The laws were not set up to cover such a thing as technology changes and evolves quicker than the laws in the US. Amanda Bonnen tweeted about her former landlord " Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon Realty things it's okay." Horizon management sued Bonnen for libel and wants $50K in damages. Is this ok, are we in the US becoming too litigious? What about free speech? Is anyone really harmed by such comments?
The article brings up a good question -- is the web a unique space or an extension of real space? Which laws apply?
7 comments:
Cool post Shazia, even if my first reaction to it was meeeow!
You'd think that in such a she-said-bad-things-about-me case, that since Dawn Simorangkir is a public figure, too, the last words she'd hear from a judge would be, "case dismissed."
But, accusing someone of dealing coke in a twitter post - if there is a record of such a tweet - that's another matter.
Here's the new media question, maybe Allan can help. If false, is such a tweet libel or slander? Is Love saying it or is she publishing it.
You'd also think that all Love needs to do is present one person at a deposition who bought coke from Simorangkir and the sides would rush to a quite settlement.
As for Horizon... doesn't your gut reaction suggest that a realtor suing for only $50K is merely trying to intimidate a person it thinks is a small fry.... hope Bonnen lands a big-time lawyer and nukes the crap out of the thin-skinned landlord.
This is an interesting question about the web. I think it is a unique space that is an extention of real space. Anything that is posted can be there indefinitely. In this way, the same rules of print should apply.
I think accusing someone of being a coke dealer without any cause is serious libel because it is a printed criminal accusation.
We can go overboard with being litigious in this day and time, but blogs and tweets make it even more impotant to be able to back up accusations.
I think people who perpetrate criminal activities such as intentionally defaming other people with evidence of malice, accuse innocent people of having a history with criminal activity such as drug dealing, etc in the blogosphere or via social media deserve to have their asses sued - if it is evident they DAMAGED a persons or an organizations reputation.
I betcha Love had several followers on Twitter in the fashion industry who knew Simorangkir. And Tweeting Simorangkir has a history of dealing coke is equivalent to defamation if it is false, since it can be seen worldwide, put her career in jeopardy, and that is malice.
For example the guy that wrote the article about Hatfill in Readers Digest, pertaining the connection of Hatfill's past to committing the anthrax attacks - successfully settled with Hatfill for approximately $5 million in damage. Why should maliciously, slandering someones reputation in the news be treated any differently than inflicting defamation via social media?
I think everyone is entitled to free speech if they are honest and as long as they don't step over the line with defamation, breeching obligations, or breaking confidentiality, etc. I also think that people are innocent until proven guilty. There is an immense difference between malice and tweeting the truth about a person who has a record of criminal activity.
I think that anything on twitter, facebook,e-mail, and text messages should be considered real space.These social networks are very powerful in there ability to spread information quickly and to vasts amounts of people. If there is a defamation of character attributed to something involving these venues, they should be subject to the same laws for real space.Look at the current situation with Tiger Woods that currently surfaced.Text messages were basically responsible for his demise.Imagine if that text were false? Shouldn't she be libel for a lawsuit? Information on media outlets , could cause loss of businesses ,families,reputations , etc why shouldn't they be upheld to the same laws as real space?
I think a level we also need to include in this discussion is accountability. As you all point out, laws could not have anticipated the level that web and media outlets could have changed journalism. However, we (as bloggers) know that the information that we place on facebook, twitter, and various other sites is virtually accessible by nearly everyone. When we knowingly take this risk, I think that we should be held accountable for our words. Love said those things because she wanted to relay that information to people that she knew would be reading her twitter account. She knew what she was doing and should be held accountable. As Andrew said however, whether this would stand up in court- probably not as they are both public figures.
I agree, when you are publishing something on a site for people to see, you should be held accountable for the outcome of your actions. Outlets like Facebook and Twitter are viewed by a multitude of people and have cost people their job, by catching employees tweeting on work hours, benefits by having compensation benefits lost by posting pictures portraying contrary evidence, and by costing people the potential of a job by doing a facebook check for behaviors during the interview process. As fun as these sites may be to catch up with friends and see what they are up to, these sites have the potential of real life consequences, and the creator should be responsible for their actions.
Post a Comment