California Defamation Law Blog : California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney : Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm : Los Angeles CA : Defamation Law Blog

I am SO excited about this week's hotlinks and I'll tell you why in a second. . .   But first, I want to thank you for reading my blog.  I really LOVE this defamation stuff.  I think about it every day and I put my heart and soul into learning about defamation law so I can help you and my clients.  You're getting for free what I charge some of my clients big bucks to learn.  So make sure you read everything on this blog because it's worth its weight in gold.  

Now, without further ado (does anyone actually use that word anymore?) this week's Hotlinks served up Texas style:

1. The Biggest Verdict In Internet Defamation History! - I'm so pumped about this hotlink because it silences all the naysayers.  Lawyers ask me why I got involved in internet defamation law all the time. They tell me me stuff like:  "defamation cases are too hard, or, "there's no damages in defamation cases.

Well . . .  what about this case, huh? 

A jury in Texas just handed a 12.5 MILLION DOLLAR verdict  in favor of Orix Capital Markets, LLC in an internet defamation case!

Do I really need to follow-up on this one?  I think it speaks for itself, but I'll say it anyway.  Internet defamation cases are important and valuable, provided, of course, that you have an attorney who knows what he or she is doing.  You really do need an internet defamation attorney to handle a case like this.

2. Clemens Strikes Out - Okay.  So I couldn't resist the obvious baseball metaphor here and it really isn't true that he struck out.  What happened here is that a large part of his lawsuit against the trainer that allegedly gave him steroids was dismissed.  Apparently, the court didn't think there was jurisdiction for some of the statement allegedly made by the trainer about Clemens.  Also, the court found that some of the statements were privileged because they were part of an ongoing federal investigation.

3. Anonymous on the Internet! Yeah right!  I've said it before and I'll say it again . . . you're not anonymous on the Internet and I can back it up with 178 reasons.  A court ordered a website to hand over identifying information about 178 people who left comments on the website.  A bunch of pro-defamation groups went through the roof when they found out about this decision.  They were saying that this violated the First Amendment and they used really scary words like "chill, "ominous," and "dangerous."  The reality is that the First Amendment doesn't protect defamatory speech.  It never has.  So next time you publish something on the Internet that you wouldn't otherwise say in real life, you better think twice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I've been super busy this past week, which is why this batch of defamation hotlinks comes a bit late:

1. Lutfi v. Spears - The saga never ends, does it?  Sam Lutfi is suing Britney Spears's parents for defamation and libel, among other causes of action.  Most of the alleged defamatory statements come from a book written by Lynn Spears, called "Through the Storm: A Real Story of Fame and Family in a Tabloid World."  Most of the alleged libelous statements if proved false would definitely expose Lutfi to hatred, contempt, obloquy, etc.  However, some of the allegations contained in the cause of action for defamation are likely to fail because they are arguably statements of opinion.  For example, Lutfi alleges:  "Lynn pejoratively refers to Lutfi as among other things, "fake", "Svengail", "a predator", "a gatekeeper" and "the General".  Most of these statement appear to be nothing more than epithets, which of course, are not actionable defamation. Whether a statement is actionable is a question of law for the court to decide. I expect defense counsel will file an anti-SLAPP motion and challenge some of the statements as mere unactionable opinions.  I suspect that they will argue as well that Lutfi is a limited purpose public figure due to reports of his relationship with Britney Spears and reports of his relationship with the paparazzi.  I wonder if Lutfi's attorney will be able to produce evidence of actual malice.  I eagerly look forward to what happens next in this case.
2. Juicy Campus Shuttered - Defamation lawyers around the nation are saddened by the fact that Juicy Campus closed its doors last Thursday.  Juicy Campus was a college tabloid site that allowed students to post anonymous comments about other students.
3. Is It Defamation If A Commenter Libels The Owner Of The Blog In That Blog's Comments? - This is an extremely intriguing question, and one to which a UK court said, "no."  The court held that since the blogger had the ability to moderate the comments and published the comment anyway, he essentially consented to the libel.  The court's analysis is correct in my view. The blogger could have just deleted the comment and moved on with his life.  Now, had the blogger published a comment that was disparaging of another person, that would be a different story, and we'd be talking about section 230 immunity.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I thought I'd mix it up this week with the defamation hotlinks.  Enjoy.

1. NYC Vegetarian Sues, Says Boss Called Him 'Homo' - This story came to me via twitter from Eric Goldman and is interesting because the claimant isn't suing for defamation--he is suing for wrongful termination among other claims.  Was it a mistake not to sue for defamation? Probably not.  The term 'Homo' is unlikely to be considered a false statement of fact.  Instead it would be an epithet/opinion which is unlikely to be actionable.
2. Broadcast Angers Muslins - Greg Kruppa, of The Detroit News reports that some Muslims became upset when a Coptic priest made some particularly disparaging remarks about the prophet Muhammad. I mention this story to point out two things: (1) defamation is a personal right. This means an estate cannot bring an action for defamation on behalf of of a deceased loved one; and (2) while I sympathize with Muslims for any remarks that are disparaging of their religion, California law (U.S. law as well) does not recognize defamation of religion, nor should it.  Enacting laws that would permit defamation of religion to be actionable would make the State the arbiter of religion, which is unacceptable and dangerous.
3. Defamation and False Light here in Utah - This link is totally self-indulgent and only included because I love Mark E. Towner's tagline: "The Cap'n be using his spyglass to search out those scalawag political bilge rats and givm a broadside when they need to be exposed for their skulduggery."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

I scour the Internet for defamation stories and posts every day because I am passionate about the law of defamation.  Because I find so many interesting articles/posts on a regular basis, I thought I would share some of them with my readers through a new series here at the California Defamation Law Blog, called, "Defamation Hotlinks."  Every Friday I'll post the most interesting articles/stories regarding libel, slander, and defamation on the Internet and offline.  I hope you enjoy.

1.  Dozier Internet Law on Public Citizen Bullying - I deeply respect John Dozier's opinion in the area of internet defamation and cyber-bullying.  In this post, he writes about a recent call by others for broadening the immunity of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to cover websites that allow trademark infringement.  While Mr. Dozier is unapologetically pro-business, his views are consistent with the current state of defamation law, and I believe his predictions regarding the future in this area of law will bear out.

2. Dixie Chicks Face Defamation Lawsuit After Using Court Records - If Mr. Dozier is pro-business, Citizen Media is definitely pro-individual.  The interesting part of this article is Citizen Media's discussion of the "fair report privilege."  This privilege has historically protected traditional media outlets from defamation suits.  The question is whether this privilege will be extended to independent bloggers in the near future in the same way it is applied to the mainstream media.

3. Inside The First Amendment: Technology Changing Our Approach To Free Expression - Gene Policinski, of the First Amendment Center, provides a brief, but fascinating overview of how technology is changing our approach to First Amendment issues. My favorite line from the piece is:  "How does the law punish perpetual harm or compensate for perpetual defamation?"

Did I miss any key stories on defamation?  If you think I did, please submit them to me for consideration for next week's Hotlinks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks