• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Contact
  • Reviews

California Defamation Law Blog

  • Home
  • About
  • Blogs
  • Archive Page
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Services
  • Contact Us
  • (626) 793-8607
You are here: Home / Internet Defamation / 5 Common Misconceptions About Online Defamation

5 Common Misconceptions About Online Defamation

October 5, 2008 by Adrianos Facchetti Leave a Comment

I stumbled across a great video on YouTube by John W. Dozier, Jr. about common misconceptions lawyers have regarding online defamation.

1. “Bumping” a post – Old math says that you should respond to defamatory remarks in order to refute them. But, responding to such posts, or “bumping,” only makes the defamatory remarks more significant in search engine indexes.

2. Traditional PR Approach – PR professionals will tell you that you should respond to a defamatory remark once forcefully and immediately. Then, they would tell you to then attempt to “replace” the remarks subsequently with positive information. This doesn’t work in the online world.

3. Opinions are not actionable – This is a common mistake. People believe that only factual assertions are actionable defamation. But opinions in certain circumstances can give rise to a claim for defamation.

4. Can’t Prove Damages – The trend is to look to a “Market Share Damages Approach” in order to calculate the damage of a particular defamatory statement in instances where there are several sources of defamation.

5. “Gripe Sites” are absolutely protected – The newest misconception and proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Communications Decency Act was Congress’ attempt to ensure that the Internet remained a marketplace of ideas by legislating broad protection for interactive computer services, AKA, websites. But courts are now limiting such protection by in cases where the “Gripe Site” has a financial component (as most sites do, advertising, e.g.), or encourage or assist a user in defaming another.

Buffer Share

Filed Under: Internet Defamation, Los Angeles Defamation Lawyer Tagged With: Los Angeles Defamation Lawyer

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Some Featured

How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion

Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Recent Posts

Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law?

Does California’s anti-SLAPP statute apply in bankruptcy court?

Must attorney-client confidences be revealed in order to obtain attorney’s fees after a successful anti-SLAPP motion?

Follow Us On

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Search

Footer

California Defamation Law Blog

Law Offices of Adrianos Facchetti 4444 W. Riverside Drive, Suite 308, Burbank, CA 91505
California Defamation Lawyer & Attorney of Adrianos Facchetti Law Firm, offering services related to libel, internet defamation, slander, defamation of character, disparagement, anti-SLAPP, personal injury, car accidents, motorcycle accidents, trucking accidents, serving Los Angeles, San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley, Pasadena, Burbank, Glendale, Arcadia, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura County, San Bernardino, and throughout California.

Recent Posts

  • How to determine which costs are allowable in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion July 18, 2022
  • Should a court consider a plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees in determining how much to award in fees for the defendant following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 28, 2022
  • May a trial court consider a defendant’s “walk away” offer when determining the reasonableness of fees following a successful anti-SLAPP motion? June 24, 2022
  • Does a claim for intentional physical distress exist under California law? June 20, 2022

Copyright © 2026 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in