default judgment in |
| defamatory statements provided by a third party | | | | Alabama, which she was seeking to enforce in |
| was eligible for immunity under the | | | | Minnesota. The Minnesota court ruled that the |
| Communications Decency Act (CDA). Batzel v. | | | | Alabama court had properly exercised jurisdiction |
| Smith, 2003 US App.LEXIS 12736 (9th Cir. 2003). | | | | because the effects of the messages were felt in |
| However, if the online service provider plays an | | | | Alabama and that the defendant should have |
| active role in soliciting information from users that | | | | expected that she would be sued there. An |
| leads to the defamatory act, the operator may | | | | important factor in the ruling was that she had |
| not be protected by the safe harbor provisions of | | | | actual knowledge of the effect of the |
| the CDA. In Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., a | | | | defamatory statements on the Defendant. |
| federal court ruled on the application of the safe | | | | Therefore, the Minnesota court enforced the |
| harbor of the Communications Decency Act | | | | $25,000.00 default judgment. Griffis v. Luban, 633 |
| (CDA). The defendant in that case operated a | | | | N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001). |
| matchmaking website known As part of its | | | | However, there are cases where courts have |
| service, the defendant collected profiles of singles | | | | refused to allow the exercise of personal |
| based on an extensive questionnaire. The plaintiff | | | | jurisdiction based on defamatory statements. In a |
| sued Metrosplash because of a false profile of her | | | | Pennsylvania case, the court refused to exercise |
| which an unknown user had posted to the | | | | jurisdiction over a New York defendant who had |
| website. The court ruled that by creating the | | | | posted defamatory comments about a defendant |
| extensive questionnaire, Metrosplash played an | | | | on an offshore betting website. The court held |
| active role in developing the information that had | | | | that since the comments were not specifically |
| been posted. Furthermore, the court ruled that | | | | directed at Pennsylvania, the court could not |
| Metrosplash was an information content provider | | | | exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. |
| and thus not eligible for the CDA's safe harbor | | | | English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, C.A. No. |
| provided to "interactive computer services." | | | | 01-2202 (E.D. Pa. 2002). |
| Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., Case No. CV | | | | The problems with bringing defamatory actions |
| 01-0018 DT (CWx) C.D. Cal. 2002) (subsequently | | | | based on internet postings largely lie in proving |
| reversed by appeals court). While operators of | | | | that the defendant actually made the posting. If |
| blogs and services are generally immune from | | | | that connection can be made, a much stronger |
| such liability, the more active the service is with | | | | case can be presented and jurisdictional issues can |
| its member's, the greater the likelihood of | | | | be tackled. An attorney who is experienced in |
| potential liability as a publisher of defamatory | | | | cyberlaw and internet cases can improve your |
| materials. | | | | chances in prevailing in any such case. Without the |
| Another potential source of liability is the person | | | | help of an attorney who can find and connect the |
| who actually posted the defamatory materials. As | | | | evidence, most internet defamation cases will fail |
| with more general defamatory statements or | | | | for lack of evidentiary sources and experience. |
| materials, a poster can be held personally liable for | | | | |